# need suggestion: NAS with BitTorrent



## iosoft (Nov 8, 2008)

Hello,

I am new to this forum.

I am looking for a *NAS* with Automatic Download capability.

I found this cheap solution -
http://cgi.ebay.in/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=370087164515
Using this, I can run the sharing 24Hr without much stress on _Electricity-Bill_ and relief my expensive Gaming-RiG.

Should I go for it *?*
Is the Processor and RAM is enough for BitTorrent jobs *?* 
(I generally do 2:SEEDs,1: DOWNLOAD)

Thank you for your suggestion.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 8, 2008)

my suggestion: dont. these NAS devices are very hard to configure, i'll list a few problems i've had with the ones i've used.

Torrents: 
*you cant set a port. that means you need to DMZ it, or speeds will be terrible. security risk.


HTTP
referrer links dont work. that means rapidshare megaupload etc, or sites with anti leech settings wont allow your NAS to download.

Both:
*Most dont let you pause/resume downloads, which means you better not want to use the net for anything else while its going.

the unit you linked to is the EXACT one that i own. its Fing terrible, but i couldnt get a refund.


----------



## iosoft (Nov 8, 2008)

Mussels said:


> the unit you linked to is the EXACT one that i own. its Fing terrible, but i couldnt get a refund.



OMG. Thanks for the warning


----------



## Chris_Ramseyer (Nov 8, 2008)

You need a real NAS, think Thecus, QNAP, IcyBox.

I know this guy.....


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=120329674387&ssPageName=STRK:MESE:IT&ih=002


That is your entry point. If you value my opinion I would buy THAT one, that exact one

All joking aside (no really, THAT ONE) that is your entry point for a NAS to run your torrents. You can also go up in pricing and get something from Thecus or QNAP (I like the Thecus better) that will do it and they have real processors in them, like Celerons and Athlons but are still low on power usage.


----------



## btarunr (Nov 8, 2008)

Most QNAP units come with BT support.


----------



## iosoft (Nov 8, 2008)

Frankly, I am looking for something cheap


----------



## Mussels (Nov 8, 2008)

cheap NAS = terrible NAS.

If you want low electricity cost, find yourself a really old PC, like a pentium 3. they're low power, and easy to maintain/tweak just they way you want them.


----------



## iosoft (Nov 10, 2008)

Mussels said:


> Torrents:
> *you cant set a port. that means you need to DMZ it, or speeds will be terrible. security risk.
> 
> Both:
> ...




*Hi Mussels*, I found that this device works on *PORT 9090*.

Please, re-setup your device and test it again for me 
And see if you can pause-resume Torrent-Downloads ?


----------



## Mussels (Nov 10, 2008)

iosoft said:


> *Hi Mussels*, I found that this device works on *PORT 9090*.
> 
> Please, re-setup your device and test it again for me
> And see if you can pause-resume Torrent-Downloads ?



mine doesnt evne have pause or resume buttons, so its impossible for me to test it.


----------



## Chris_Ramseyer (Nov 10, 2008)

You may have some luck if you look for an older unit on EBay. My Infrant ReadyNAS NV has this feature. Netgear bought out Infrant and released a bunch of new products which has driven the first ReadyNAS down quite a bit.


----------



## iosoft (Nov 10, 2008)

Mussels said:


> mine doesnt evne have pause or resume buttons, so its impossible for me to test it.



 :shadedshu

I stat looking for a PIII setup 



HighEndToys said:


> You may have some luck if you look for an older unit on EBay. My Infrant ReadyNAS NV has this feature. Netgear bought out Infrant and released a bunch of new products which has driven the first ReadyNAS down quite a bit.



What is your MODEL No ?


----------



## Chris_Ramseyer (Nov 10, 2008)

It is just the Infrant ReadyNAS NV. They later came out with an NV+ and all kinds of other stuff. 

Hell just type in readynas and search and see what you come up with.


----------



## theeldest (Nov 10, 2008)

Torrentflux-b4rt is a great package for a *nix system. I've got an old Gentoo box as the standard LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP) + Samba for the network file share. 

TorrentFlux gives a great web interface and lets you configure the heck out of your downloads. 

Very minimal system usage.


----------



## Chris_Ramseyer (Nov 10, 2008)

Actually now that I started thinking about it, why are you messing with bit torrent at all? 

Go over to Giganews.com and get the mid level package. Then use the discount they give you for Newsbin.com and that that (a one time fee). Finally go to Newzbin.com and subscribe to that for something like 25 cents a week. Your downloads will max out your cable modem and you don't upload anything.

Besides, most of the stuff on BT hits the newsgroups first. 

If you are on Comcast you will want to call them and have your plan changed over to a business account since they just started the 250GB thing. Besiness accounts don't fall under this "service" and cost the same as regular accounts. 

If I did have an acocunt like this, I don't but I have been told that if you do something like this and share it with like 3 or 4 of your closest homies you can all share the same account.


----------



## mcloughj (Nov 10, 2008)

I have a qnap TS-209 II. Great bit of kit. works very well and it brilliant for streaming to my Xbox 360. the Bittorent plugin is decent but basic. Stretch the budget and get yourself a TS-109, you won't regret it.

 got mine from here:
http://myworld.ebay.com/mediasonicinc


----------



## wiak (Nov 11, 2008)

build a cheap AMD based PC
you only need AMD Sempron, 1GB DDR2, 780G Chipset, 300W PSU
and put a bunch of harddrives in it 
then meybe FreeNAS


----------



## Mussels (Nov 11, 2008)

wiak said:


> build a cheap AMD based PC
> you only need AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+, 1GB DDR2, 780G Chipset, 300W PSU
> and put a bunch of harddrives in it
> then meybe FreeNAS



thats completely overkill, and a waste of money. A pentium 3 can handle it just fine.


----------



## wiak (Nov 11, 2008)

Mussels said:


> thats completely overkill, and a waste of money. A pentium 3 can handle it just fine.


a AM2 based system is more fexiable, like if he has to RMA his main pc memory thats DDR2, so he can use his servers etc, the server can also be used as a game server etc, P3 is slow 

where can people get P3s atm? hehe


----------



## Mussels (Nov 11, 2008)

wiak said:


> a AM2 based system is more fexiable, like if he has to RMA his main pc memory thats DDR2, so he can use his servers etc, the server can also be used as a game server etc, P3 is slow
> 
> where can people get P3s atm? hehe



a local expo near me sells working P4 systems (1.6-2.4GHz) (everything but optical drive and HDD) for $50 each month.


----------



## ktr (Nov 11, 2008)

get something like this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16856167032

Get some cheap memory, a fat HDD, and load up *nix or something. Install a freebie remote desktop software and perhaps use utorrent for its webui (you might have to use WINE for that).


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Nov 11, 2008)

set up an atom box.


----------



## Chris_Ramseyer (Nov 13, 2008)

WTF is up with the shoe advert?

The only way I would use a PIII for a file server was if it had a PCI 133 or PCI X slot so I could add a proper gigabit network port. That would put you in the realm of a dual socket PIII system which wouldn't be so bad but there are better options. Cheap EBay dual Opteron board maybe?


----------



## ktr (Nov 13, 2008)

HighEndToys said:


> WTF is up with the shoe advert?
> 
> The only way I would use a PIII for a file server was if it had a PCI 133 or PCI X slot so I could add a proper gigabit network port. That would put you in the realm of a dual socket PIII system which wouldn't be so bad but there are better options. Cheap EBay dual Opteron board maybe?



You want something really low power...such as an Atom. Torrents do not need processing power. Just plenty of storage and a good internet line.


edit: http://www.adisasta.com/wmTorrent.html

^^^ Torrent from a PDA!!!


----------



## Chris_Ramseyer (Nov 13, 2008)

Maybe that is what you want. I want Quickpar monitoring downloads and fixing any crazy stuff that comes in as well as a strong anti-virus just in case I do something stupid. At the same time WinRAR setup to auto decompress incoming downloads.


----------



## theeldest (Nov 13, 2008)

I think I'm the only one here who actually has a NAS with BitTorrent downloading.

Look at my Server setup. I never have slowdown, and it's a single core cpu (you can probably find something lower power.)

AMD 3200+
1GB ECC memory
ASUS A8N5X motherboard (gigabit ethernet & SATA)
3x 640GB WD AAKS using RAID5 (but dont' do RAID when you set it up, use ZFS. You can set up ZFS to have the same benefits of RAID without the downside of read errors on a rebuild)

Use cpufreq to clock down the processor as much as possible. Get a PSU that isn't overpowered (powersupplies have their best efficiency when they're around 80% load. So don't stick a 600w powersupply in this, it's just going to use tons of power, even with an atom processor)

MoBlock is a package like PeerGuardian for *nix. It's a good thing.

The zip/unzip utilities will all be part of the normal *nix distro. 

torrentflux-b4rt is the best torrent downloading package I've found. It's got a great web interface. It lets you choose between 4 or 5 different torrent programs to actually download the torrents based on the features you want.

What do you need antivirus for? The files are going to a *nix system. Any windows viruses won't work, and you can test the files with a antivirus on your windows box before you use them.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 14, 2008)

theeldest: by saying 'don't stick a 600w powersupply in this, it's just going to use tons of power' you're making yourself sound very uneducated.

PSU's dont use their rated amount for no reason... they only use whats needed. my PC Only uses 300W of a 600W PSU, you should really look into that.


----------



## theeldest (Nov 14, 2008)

I'm finding the link to back this up (it's either on Tom's Hardware, Anandtech, or Ars).

But the efficiency of the power supply is correlated to the percent of it's max power that's being used. So a PSU with a rated power of 600 watts and 80% efficiency is going to be giving 80% efficiency when it's supplying 480w or more. As the power reduces, it's going to have worse efficiency.

I didn't mean to suggest that it'll be using 600w no matter what, just that maximum efficiency is achieved by using a power supply that's close to what you need without going far over.

I'll have the link shortly.


----------



## theeldest (Nov 14, 2008)

Here's an image from a review of a PSU on Anandtech:

This image is the efficiency graph for a single power supply (and Enermax Revolution 85%+ efficiency 1000w PSU). The x range is the power that is being used, the y range is the efficiency that the PSU is providing.






The peak efficiency is in the 500w range, even though it's a 1000w PSU. If it's strongly underpowered, then the efficiency crashes to the 70%-80% range. Also notice, this is a 85% Plus efficiency PSU. Your's probably isn't. So subtract 5% - 15% from those efficiencys to get an idea of what yours would be.

(Here's the link to the Article)

That's what I've got for now.

If you still think I sound like an idiot, well ... so be it.

Just trying to help.


----------



## theeldest (Nov 14, 2008)

Ok. Found the Article I was looking for.


Efficiency is the vertical axis and power used is the horizontal axis. Each line is for a different power supply. So it should be fairly obvious that some power supplies would be better for a specific computer configuration than others. (ie, some would use less power even though the computer is using the same amount of power)

Here's an image:






Mussels: by saying 'PSU's dont use their rated amount for no reason... they only use whats needed' you're making yourself sound very uneducated.  (<= that actually doesn't make you sound uneducated, because that's right (they won't use their rated amount for no reason). but it's not what I was saying. if you're going to point out someone's ignorance, can you next time be sure you read their comments right?)

(also, your PSU has 82% efficiency. And if the graph for your PSU resembles those above, the 300w use range will be close to the max efficiency. So assume 82% efficiency (the rated efficiency for your PSU), your PSU is actually using 365w when your computer is drawing 300w. (300w is 82% of 365))


----------



## Mussels (Nov 15, 2008)

i actually have a  wall meter. at the ~300W that i use, mines at 92% efficiency, according to my meter.

i'm measuring what my PC uses at the WALL already, it uses around 300W, at 92% efficiency... meaning my PC is only using 260-280W, before PSU efficiency matters.


'theory' and reality are two very different things.


----------



## theeldest (Nov 15, 2008)

How are you coming up with the 92% efficiency? What are you using to measure the power usage by everything in your computer? The only way to actually do that is to generate the load with a load generator. Otherwise it's just guesswork, and as you said, "'theory' and reality are two very different things" (so I hope you're not using wattage specs for the components).


Also, about that other thing, do you still think that someone should put a 600w PSU in a system that should have 100w - 200w power draw? (as that's what my original argument was, the one you so elegantly told me was wrong.)


----------



## Mussels (Nov 15, 2008)

load, is generated by running a defrag on all HDD's, ATI tool, and OCCT set to CPU and ram.

Thats running my CPU, video card, ram, and hard drives all at 100% (or as close as possible to it).
My meter measures power consumed, and has a power efficiency reading as well.

Its not that i think your argument against a 600W PSU in a 100W system is wrong - its your reasons for it, that was wrong.


----------



## theeldest (Nov 15, 2008)

Efficiency of a power supply is the power that it sends out the leads, divided by the power going in from the wall. If you can't measure the power going through the leads, you can't measure it's efficiency.

The efficiency you're measuring is actually how efficient it is at using the power from the wall, before it even converts to DC. Most power supplies need a certain voltage, and will convert what ever they get from the wall (so from 108v in the wall (your wall's not perfect) to the 110v it needs). Power is lost during this conversion and can be measured by the back voltage created.

So, you actually need to take the 92% efficiency and multiply that by your power supplies AC => DC efficiency (since the 92% you're seeing is an AC => AC efficiency). So, .92 x .82 (your PSU's rated efficiency) is 75.4%. So, about the best you'll see since you've got poor wall power is ~75% efficiency.


Here's a link to my second article again:
http://www.anandtech.com/casecoolingpsus/showdoc.aspx?i=3413

Read the stuff on Page 3 (Efficiency Explained).


If you still don't believe me, could you tell me how you think your little magick box is measuring the efficiency of the power supply? Or what you think the efficiency is referring to? I feel like we're having communication problems (granted, message boards aren't the most fool proof way of communicating.). There are different interpretations of what we're saying and I'm trying to be as clear as possible.


Also. If I sound like a jerk, I'm sorry. (I am probably being a jerk about this). I'm just frustrated because this is one area in which I'm fairly well versed. (electronics and test equipment) 


My goal is for both of us to end here knowing what answers to give in the future. (if you've got sources, I'm open for some late night reading)


----------



## Mussels (Nov 15, 2008)

who the hell knows how my magic box measures what it does, at least i know which efficiency you're talking about here. It wasnt clear which kind you meant - i'll just call them internal and external efficiency here.

now that i get what you mean, you're saying that PSU's are more efficient at around 80% load. Using that as a general rule, you assume that a 600W PSU would waste more power, than say, a 350W, in a lower wattage PC.

My meter can contradict that - with a 350W antec in my media PC, i had 110W load. changing to a 550W antec, a newer model my load dropped to 75W, because its more efficient. going below 80% of its rated power doesnt do anything to the PSU's power draw, its going over that, and approaching its maximum that has an effect.

(I dont think we're really disagreeing too much here - we were partially talking about different things)


----------



## theeldest (Nov 15, 2008)

I agree on us not really disagreeing.

There was another PSU article on Anandtech where they compared ATX1.3 and ATX2.0 PSUs. The 2.0 are much more efficient, even at the same rated efficiencies, because 1.3 was made for closer to 90v, and 2.0 is for closer to 120v (i think that was the reason).

It will really depend on the Antec power supplies. Realistically, I'd say the only way for a person to be completely sure will be to get the Kill A Watt and run different powersupplies. (which Antec is the newer one? I've got the Antec Earth Watts 650 (replaced an Antec SmartPower 450))

Hey, speaking of that, is anyone willing to try this in a HTPC? or Fileserver? I would be *very* appreciative. Test the same PC under full load for 1 hour on different PSUs.


----------



## theeldest (Nov 15, 2008)

Addendum: If 3 people agree to send me old power supplies that you don't want (that have the 24 pin connector for main board), I'll buy the Kill A Watt and run the test in my server. 1 hour idle, 1 hour load.

I'll do it on up to 12 power supplies. Any takers?


----------



## Mussels (Nov 15, 2008)

theeldest: FYI, i run on 240V.


----------



## theeldest (Nov 15, 2008)

Well that's lucky. If you look at the top graph I posted you'll see that 240v will give quite a bit better efficiency than 110v or 90v.


----------



## Katanai (Nov 16, 2008)

Here: http://www.shopping.hp.com/product/...hJ7XpbGpFdTvVwL5VhSX84LMDJQRJT01wW!1660157471

I know this is not cheap but if you want more from a NAS system this is the one to get.


----------



## theeldest (Nov 17, 2008)

http://us.shuttle.com/X2700.aspx

There is another. It's the shuttle PC. Starting at $399 with an atom processor, 1GB memory, & 80GB hard drive. Get that, stick in another hard drive and it's a server. If you want more power, upgrade to the dual core Atom processor and 2GB and you're at $469.



@Katanai: That's a great suggestion ... I'm really starting to wish I had the money to buy fresh instead of using old ATX parts (that end up in a relatively huge case).


----------

