[mythtv-users] Is there an advantage to using a NAS vs local hard disks?
lofty69 at gmail.com
Wed Jun 25 14:37:02 UTC 2008
2008/6/24 migmog <andrew at migmog.com>:
> 2008/6/24 Kevin Kuphal <kkuphal at gmail.com>:
>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:58 AM, migmog <andrew at migmog.com> wrote:
>>> I did this. It has several advantages:
>>> - Allows both backend and frontend to be diskless, booting off the
>>> NAS, so less power used overall
>> Curious how you have less power from 2 systems (backend + NAS) + drives vs.
>> 1 system + drives?
> Good question, but yes it did lower overall power consumption:
> The NAS is a low power Maxtor Shared Storage embedded box, which I
> measured at 7W when streaming TV to the FE and recording 2 channels
> from the BE. Throughput was a problem until I tweaked the NFS options
> to serve big chunks, then it ran flawlessly. The NAS replaces the
> disks in both the FE and BE boxes. Can't remember what the kill-o-watt
> said exactly, but overall it was definitely less.
> I was hoping that I could use the FE + NAS without the BE even being
> powered on, but myth doesn't work that way. The NAS can do UPNP and
> mt-daapd serving, so it should be possible to view content in a
> non-myth way on the FE, but my EPIA box died from swollen caps before
> I tried this out. I've not replaced it yet because I bought a PVR box
> that is capable of changing channels in a wife-friendly timeframe in
> Live TV. It sucks at recording compared to myth, though. And it has no
> web frontend. Hoping to try again one day, hence why I'm still on this
> list :-)
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users at mythtv.org
been thinking about this again myself.. was going to build a NAS box
that had dual gigabit nics, use one nic for the backend (recording and
mysql updates) and one for frontends. Does the backend need to be on
for the frontend to work if mysql and the media is on the nas box?
More information about the mythtv-users