NAS Link Aggregation worth it?

[atluscr]

Want to expand my storage capacity, my current setup as follows:

Modem/Router: TP-Link Archer D9
Main PC: AMD Fx8350 with gigalan cable to router
Media/Download Server: Raspberry Pi 3 (wifi)
Several mobile devices (5-8)

NAS: not really a NAS, but have 2 TB Seagate Portable USB 3.0 drive connecto to Router as SAMBA Share accessed mainly by Raspberry Pi 3 to download and accessing media.

Most media files are 10GB+ 1080P DTS.

I would like to expand to a real NAS and expecting 80/100 Mbps data transfers, with current setup just got 10/50 Mbps.

Will a NAS 2 bays with Link Aggregation work? or will be it overkill for my setup?

Will my router work with Link Aggregation or will need a manage switch to use it?

Recommendations please.

 

[RealBeast]

Link aggregation is not necessary for the small amount of data that you manage and only works if supported by all components. A "real" NAS will give you much higher speeds over gigabit Ethernet depending on the type of array. You should see 110MB/s or so (800+Mbps) if the device read/write speeds of the storage devices at each end are sufficient to keep up.

 

[why_wolf]

You don't need Link Aggregation to do what you are asking for. It's really only worth it if you are trying to transfer huge files all the time to it. If its primary duty is to just act as a file server to play back media than a normal single link is more than sufficient.

 

[atluscr]

Ok, since link aggregation not worth it for File Server, any recommendation for NAS with 100mbps Read/Write performance?

 

[why_wolf]

Look at Synology and QNAP. Good idiot proof UI, weak to good specs, good reliability and the price point is ok. It's a niche market so prices are higher than a DIY but frankly not having to screw around with a DIY NAS is worth the extra cost to me.

Do not buy Buffalo, they are pure garbage.

 

[RealBeast]

Agree with Synology and QNAP.

Depending on your budget, a 4 disk array in RAID 5 will provide consistent speeds over 100MB/s (800Mbps) for file transfers, which will likely be the fastest part of your network and systems.

 

[atluscr]

I'm not interesting on encoding/transcoding features that those Synology and QNAP offer as price is higher and is a will not use it, so far I'm doing all the decoding on the Pi3. Just want RAW File Sharing with good performance.

 

[why_wolf]

again Synology or QNAP. 2 bays are quiet cheap. Other wise your only option is DIY or ghetto networked external drives (which is no better than what you have going on now).

QNAP
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822107183&nm_mc=KNC-GoogleAdwords-PC&cm_mmc=KNC-GoogleAdwords-PC-_-pla-_-Network+-+Storage-_-N82E16822107183&gclid=CKTf_Lamoc8CFYqPfgodFTEL_w&gclsrc=aw.ds

Synology
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822108236&nm_mc=KNC-GoogleAdwords-PC&cm_mmc=KNC-GoogleAdwords-PC-_-pla-_-Network+-+Storage-_-N82E16822108236&gclid=CNPDudymoc8CFYRnfgodR6gPZA&gclsrc=aw.ds

Cheap all in one WD poor mans NAS (seriously don't buy this one)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822236643&nm_mc=KNC-GoogleAdwords-PC&cm_mmc=KNC-GoogleAdwords-PC-_-pla-_-Wireless+Attached+Storage-_-N82E16822236643&gclid=CIGRuKqnoc8CFUeBfgodMKYBxw&gclsrc=aw.ds

 

[RealBeast]

I would not use a USB external drive for that use, if you don't need a full blown NAS box I would first buy a single large disk and stick it in a machine that is on all the time and then share it with all network users (or at least share the media file). An internal drive is going to be far more reliable than a USB attached drive.

 

[FireWire2]

Like other guru stated - I would use the SPM394 or SPM393 to create a RAID5 - since this is a Hardware RAID, it will saturate GbE at any time w/o taking any host CPU's resource