This is the old XigmaNAS forum in read only mode,
it will taken offline by the end of march 2021!
I like to aks Users and Admins to rewrite/take over important post from here into the new fresh main forum!
Its not possible for us to export from here and import it to the main forum!
it will taken offline by the end of march 2021!
I like to aks Users and Admins to rewrite/take over important post from here into the new fresh main forum!
Its not possible for us to export from here and import it to the main forum!
New Install to SSD embedded or full
-
newpanama
- NewUser

- Posts: 2
- Joined: 18 Nov 2012 06:08
- Status: Offline
New Install to SSD embedded or full
I am new to NAS4Free and I am trying to decide between an embedded or full install. My main use will be purely for file storage for my Mac and Windows machines, so I will likely use SMB and AFP. Only future use I can likely foresee would be some iSCSI if I needed it for my vsphere server. I currently don't plan on using ZFS, probably UFS or ext3. That said, my hardware is an HP Proliant Microserver N40L with 8GB RAM, a 64GB Samsung SSD for a boot drive, and a 3TB Western Digital Red drive for data. I like the convenience of the embedded firmware upgrades, but since I have the 64GB SSD to boot from I am wondering if this is a good or bad idea to maximize performance? Are there any configuration tweaks I can make to use that SSD to boost performance? Any help or guidance would be greatly appreciated.
-
doglover
- NewUser

- Posts: 14
- Joined: 12 Nov 2012 19:06
- Status: Offline
Re: New Install to SSD embedded or full
Hi. I am new also but that seems to me like a real waste of an expensive 64 GB SSD as a dedicated boot drive to house like 200 MB of operating system that would boot fast enough off a cheap small hard drive or small usb key. Unless you plan on using the rest of the drive for data also?
Cheers, IMF
Cheers, IMF
- shakky4711
- Advanced User

- Posts: 273
- Joined: 25 Jun 2012 08:27
- Status: Offline
Re: New Install to SSD embedded or full
Hello,
I have setup embedded and full installs and could not feel any difference in speed from the OS itself. Possible the embedded could be faster in theory because it operates within a ramdisk, compared to the oldest ide harddisk found on the baseground, but when you look for bottlenecks from your system this question here is the wrong place
The usage from a 64GB SSD for an embedded install is a waste of ressources and a loss of a SATA connector and harddisk cage, you can use a USB stick. I recommend not to use the cheapest one, Transcend Jetflash 600 devices never let me down and are balanced with a 30 years warranty after registration.
Shakky
I have setup embedded and full installs and could not feel any difference in speed from the OS itself. Possible the embedded could be faster in theory because it operates within a ramdisk, compared to the oldest ide harddisk found on the baseground, but when you look for bottlenecks from your system this question here is the wrong place
The usage from a 64GB SSD for an embedded install is a waste of ressources and a loss of a SATA connector and harddisk cage, you can use a USB stick. I recommend not to use the cheapest one, Transcend Jetflash 600 devices never let me down and are balanced with a 30 years warranty after registration.
Shakky
-
fsbruva
- Advanced User

- Posts: 378
- Joined: 21 Sep 2012 14:50
- Status: Offline
Re: New Install to SSD embedded or full
Ditto. A 64GB SSD is better utilized as a ZIL device or a cache disk.
-
newpanama
- NewUser

- Posts: 2
- Joined: 18 Nov 2012 06:08
- Status: Offline
Re: New Install to SSD embedded or full
Thanks to all for the feedback, especially the recommendation on the transcend. I will be ordering one so I can get my system going ASAP.