Snap expert guidance and opinions please.

[ZazaBB]

Hi All

I have a few questions for you experts out there...

I have 2 Snap's... a 410 and a 520 both with GuardianOS 5.1.046.

My questions are as follows:

1. Is CA Antivirus worth having if the NAS is exposed to the net.

2. When "monitoring" the NAS from the Active Users dialog, it shows users logged in locally
via a network share, but doesn't show anyone connected via HTTP. Is there a way to show
web based users status? Same applies to Open Files dialog.

3. Almost immediately after enabling the outside IP, I began to get attacked with a user login
authentication attempt from one IP. IP lookup shows it to be a known user(s) from Japan.
Is there a way to block IP's, or better, an entire range of IP's on a Snap?

4. What is the best way to enable a HTTP file upload on a snap?

5. The 410 is a 256MB RAM, 2TB Drive model with 4 - 500GB 7200RPM drives. It takes about 3 minutes to copy
a 1.27GB file across a gigabit network to the Snap. Copying the same file on the same network
to a Dell PowerEdge 2900 takes about 47 seconds. Is this about par for the course, or will boosting the RAM
up to 1GB or more help?

Any observations or advice in general would be welcome.

My last Snap was a 4000 series using the old OS and much has changed.

Thanks!

[Phoenix32]

Originally Posted by ZazaBB

5. The 410 is a 256MB RAM, 2TB Drive model with 4 - 500GB 7200RPM drives. It takes about 3 minutes to copy
a 1.27GB file across a gigabit network to the Snap. Copying the same file on the same network
to a Dell PowerEdge 2900 takes about 47 seconds. Is this about par for the course, or will boosting the RAM
up to 1GB or more help?

That seems a bit slow alright, I would upgrade the memory, as I rarely use a snap with less than 1GB (512KB minimum), but I would also check the logs for errors (disk errors and the like) and make sure you don't have something going wrong.

[ZazaBB]

Thanks for the reply Phoenix32

I see you have a 410 as well, so may I ask what memory you used in it?

I thought I read that it was ECC SODIMM's, but I don't think the stick in mine is ECC, at least it doesn't spec out that way.

I'd appreciate the specs on what you use in yours such as Make & Model of the SODIMM's in there.

Thanks again!

[Phoenix32]

For the record, I am not much of a fan of the 410, but with that said...

I can't recall if they are DDR or DDR2, but they are NOT ECC. They are just basic SODIMMs like used in most laptops. The memory you have should have a sticker on it. That will tell you if they are DDR or DDR2 and the speed rating etc....

Don't spend a lot of money on them, just use a like type as is already in yours, just more of it...

[ZazaBB]

Originally Posted by Phoenix32

For the record, I am not much of a fan of the 410, but with that said...
...

Thanks for the reply Phoenix32

OK, I thought I read it somewhere that they were either registered or ECC.

As you say, I probably have a few laying around here somewhere....

Sooo, why exactly are you not a fan of the 410? To tell the truth, I haven't used any Snaps since the 4100 models, but all in all they worked great. The SnapOS was better too, in my opinion, for just one feature that I have now found out isn't in any of the Guardian OS releases.... namely, you CANNOT monitor who's connected to the unit via HTTP. The old OS did this, so why the new one doesn't really eludes me.

If the file transfer speed doesn't increase markedly after bringing it up to 2GB, I too, will not be much of a fan. I am interested in what your thoughts are on it.

I seem to recall reading in one thread that you're retired.... me too, so this is just side work and overall tech mania for me.

I look forward to your reply!

[Phoenix32]

Well, the other 4 drive GOS units do in fact use Reg ECC memory, but the 410 does not.


I really hate answering questions like your next one. People tend to get offended, have different opinions, and arguements begin (not just you, but anyone reading the message). But, you asked...

IMO, the 410 is just plain not designed or constructed very well, compared to other Snaps.

- A VIA cpu? For a full blown enterprise class RAID NAS? Really?

- And no socket for the CPU? Soldered in?

- Laptop memory? Really? Give me a break.

- Have you checked the CPU temp lately? W T F !!!

- Running that hot, being that low powered a unit, and all that noise?

- What is with this crappy latch? For that much money (original retail price), you would think the drive tray latch would be something better designed and less of a pain in the ass.

All in all, it is a crappy design IMO. They have all these noisy little fans and yet no real cooling getting done. Then used a sub par CPU, that can't be swapped out because it is soldered in, for what? To save a couple bucks? On a unit that sold for big dollars? That is supposed to be enterprise class? Same with the memory. An enterprise class unit should be using Reg ECC server type memory, not laptop memory. WTF!

Same with the construction. IMO it is cheaply built, far far below the quality level of other Snap Servers. The tray is just one example. This is obvious IMO so I won't go into it further.

I guess for me, it is just a big disappointment compared to other Snap Servers. Snaps are supposed to be enterprise class and the 410 just does not measure up IMO.

Now...... With that said, this has all been compared to other Snap Servers. If you compare it to other non enterprise class NAS solutions, it is a pretty good unit.

As a side note, IMO, a 4400 with the SATA modification is a far better unit.


Yes, I am retired (Military). And I do the Snap Stuff on the side to help make ends meet (my pension is barely enough to survive) and for my own uses (multimedia).

[ZazaBB]

Originally Posted by Phoenix32

Well, the other 4 drive GOS units do in fact use Reg ECC memory, but the 410 does not.


I really hate answering questions like your next one. People tend to get offended, have different opinions, and arguements begin (not just you, but anyone reading the message). But, you asked...

<Clipped for brevity>

Now...... With that said, this has all been compared to other Snap Servers. If you compare it to other non enterprise class NAS solutions, it is a pretty good unit.

As a side note, IMO, a 4400 with the SATA modification is a far better unit.


Yes, I am retired (Military). And I do the Snap Stuff on the side to help make ends meet (my pension is barely enough to survive) and for my own uses (multimedia).

Actually, I have to agree with the majority of your sentiments comparing other models to the 410. The CPU temp is HOT... wayyyy more than I expected. The only saving grace of this unit compared to others is the DEPTH. I only have a 520 and 4100 to compare, but the short depth is handy for what I am using it for.

I had a simple Buffalo NAS to give access to multimedia files for family & friends. It was slow, in fact 25% slower copying files that the 410 does (which is slowwww too, but we'll see after the RAM upgrade). I have it sitting on a lateral file cabinet, so I don't have the depth I'd need for the 520.

I'm using a Dell PowerEdge 2900 for my multimedia server and overall server. It serves as a DLNA server using Mezzmo, a print server for my 3 printers and of course my videos & music. 14TB total RAID storage. (Yeah, I am nuts.)

Unfortunately, I didn't RTFM before I went back to the Snap's.... my MAIN concern was know who was online at any time.... the OLD Snap OS allowed seeing ANY user, not just Windows attached, but everything including HTTP. Guardian apparently NEVER allowed that.... so I gained some transfer speed and extra storage, but not what I originally wanted it for. It does really make me wonder why an Enterprise unit would NOT show you ALL active users or at LEAST open files.... neither can be done for an HTTP user. It's not even in the log files! I would think that the Sarbanes–Oxley Act would impact at least SOME of their clients using a Snap, so why there is absolutely no record of HTTP transactions stymies me no end.

Anyway, thanks for the reply and I look forward to more discussions in the future!

[Phoenix32]

Originally Posted by ZazaBB

Actually, I have to agree with the majority of your sentiments comparing other models to the 410. The CPU temp is HOT... wayyyy more than I expected. The only saving grace of this unit compared to others is the DEPTH. I only have a 520 and 4100 to compare, but the short depth is handy for what I am using it for.

The 4400 is about the same depth as 410, and the 4200/4500/15000 are somewhere in between the 520 and 410.

Originally Posted by ZazaBB

I'm using a Dell PowerEdge 2900 for my multimedia server and overall server.

I don't want to pay your electric bill!

Originally Posted by ZazaBB

14TB total RAID storage. (Yeah, I am nuts.)

LMFAO!

I guess you didn't notice that I have a ton of units, including SD30 and two SanBloc S50 expansion units. I don't use anything less than a 500GB drive anymore (and prefer the 2TB drives mostly)

Originally Posted by ZazaBB

Unfortunately, I didn't RTFM before I went back to the Snap's.... my MAIN concern was know who was online at any time.... the OLD Snap OS allowed seeing ANY user, not just Windows attached, but everything including HTTP. Guardian apparently NEVER allowed that.... so I gained some transfer speed and extra storage, but not what I originally wanted it for. It does really make me wonder why an Enterprise unit would NOT show you ALL active users or at LEAST open files.... neither can be done for an HTTP user. It's not even in the log files! I would think that the Sarbanes–Oxley Act would impact at least SOME of their clients using a Snap, so why there is absolutely no record of HTTP transactions stymies me no end.

I am just a hardware guy, you are gonna have to talk to David, the moderator, about this stuff. BUT! I think you can see everyone who is connected and log it all. I could be wrong.

[blue68f100]

Security,

I can't express this enough. Use the strongest PW (using all printable chr, 12+chr long) at all times on all accounts exposed to the www. I had them testing with different common names to gain access too.

I have a list of about 6 web hosting sites/countries that were trying to hack in to my 4500 FTP server when exposed. I just added their complete subnets to be blocked. Once I did that all hacking went away. You can also raise the time between failure to a large time to deter constant hacking. Also it's advised that you use a non std port for access. This will hide it from most all sniffers. I would also suggest that you use strong passwords on all out access. Set min req on passwords to make them all strong. If it's for your access only setup and use a VPN Endpont router, this will give you full access to your network, with all traffic encrypted.

[ZazaBB]

Originally Posted by Phoenix32

The 4400 is about the same depth as 410, and the 4200/4500/15000 are somewhere in between the 520 and 410..

I could live with close, but not over. Have enough hardware all over!

I don't want to pay your electric bill! .

You sure don't... but on the bright side, I always get Xmas & Birthday cards from ComEd. <<GRIN>>

I guess you didn't notice that I have a ton of units, including SD30 and two SanBloc S50 expansion units. I don't use anything less than a 500GB drive anymore (and prefer the 2TB drives mostly)

I did notice, but I was just giving some bona fides. To qualify for the same room in the institution as you... how's this.... I have 2 copies of the stuff that's live on the server, and about 65% more content that's not able to fit and that I rotate. I have another 2900 sitting just waiting in case something happens. (Sans the drives, but all else virtually ready to go) There is more.... but I really don't want to get noticed by Nurse Ratched.... somedays it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.

I am just a hardware guy, you are gonna have to talk to David, the moderator, about this stuff. BUT! I think you can see everyone who is connected and log it all. I could be wrong.

Unless someone here can show me different, according to the Guardian manual it specifically states "Active Users not shown for HTTP & FTP Clients".

So, shall we play cards, and more importantly, do you have any Juicyfruit?

[ZazaBB]

Originally Posted by blue68f100

Security,

I can't express this enough. Use the strongest PW (using all printable chr, 12+chr long) at all times on all accounts exposed to the www. I had them testing with different common names to gain access too.

I have a list of about 6 web hosting sites/countries that were trying to hack in to my 4500 FTP server when exposed. I just added their complete subnets to be blocked. Once I did that all hacking went away. You can also raise the time between failure to a large time to deter constant hacking. Also it's advised that you use a non std port for access. This will hide it from most all sniffers. I would also suggest that you use strong passwords on all out access. Set min req on passwords to make them all strong. If it's for your access only setup and use a VPN Endpont router, this will give you full access to your network, with all traffic encrypted.

Ahhh you interest me Blue68f100!!!!

How exactly did you edit the subnets and change the ports? Are you referring to using a router between the Snap & the net? If NOT, oh pretty please with sugar on top tell me WHERE you go to edit these things in Guardian OS.

I use RemotelyAnywhere for server maint and have for many years... in that I can prune subnets, etc and have the failed attempts to 5 with a 365 day ban. Of course I have several systems that I can access through a different IP and take over the server via a local IP and clear the entry if I screwed up somehow, but I am totally lost when it comes to linux editing..... and for that matter, not too hot on the Guardian OS either!

Thanks for the reply!

[ZazaBB]

Originally Posted by Phoenix32

That seems a bit slow alright, I would upgrade the memory, as I rarely use a snap with less than 1GB (512KB minimum), but I would also check the logs for errors (disk errors and the like) and make sure you don't have something going wrong.

Well, I put in 2GB of RAM (a 9 fold increase from 256mb) and it got me a 15 sec increase in transfer speed. I can't say I'm real impressed with the network speed at all. It shows 1GB links and I have switched ports and CAT5 cables just to verify. EVen plugged it into a 10/100 switch just to see if it actually knew the difference.... it did and was even slower.

I don't know if the network buffer depends on the system RAM, but if so (and I did see a small increase) is it set when the OS is installed or is it something that can be modified?

Anyone know?

Thanks!

[Phoenix32]

I do not remember the exact numbers but, it seems to me I get 30MB to 40MB /sec transfers to my 410's.

David, you remember any numbers for the 4500?

[blue68f100]

The fastest speed I ever got was 60Mb/sec using FTP, GigE. It took me days to find the right driver and FTP software to give me the speed. Both the PC and 4500 were connected to my Dlink DGS 1216T Switch. Now I spent days trying different drivers on my Desktop PC. Then I found that the max speed was the fastest the HD could do.

Now to the security question.
I just use port forwarding to redirect the non-std port to the Snap.
Now my Netgear SMB Class router has a bunch of advanced features that are not on residential class routers.
Here are the IP ranges where all of the hacking was coming from. I intentionally blocked the Compete ISP Host. With these in place I have no outside hacking going on. And I know they are not going to scan the complete port set of ports looking for servers for each IP address. Way too much time. The last I found any data on discover it was less the 25 sec if your open to the www.
Block IP List:
60.0.0.0-60.254.254.254
64.251.0.0-64.251.31.254
83.0.0.0-83.254.254.254
202.0.0.0-203.254.254.254
206.222.0.0-205.222.31.254
219.0.0.0-219.254.254.254

[Phoenix32]

Originally Posted by Phoenix32

I do not remember the exact numbers but, it seems to me I get 30MB to 40MB /sec transfers to my 410's.

David, you remember any numbers for the 4500?

My numbers were not using FTP, just basic file transfers with windows explorer.

So ZazaBB, you ever gonna tell us what your speeds were so we can compare?

[ZazaBB]

Hello Folks!

Sorry, I got preoccupied with the birth of another granddaughter. All is well and everyone is fine.

Now, to get back to the matters at hand....

As far as speeds, it kind of reminds me back when I worked for Playback in the 70's.... people measured "power" in several ways until it finally became the accepted RMS values. To tell the truth, I never have figured out exactly how to measure network speed or drive transfer speed in any meaningful way other than to say it takes "x" amount of seconds to move a file of "x" amount of bytes either between two drives on the same bus or across a network to a different computer.

Also, I use Norton Commander to transfer files as opposed to Windows Explorer. There is a simple CRC routine in it that does make for a small difference in overhead, but negligible. (Yes, Norton Commander for 95, 95 & NT... AND I still have my DOS version 1.0 of it too.)

Now that being said, if there is some mechanism by which the speeds can easily measured without a slide rule & calculator, I will be happy to comply. Point me to the program to run and I'm all over it.

With regards to the port modifications for intrustion prevention, I am running a business gateway, not a home cable modem. I have 5 static IP's which I use for whatever little project I might be working on. The infrastructure for my network is 2 - GS724 Netgear Gigabit Switches which can be managed for throughput, etc, but not a true managed switch as I have no need for that. My server is a Dell PowerEdge 2900 with lots of storage that serves my document needs and houses my video and audio library. Mezzmo is the DLNA server I use because of it's simplicity and reliability. The Snap 410 is an external gateway for family who have little access to TV shows, etc, so I put a modicum of files out there for them to grab. I could utilize another router such as suggested by blue68f100, but I had hoped the Snap was at least as configurable as lesser NAS systems out there. As I mentioned, my old 4100 was able to show any user attached, whether HTTP or via LAN..... why this is no longer so, I cannot fathom.

I had hoped the Snap would allow such mundane things as locking out a scope of IP's and also even throttling bandwidth, as some other lesser NAS systems have, but alas, it's not to be. I spoke with a friend who is well versed in Linux and NAS systems who basically said I'm spinning my wheels. FreeNAS seems to be the OS with the most flexibility and ability to add features as I have wanted, and also a DLNA server for those interested in that for a NAS.

I have another NAS by Iomega that is spec'd about the same as the 520 is, but it's much louder so I haven't really played with it much.... yet.

If it wasn't for the fact that I don't want to run IIS on the Dell server, I'd have just done something along the lines of a Website and/or FTP relegated to another NIC on a separate drive.

Whew, that was long winded.....

Anyways, I have my abode wired with a Network Media Tank (Like a Popcorn Hour, eGreat or similar) and in some instances a networked Blu-Ray player. Total media devices on the network
is 9. I have concurrently served a combo of HD & normal NTSC to 5 with no issues whatsoever. I don't do wireless... at all.... period... for media playing.

Well thems my bona fides and I will be happy as a clam to answer any questions about any of it or how I am doing whatever.

Thanks for the responses and I look forward to some more banter!

[Phoenix32]

Okay, as for the speed....

I have used Netstat Live (by Analog X) to do some speed measurements, but most of my speeds are not from there. Netstat Live is free, FYI.

I use a program called TerraCopy on all my windows machines (also free). This particular program shows information on all file transfers in windows (to an NAS, external drive, or internal drives, etc etc etc). I just use what I see there on large file transfers.

I will say, if you are getting speeds like an old 4100, something is wrong!

As for the networking stuff, I am a hardware guy, thus I cannot tell you how to do any of the stuff I asked you (that's what my friends are for, LOL). But, I am pretty sure all of the stuff you mentioned the GOS does, and does better than Snap OS ever did. I can only recommend you keep digging until someone tells you how to do it. :-)

[ZazaBB]

Greetings all!

Well, I grabbed TeraCopy and tried the transfers. (Nice program BTW)

To the Dell PowerEdge 2900, the rate is 56~63MBPS. To the 410 it's 9~11MBPS. On the 520 it's 35~40MBPS.

Interestingly, to a P4 3.06HT system on XPPro, it gets about the same as the 410. This makes me suspect that the 410 NIC chipset is not too robust... As a lark, I hooked another 2900 up which is on the FAR end of my network and must go through 2 Gigabit switches.... it gets just about the same as the other 2900. In my opinion, this definitely excludes my network in the equation.

I've tried several sized files, different cables, rebooting the 410, etc etc.

It is, what it is. As mentioned earlier, it's better than to a Buffalo NAS, which is about 5~7MBPS, so it's *something*.

Cannot see any settings to change frame sizes, etc, and the RAM on the 410 is now 2GB (System sees it just fine) and all appears to be working normally.

Any thoughts?

[Phoenix32]

Originally Posted by ZazaBB

Well, I grabbed TeraCopy and tried the transfers. (Nice program BTW)

Yup, I have it on all my computers.

Originally Posted by ZazaBB

To the Dell PowerEdge 2900, the rate is 56~63MBPS. To the 410 it's 9~11MBPS. On the 520 it's 35~40MBPS.

The numbers for the 2900 seem right from my experience, but your 410 and 520are both off (more so the 410) for my experiences.

I had a 2950 and what you got on the 2900 is about what I got from the 2950 also.

I get more like 50 to 60 on my 520's vs your 35 to 40.

And like I said before, I get 30 to 35 on my 410's (I said 30 to 40 before but I checked and verified speeds).

Originally Posted by ZazaBB

I've tried several sized files, different cables, rebooting the 410, etc etc.

Cannot see any settings to change frame sizes, etc, and the RAM on the 410 is now 2GB (System sees it just fine) and all appears to be working normally.

Any thoughts?

I gotta tell ya, I am puzzled here. Your speed differences on the 520 is easily accountable to hard drive speeds, switches, routers, memory, etc etc etc. But the speed difference on the 410 is not. Something is just not right there.

It almost looks like you are getting 100baseT instead of Gb (10 to 12 is normal max for 100baseT). That would have made me think cable, but you said you tried other cables.

There is no special setting I use or anything,so as I said, I am puzzled by your 410 speed. I only have a couple ideas ATM.

1) Some switches will automatically slow everything down on them if one of the devices connected is 10baseT or 100baseT. Can you try coming off a diferent switch?

2) There is a setting in the network setup of GOS to set Gb, 100baseT, half duplex, full duplex etc. The default is Auto Select if I remember right. Maybe yours has been set to 100baseT or half duplex? Try force setting Gb and full duplex and see what happens.


That's about all I got other than your numbers are very slow compared to my snap 410's. The 410 is no speed demon, but every 410 I have used/tested (about 7 or 8 of them) have all been faster than your 410 test numbers and inline with the 30 to 35 I told you. Something aint right!

Anyone else (an IT guy/gal maybe) got any suggestions?

[ZazaBB]

Originally Posted by Phoenix32

Yup, I have it on all my computers.

I gotta tell ya, I am puzzled here. Your speed differences on the 520 is easily accountable to hard drive speeds, switches, routers, memory, etc etc etc. But the speed difference on the 410 is not. Something is just not right there.

It almost looks like you are getting 100baseT instead of Gb (10 to 12 is normal max for 100baseT). That would have made me think cable, but you said you tried other cables.

There is no special setting I use or anything,so as I said, I am puzzled by your 410 speed. I only have a couple ideas ATM.

1) Some switches will automatically slow everything down on them if one of the devices connected is 10baseT or 100baseT. Can you try coming off a diferent switch?

2) There is a setting in the network setup of GOS to set Gb, 100baseT, half duplex, full duplex etc. The default is Auto Select if I remember right. Maybe yours has been set to 100baseT or half duplex? Try force setting Gb and full duplex and see what happens.


That's about all I got other than your numbers are very slow compared to my snap 410's. The 410 is no speed demon, but every 410 I have used/tested (about 7 or 8 of them) have all been faster than your 410 test numbers and inline with the 30 to 35 I told you. Something aint right!

Anyone else (an IT guy/gal maybe) got any suggestions?

I uploaded a screen shot from the 410 Status Page.

As you see, it's set to Gigabit full duplex.

I've been at this 32 years, and everything I know to try I have done. I've even put the source system and the 410 on the same segment with no difference.

The drives are 7200RPM so that shouldn't be an issue either. I'm at a loss for what can be wrong.

The 520 is on a different network, so the speed is most likely an issue with what was going on at the time. When I had it connected to this system, it did copy about as fast as the PowerEdge 2900.

Let me know if you see something on the screen shot or have any other suggestions.

Thanks

[Phoenix32]

Try disconnecting ethernet port #2 and just use one port, see what that does.

Oher than that, I got nothin'

Anyone else?

[ZazaBB]

Originally Posted by Phoenix32

Try disconnecting ethernet port #2 and just use one port, see what that does.

Oher than that, I got nothin'

Anyone else?

Hi Phoenix32

Yup, tried that... virtually no difference.

On another note, can you PM me ASAP. Need to talk a little business.....

Thanks

[Phoenix32]

PM sent

[Phoenix32]

Originally Posted by ZazaBB

On another note, can you PM me ASAP. Need to talk a little business.....

I think your idea of ASAP and my idea of ASAP are a bit different...

[cbrock]

Originally Posted by ZazaBB

I uploaded a screen shot from the 410 Status Page.

As you see, it's set to Gigabit full duplex.

I've been at this 32 years, and everything I know to try I have done. I've even put the source system and the 410 on the same segment with no difference.

The drives are 7200RPM so that shouldn't be an issue either. I'm at a loss for what can be wrong.

The 520 is on a different network, so the speed is most likely an issue with what was going on at the time. When I had it connected to this system, it did copy about as fast as the PowerEdge 2900.

Let me know if you see something on the screen shot or have any other suggestions.

Thanks

Very strange indeed. I have a 410 (OS 5.1.046) with nearly an identical setup as yours with the exception of the memory (I'm still at 256mb) and the drives (4x 153mb RAID5). I just ran a few file copy tests using TeraCopy out of curiosity and I'm sort of at a loss on what the lag/latency issue could be for you. It appears these things' speeds vary greatly depending on the environment they're in. The home directories feature is the only reason I haven't retired this thing yet in all honesty because a $500 entry level HP server blows it out of the water when it comes to transfer speeds.

1.75gb ISO file speeds using TeraCopy (all components are Gigabit full-duplex)
Snap 410: ~27 mb/s
Snap 4100: ~19 mb/s
ProLiant ML110 w/Windows Server 2008 R2 64-bit: ~92 mb/s

Is there anything between your PC and the 410 other than a switch stack? Perhaps any VLANs that are routed through your firewall or anything else that could be limiting your speed?