new to nas, is nas much faster then router file sharing?

I have a router which allows me to plug a usb drive to it, so I put files there and share them with multiple devices including several notebooks. For movie playing it is ok but when I put microsoft access database files on the router's usb drive, it takes me so long for the application to load the database. (the size of database file is a few hundreds mb)

So I am thinking of buying a nas, however I am not sure if nas can really solve the problem above. If yes, can I just buy the 512mb ram nas?

Why don't you take a measurement on your router share? Let us know how fast your share to compare?

BTW, about your Access database, did you separate the front-end and database? Normally if you want to share a  database, it's better to separate it, putting the frontend in each client computer locally, then share the database file over the network.


回覆 1# omg9394

You need to know the basic difference between sharing different files through network device
sharing a movie file can be streaming or just play the file through network in original resolution.
Noramlly it only involves 1 connection per device.

If you are sharing a database file through network. It can be classified into 2 different category
1) You actually shared the .mdb file through network and use MSAccess to open the database through network. (Which is in the case of a network development environment)
2) You share the .mdb through network and have front end application (e.g written by VB, VC... etc) and open the .mdb as the source of data.

MSAccess mdb resides on the networks with front end client runnning on other network PC will heavily depends on how many connections/query per application or function called upon.
In order to try to increase your performance of your mdb through network, you can try to separate the database into front and back end which try to only pulls "datas" across the network instead of with all the data, queries, forms..etc. MSAccess should  have function to split (in MSAccess tool bar "Database tools" -> "access database"). You should also compress and fix your mdb as much as possible. Try to use the analysis tool in MSAccess to know the actually performance bottleneck of you database.
If you didn't know the source of the performance problem, even if you got a NAS won't solve the problem. You may need a database server or a better database engine to run your database


Thanks for the reply.

I used a ftp connection to copy a video file to local computer, the speed was about 3.5 MB/sec to 5.5 MB/sec.

I used Microsoft's Access application to open the database file from router's usb drive directly without using any front end. Back end database of Access requires a server but not in FTP which only allows you to transfer files.


回覆 4# omg9394

You need to connect the access database in client/server. Connect using network share (SMB) is not recommended. The MSAccess is actually dragging all those data on the your PC when you open the mdb file.
If you are planning to buy a NAS, consider migrate your database to MySQL server. It will have better performance than Access.


I have a router which allows me to plug a usb drive to it, so I put files there and share them with  ...
omg9394 發表於 2018-3-6 04:22

> 512mb ram nas (e.g. DS218j)
Depends on the number of concurrent user.  If you only need to serve about 10 device e.g. 2 for Video Play back and 8 for general office usage, it's enough.  Assume that your NAS is ONLY using for file sharing, not running any user application(e.g. web server, media server, PHP application, etc)

If you need to process a lot of big file especially Video and Photo or if you want a snapsort protection function, you are better to select at least DS218play.  (*big file form me means > 5MB)


本帖最後由 pc1668 於 2018-3-8 14:23 編輯

回覆 1# omg9394

Using Synology as an example, as per epc bro's comment (actual user experience, I suppose), better stay away from J series (quite slow in general).  Forget about those 512MB ram devices ... go for Value or Plus series, with at least 2GB ram.  IMHO, always go for something that is more than enough, rather than marginally sufficient.

ps. I'm using 216+II (old model) with 8 GB ram.  And my usage is very simple (for the time being): ftp server, remote access via mobile apps (eg. DS file) and simple network file sharing.