SABnzbd Forums

Hi,

I've been using SABnzbd on my Mac for several months now and am very satisfied with it.
As I have a Synology DS108j NAS, I tough I could try to install SABnzbd on it so I wouldn't have to leave my iMac on all the time.

I installed the 4.12 version available on this website: http://www.mertymade.com/syno/
The install went fine and I SABnzbd was functional.

However, the download speed was really low. On my iMac, I usually download at approximatively 1200 KB/s. On the DiskStation, I only reached 400-500 KB/s, and sometimes it even fell to 30-40 KB/s.
Is this normal, knowing that the DS108j only has a 200 MHz processor and 32 MB of RAM? Or could this come from my router?

I was thinking about buying the new DS210j. It has a 800 MHz processor and 128 MB of RAM.
Do you think it would allow me to download as fast as I do on the iMac?

Thanks 

Edit: I read by searching on Google that it could have something to do with the cache setting, but I didn't really understood what the best setting would be...

32 MB of RAM?
I'm surprised that it does anything at all!

We consider 128M to be the absolute minimum and even then it's a challenge.

shypike wrote: 32 MB of RAM?
I'm surprised that it does anything at all!

We consider 128M to be the absolute minimum and even then it's a challenge.

Oh I see, so it's more than normal 
What do you think the minimum would be to use SABnzbd at my maximum download speed?
The 410j has 128MB, the 409 has 256MB, and the 409+ has 512MB.

The more RAM the better.
If you can afford it, go for the 512MB model.
It's up to you to decide if it's worth the price difference.
You may later decide to run even more software on it.
We are planning on bringing down RAM usage, but that's a long term goal.

Let me just throw this in: Those boxes suck.

This wouldnt be a good reply without a suggestion: Have a look at Asus EEE-Box. I use it for Sabnzbd+. Its a dual core Intel Atom system with 1gb ram, Windows XP and at least 100gig free hdd for downloading. If thats not enough it will run with all 2,5" sata drives. It is literally noiseless and consumes hardly 20 watts under full load. This thing was built for downloading.

The Asus EEE Box model with 160gb hdd is about 260 €
The 210j without hdd is about 170€

dontango wrote: Let me just throw this in: Those boxes suck.

This wouldnt be a good reply without a suggestion: Have a look at Asus EEE-Box. I use it for Sabnzbd+. Its a dual core Intel Atom system with 1gb ram, Windows XP and at least 100gig free hdd for downloading. If thats not enough it will run with all 2,5" sata drives. It is literally noiseless and consumes hardly 20 watts under full load. This thing was built for downloading.

The Asus EEE Box model with 160gb hdd is about 260 €
The 210j without hdd is about 170€

Really? Why do you think they suck? I thought they has the best NAS...
Price-wise, it is true that a powerful Synology DiskStation is as expensive as a Mac mini and more expensive that the EEE box. But what is interesting about Synology is the RAID 5! 4 x 1TB disks, 3TB usable and secured data...

You are right, it is a nice NAS. NAS is supposed to be a fileserver, not a download station. If you need 4tb+ in a raid then go for it. But earlier you mentioned the DS108j and DS210j, now its the DS409? Of course they promise 10000 apps to run on their NAS but as you have experienced firsthand it is not fast enough.
Dont get me wrong, i also have a NAS (QNap TS409pro) but still i do not use it for downloading.

I have connection of 50 Mbit. My NAS is a Intel SS 4200 extended with a 2.4 Ghz Dual Core and 2 GB RAM. A Full Download with 5.6 MByte/seconds uses 50% CPU Usage.
For me a Intel Dual Atom is to small. When then the unrar and check process begins the usage is 90%. But the Download is still stable at 5.6 MB/s.
The Synologys are good but only the premiums are good enough for Hard Downloads. Read the forums there, you will be surprised how many people has problems with fast downloads.

The 1,6ghz dual core Atom repairs 50gb bd-disk in ~30 minutes with command line parameter -t0
But i use the option "pause downloads while repairing".

As i said i have a big qnap nas, this uses 44,5w in normal mode plus 4x wd caviar green sata in raid mode. Thats a total of 66w versus 19w of a small download box.
I just dont like the idea of constantly writing to 4 big drives while downloading, too.

So usually i have the small box running for downloads while the big nas is in sleep mode until i need it for streaming or backups. But to each his own.