|
|
Post by RazzleUltra on Feb 5, 2007 21:06:31 GMT 7
As I happened to have a spare 512MB stick of PC3200 kicking around, I tried slapping it in my n5200 (after checking the Wiki of course!). Just like other users have reported, the web interface seems much snappier, but what I noticed was the top line of the 'top' command's output, which reads: "....6156K free........ 431024K cached...." What cache is this exactly? Is this the RAID array's write cache? If so, does this presumably increase performance (in certain circumstances) over the default 256MB? And thinking along those lines, would an upgrade to a 1GB DIMM help things even more. And if that is the case (a lot of sentences beginning with and here...  ), does anyone know of any 1GB DIMMS that are compatible? |
|
|
|
Post by omega on Feb 5, 2007 21:32:15 GMT 7
Hi razzleultra, what does "snappier" exactly means? Faster? Really? And yes, the 431024 KB are file system cache, this means read/write cache not only for the raid shares but for all file systems used by the system. The most part is used by the RAID though. Did you already read these postings: thecususergroup.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=n5200modifications&action=display&thread=1155426311They conclude that it's not worth the money to upgrade the memory. But I don't know if 1 GB modules are possible. Andreas BTW: Here is the official statement from Thecus about this issue taken from the Thecus FAQ www.thecus.com/download/other/N5200_FAQ_2006-11-22.pdf: 4-2. System memory size Some users are wondering if they could replace the memory module with bigger capacity. Firstly, N5200 features customized controller board and needs special memory timing. So, not all memory modules can work on it. In case customers replace the certified module with another one, either the same or different size, the NAS might be unstable or no boot. The worst case, some incompatible memory modules seem work fine at system booting, but suddenly cause NAS locked up at heavy loading. System memory is not a user serviceable part. Please do not replace the memory modules. Changing memory modules might cause system instability and data loss. |
|
|
|
Post by RazzleUltra on Feb 5, 2007 21:41:15 GMT 7
Hmmmm, given that warning, I may well just switch back to the orginal DIMM.
As far as snappier goes, I appreciate that it's highly subjective and I could have been 'looking' for an improvement, but the screens on the web interface just seemed to load that bit quicker rather than leaving you waiting. Especially on the RAID array screen.
|
|
|
|
Post by omega on Feb 5, 2007 21:48:52 GMT 7
I wouldn't take the warning too serious.....
If you have a reasonable well suited RAM module rhere should be no reason why you shouldn't use it.
In Thecus' position I would tell you the same.... ;D
At the end it's up to you.
But if you make same performance tests, please tell us the results.
Andreas
|
|
|
|
Post by omega on Feb 5, 2007 21:58:05 GMT 7
|
|
|
|
Post by RazzleUltra on Feb 5, 2007 22:33:35 GMT 7
Having looked into it some more, my memory is able to run at the timings shown by the original DIMM (if not faster) so reasonably speaking it should be fine.
Not so sure how to go about testing something like that in a scientific way i.e. repeatable etc.
|
|
), does anyone know of any 1GB DIMMS that are compatible?