<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<font size="+1">I also store all my 'final' images on a Synology NAS
via 1Gbe wired connection, and the dk database on my workstation
on SSD. No issues with dk performance, and startup scan is so fast
I don't notice it. I also use darktable in a similar manner -
images on NAS and db on workstation - and also have no network
performance issues. However, the workstation is a Ryzen 3900
12-core with RX5500XT gpu, and 2 SSDs on which digikam runs 24
threads for its startup scan . . . . <br>
<br>
Before I built the workstation, I used an i5 laptop and that was
SLOW on the wired connection and painfully slow/unusable on wifi.
I put this down to network speed and NAS speed (2 HDD in RAID0),
so had planned to upgrade the NAS to a 4 HDD in RAID10 (stripe of
mirrors) with a 2x1Gbe aggregated LAN connection, after the
workstation was up and running. But then I found that the
workstation was so fast that the NAS and network upgrades would
make only marginal difference to performance so I shelved them. </font><font
size="+1"><font size="+1">In my situation raw compute power proved
the most important factor.<br>
</font></font><br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 27/01/2021 18:53, woenx wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1611773585381-0.post@n4.nabble.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I store all my pictures in a NAS, but I keep my database on my local
computer.
It's not super fast, but it's definitely usable. It takes a while to scan
for now pictures on startup, but once it's done, it works quite well.
I think the most important factor is the network latency from your computer
to the NAS, more than the network speed.
--
Sent from: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://digikam.1695700.n4.nabble.com/digikam-users-f1735189.html">http://digikam.1695700.n4.nabble.com/digikam-users-f1735189.html</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>