Norco RPC-4220 $384.80 shipped w/ free WD10EADS @ Newegg

They just dropped $5 from the price of the hard drive, so the case is now $265 and the hard drive $84.99. Nice trick, Newegg. :D
 
Not everyone can afford to fill the case with 20 drives from the get-go or is willing to spend a premium. Plus, cable neatness and ease of use is probably user preference.
 
evt said:
Not everyone can afford to fill the case with 20 drives from the get-go or is willing to spend a premium. Plus, cable neatness and ease of use is probably user preference.
Click to expand...

What are you smoking? 4020 and 4220 are both 20 drive cases, so your argument has absolutely zero merit.
 
I believe they would be referring to the difference in backplane between the 4020 and 4220 (not to mention that the 4220 has 2.5" mounting points for the OS drive now); the 4020 has SATA ports (20 of 'em), the 4220 has miniSAS (SFF-8077 I think they are called?), only 4 of 'em. Much less cabling if you are hooking up to a RAID/HBA controller; if not however, they can be inconvenient.
 
movax said:
I believe they would be referring to the difference in backplane between the 4020 and 4220 (not to mention that the 4220 has 2.5" mounting points for the OS drive now); the 4020 has SATA ports (20 of 'em), the 4220 has miniSAS (SFF-8077 I think they are called?), only 4 of 'em. Much less cabling if you are hooking up to a RAID/HBA controller; if not however, they can be inconvenient.
Click to expand...

Then again, how many people that aren't using RAID controllers get server cases that can hold 20 drives?
 
owkia said:
Then again, how many people that aren't using RAID controllers get server cases that can hold 20 drives?
Click to expand...

Well, the formula for the 4020 is to get a mobo with at least 6 SATA ports plus two $100 8-port Supermicro AOC-SAT2-MV8 cards to cover the 20 bays plus optical and OS drives. The cards are PCI-X but work in PCI slots. They are only capable of software RAID, but in WHS you just need ports and don't use the RAID capability.
 
GJSNeptune said:
Why? The 4220 lets you use five cables instead of twenty.
Click to expand...

The 4220 is so much noiser, IMO the 4020 is better for home use, unless you have a dedicated server room or don't mind noise.

I'll deal with more cables over extra noise any day of the week.
 
Nice going Newegg
that is just awesome

Anyone tried modding their 4220 for 120 fans?
 
thebeephaha said:
The 4220 is so much noiser, IMO the 4020 is better for home use, unless you have a dedicated server room or don't mind noise.

I'll deal with more cables over extra noise any day of the week.
Click to expand...

It's so hard to get quieter 80mm fans, huh? You act like the stock fans are mandatory. If you're already spending hundreds on the case, you can afford like $20 for better fans. You could even get 7v power adapters instead. You don't even have to use 80mm fans. I saw a pic of either a 4020 or a 4220 where someone put in three 140mm fans that fit width-wise nearly perfectly.
 
GJSNeptune said:
Thank you for the simile.

And not it isn't.
Click to expand...

Fine. I stand corrected.

More like a Porsche with an automatic transmission. So why not Linux?
 
No idea - I weighed WHS vs OpenSolaris/ZFS, and found that a RAID-Z w/ OpenSolaris would serve my needs better than a WHS. (that and I could afford to perform 8-drives at a time upgrades).
 
Valkhorn said:
Fine. I stand corrected.

More like a Porsche with an automatic transmission. So why not Linux?
Click to expand...

Why not WHS?

Similes are like taking one thing and comparing it to something else and accomplishing absolutely nothing.
 
WHS is a great answer here because it's $100 and doesn't need high end hardware RAID cards.

Sure you could build a fast server with an expensive RAID card, but for serving videos to a media machine in the living room more than what WHS delivers is hardly needed.
 
Homer said:
WHS is a great answer here because it's $100 and doesn't need high end hardware RAID cards.

Sure you could build a fast server with an expensive RAID card, but for serving videos to a media machine in the living room more than what WHS delivers is hardly needed.
Click to expand...

And Linux requires high end RAID cards? It doesn't. And plenty of Linux distros are free.

Ubuntu also does what you want, is free, and works with windows file sharing (and is very secure). It also supports plenty of RAID and non-RAID) cards and plenty of motherboards. What is more, if you have to upgrade the motherboard with most Linux distros, you don't have to change out the OS or re-install it if you didn't use any motherboard RAID. Not many OSes can do that.
 
Sub'd to wait for Ockie to show up and throw down for WHS. Don't crap talk what you don't know about.
 
tgabe213 said:
What's with the agenda against those with WHS?
Click to expand...

Because there are Linux distros that do everything WHS can do (and more) and are free.

Plus the EXT2 and EXT3 file systems are much more stable than FAT32 and NTFS - and with Linux you don't require defragging all the time.

Plus WHS doesn't have tar-balls :)

LittleMe said:
Sub'd to wait for Ockie to show up and throw down for WHS. Don't crap talk what you don't know about.
Click to expand...

So how many of you going against Linux have actually tried/used it?

I've used Win2kPro, WHS, Windows Server 2003, and to me it cannot beat Linux. I'd also love to know what distros of Linux Ockie has tried and why he went with WHS.
 
I have used both also.

I think you are neglecting ease of use. Yes, linux is free (sort of since it costs you time), but WHS has an ease of use that is not there with any linux distro when trying to do simple things like map out your storage drives, store movies for playback from your xbox 360 and such.
 
GJSNeptune said:
It's so hard to get quieter 80mm fans, huh? You act like the stock fans are mandatory. If you're already spending hundreds on the case, you can afford like $20 for better fans. You could even get 7v power adapters instead. You don't even have to use 80mm fans. I saw a pic of either a 4020 or a 4220 where someone put in three 140mm fans that fit width-wise nearly perfectly.
Click to expand...

Why so hostile? I just voiced my option.

I know Ockie mentioned that his 4220 has less potential airflow than the 4020 thus it needed more powerful fans.

At least that is what I remembered him saying.
 
TreyShadow said:
I have used both also.

I think you are neglecting ease of use. Yes, linux is free (sort of since it costs you time), but WHS has an ease of use that is not there with any linux distro when trying to do simple things like map out your storage drives, store movies for playback from your xbox 360 and such.
Click to expand...

Which distro? I'm able to play movies from my fileserver to any computer I want and it is extremely simple to map out drives, etc. Plus I get very good security through file permissions, a nice terminal, and editing access or fileserver settings is as simple as editing a text file as a SU then restarting the process. Plus I can set up automatic tar.bz ing of any specific files I want at any time through the terminal or even tie in a web server with perl/php/sql through apache. Sure you can do a WAMP environment, but let's face it - any higher level OO code is destined for a *nix environment. At least that way you can access Perl libraries (and some are pretty powerful).

Plus you don't need as much heavy duty hardware as you do for WHS - and you can squeeze Linux into some pretty small and very limited environments.

I may be dogging WHS too much, and if so, it's only because I have been a web developer for eight years with six of those being on exclusively windows environments. After moving from a WAMP to a pure LAMP environment, I simply couldn't develop any other way.

So yeah I may be biased in that setting up a file server or SAMBA share is easy for me, as is setting up a decent LAMP environment. However, the stability, the security, the power of a super user and terminal is just something I couldn't without on a web/file server.
 
well one thing i know whs can do that linux cannot (at least not very easily) is that you can backup an image of any of your windows machines to the whs and then load the image back during an install process (from a regular windows disc, even)

i also like the fact that the space on all the drives is combined into a storage pool and that you can choose which folders in the pool you want duplicated and it does all this automatically.
 
Valkhorn said:
So how many of you going against Linux have actually tried/used it?
Click to expand...
Against Linux? I have little experience with Linux, and I don't have the time to learn it. Tons of people recommend WHS. It's been tried & tested to death. It works.

Valkhorn said:
I've used Win2kPro, WHS, Windows Server 2003, and to me it cannot beat Linux. I'd also love to know what distros of Linux Ockie has tried and why he went with WHS.
Click to expand...
Very happy for you.
 
thebeephaha said:
Why so hostile? I just voiced my option.

I know Ockie mentioned that his 4220 has less potential airflow than the 4020 thus it needed more powerful fans.

At least that is what I remembered him saying.
Click to expand...
I'm not hostile. I'm making sure you understand that fans can be changed. It certainly isn't a reason not to get a case.
 
Valkhorn said:
Which distro? I'm able to play movies from my fileserver to any computer I want and it is extremely simple to map out drives, etc. Plus I get very good security through file permissions, a nice terminal, and editing access or fileserver settings is as simple as editing a text file as a SU then restarting the process. Plus I can set up automatic tar.bz ing of any specific files I want at any time through the terminal or even tie in a web server with perl/php/sql through apache. Sure you can do a WAMP environment, but let's face it - any higher level OO code is destined for a *nix environment. At least that way you can access Perl libraries (and some are pretty powerful).

Plus you don't need as much heavy duty hardware as you do for WHS - and you can squeeze Linux into some pretty small and very limited environments.

I may be dogging WHS too much, and if so, it's only because I have been a web developer for eight years with six of those being on exclusively windows environments. After moving from a WAMP to a pure LAMP environment, I simply couldn't develop any other way.

So yeah I may be biased in that setting up a file server or SAMBA share is easy for me, as is setting up a decent LAMP environment. However, the stability, the security, the power of a super user and terminal is just something I couldn't without on a web/file server.
Click to expand...

You answered my question when you started the diatribe about setting up LAMP environments for development. WHS is a consumer level product for users with consumer level knowledge. I understand your enthusiam for linux, but that doesn't thwart the fact that WHS is just easier. It does what it is supposed to do and its built for a consumer who wants the safety of backing up their system, returning it to a working state, and delivering that without much hassle. You are lying if you say a linux distro out there can do the same features as WHS without a steeper learning curve and there are some features that WHS does that are definately more difficult to setup in linux regardless of distro.

That being said, I have WHS, Openfiler, and 2 other linux distro's running happily in my mostly Windows environment. I don't hate on the product, but its definately not a one-size-fits-all product.
 
I'm using WHS to store, backup, and serve/stream media. Simple as that. No need to bring Linux Elitism into the thread.
 
Valkhorn said:
Which distro? I'm able to play movies from my fileserver to any computer I want and it is extremely simple to map out drives, etc. Plus I get very good security through file permissions, a nice terminal, and editing access or fileserver settings is as simple as editing a text file as a SU then restarting the process. Plus I can set up automatic tar.bz ing of any specific files I want at any time through the terminal or even tie in a web server with perl/php/sql through apache. Sure you can do a WAMP environment, but let's face it - any higher level OO code is destined for a *nix environment. At least that way you can access Perl libraries (and some are pretty powerful).

Plus you don't need as much heavy duty hardware as you do for WHS - and you can squeeze Linux into some pretty small and very limited environments.

I may be dogging WHS too much, and if so, it's only because I have been a web developer for eight years with six of those being on exclusively windows environments. After moving from a WAMP to a pure LAMP environment, I simply couldn't develop any other way.

So yeah I may be biased in that setting up a file server or SAMBA share is easy for me, as is setting up a decent LAMP environment. However, the stability, the security, the power of a super user and terminal is just something I couldn't without on a web/file server.
Click to expand...

While it's nice you like linux -- the "majority" of users like a clean point and click gui. They don't want to have to remember terminal prompts, or even open a terminal window for that matter. And more or less that's where linux fails. While a seasoned expert may enjoy it and be able to do anything a Windows user can do, to a novice or someone who didn't grow up in the days of command-line prompting, it's just silly and confusing.

on a separate note.. I had to say I thought there was a $384 shaver sale. (Norco.. Norelco..)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top