NAS or File Server

R

Ravennoir

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
93
I want to get something to be able to do backups and store all my files for my Mediabox but still be in a central location.

What would be better (and Cheaper)

NAS or a File Server?

-Raven
 
I think a NAS would be cheaper and easier to maintain.
Maybe just a file share and an external drive could fit your needs?
 
Umm..what is "better"? You have to clearly explain what you're actually looking to improve with that word.

As for cheaper, it depends on what you need as well. 2 hard drive NAS? 4 hard drive NAS? What is it you want to do?
 
What do you see as the difference between the two? In my mind, a file server *is* NAS - network attached storage. I imagine you're talking about a box with an Ethernet interface on one end and one or two hard drive connectors on the other, but I could be mistaken.

How much capacity are you looking for? Is streaming media and backups the only application? What kind of budget are you aiming for? How much reliability is desired?
 
Ok, Sorry I didnt explain better.

I want to have about 500Gb with the option to add more, I would like it to be availble from all the computers so it can be used for backup also.

Ideally I would like to spend the least as possible

What im wondering is if it would be better to spend the money I would use on a Dual Drive NAS System or to build a small server and fill it full of drives?

-Raven
 
If you're going to use more than 2 hdds in the future, a file server would be the better option as the current NAS supports up to 2 hdds.
 
Agreed. The file server will be more expensive but more expandable; the standalone device will likely be a few bucks cheaper (depending on features, of course) but less expandable. I'd spend the extra dough myself, but your concept of a good idea may vary ;)
 
If you have an existing PC that stays on 24 hours, add drives to it and make it your file server. If you're going to build a new PC for the sole purpose of being a file server, then I would go the NAS route. Less power usage, easier to manage, just an overall cleaner setup.
 
cbass98 said:
If you have an existing PC that stays on 24 hours, add drives to it and make it your file server. If you're going to build a new PC for the sole purpose of being a file server, then I would go the NAS route. Less power usage, easier to manage, just an overall cleaner setup.
Click to expand...

The benefit of a NAS is in its integration. To build a file server PC that is as well integrated as a NAS is impossible, although I'm pretty sure you can still find a decent case that is solely used for the purpose of fitting hard drives.
 
There are big differences in the performance capability among these devices as well. With 100 Mb/s networking, the differences aren't significant as you're capped by the network. With gigabit networking, you're not so much capped by the network as by everything else, esp. the hardware performance of the server. Here consumer NAS boxes will tend to do worse than a well-designed DIY server (whatever you want to call it).
 
Madwand said:
There are big differences in the performance capability among these devices as well. With 100 Mb/s networking, the differences aren't significant as you're capped by the network. With gigabit networking, you're not so much capped by the network as by everything else, esp. the hardware performance of the server. Here consumer NAS boxes will tend to do worse than a well-designed DIY server (whatever you want to call it).
Click to expand...

Not to mention that a homebrewed NAS server with parts either salvaged or purchased, will be cheaper, more robust, and have capabilities for expansion. A NAS often offers a onetime solution of say 1-2 Tb, after that, you have to buy another one.
 
I vote for optoin number 3 - windows home server - get the beta + play - you'll love it. The thing i like most is the backups... if you have 5 other computers + back them all up.. if they all have the same file, it only backs that file up once... really a storage saver. It also will automatically keep redundant copies of your file share data without having to think about raid, etc.

Program is still in beta, but they are inviting new people all the time.
 
I have a copy of Home Server so that may be an option, will also be using Gigabit LAN connections so the File Server option may be better

-Raven
 
I vote for optoin number 3 - windows home server - get the beta + play - you'll love it. The thing i like most is the backups... if you have 5 other computers + back them all up.. if they all have the same file, it only backs that file up once... really a storage saver. It also will automatically keep redundant copies of your file share data without having to think about raid, etc.
Click to expand...

I am planning on building a server computer to do the backups with and I am wondering if microsofts server solutions are a safe bet?

Basically I will be running a 4x750gb or 6x750gb raid 5 array with 2x 320gbs in raid 1 as the OS drives. Will running the new M$ software be a good choice for doing complete backups of all 6 of my computers on my network or should I go with a different solution?

/thread hijack
 
the MS software does complete backups extremely well. I've tested restoring backups on several devices + it works perfectly. Because of the way it stores the data, you'll save a lot of space on your backed up data (it only stores a file once - no matter how many computers that file is on - and no matter how many days worth of backups it remembers)

On a 250 gig drive, I'm able to keep backups of 4 computers with an average of 30 gigs of data.. all backed up several times. I have mine set up to store a week's worth of backups, and keep one monthly backup for 3 months... that way I can restore my PC as it was a week ago, or even further if I didn't catch a virus until pretty far away.

my 250 gig drive is about 90% full, but if I'd store these backups normally, I'd have 4x30 = 120 gigs per night x 7 days = 840 gigs. I'd never be able to have this level of protection the "normal" way.

They tried to make WHS a little too easy by not using raid... but I think if you have a hardware based controller and can set up your raid sets in bios, you'll be fine.
 
After mentioning how good WHS is, I figured I'd mention my previous solution. I ran a copy of SBS2003 (small business server). I'm happy enought with my new backup solution that I'm selling parts and OS from that previous system.

If you're looking to get some really nice hardware + a LEGAL copy of Small Business Server for really cheap, check out this thread:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1030986177

[silent pondering] is advertizing a FS thread "legal" [/silent pondering]
 
teststrips said:
After mentioning how good WHS is, I figured I'd mention my previous solution. I ran a copy of SBS2003 (small business server). I'm happy enought with my new backup solution that I'm selling parts and OS from that previous system.

If you're looking to get some really nice hardware + a LEGAL copy of Small Business Server for really cheap, check out this thread:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1030986177

[silent pondering] is advertizing a FS thread "legal" [/silent pondering]
Click to expand...

Would that cost include shipping to Australia :p
 
im personally going to be doing like 600gbs at the start probobly

with room to keep backing up the videos we make for people. The videos in all run at about 200mbs a pop.

its a server to last the next 5+ years.

and its more cost effective to drop $5000+ into a server then to lose the data on one computer and have to redo it.
 
For small scale home use, NASbox.

For large scale use, or many hard drives....File Server.

I'm going the file server route myself....I'm probably going to start small and go for 1.6-2TB though. (four 400GB or 500GB disks, I'm notorious for filling up drives).

Basically, I want two hard drive sin my gaming PC, one OS drive, one games drive.....no more crapflooding it with as many drives as I can fit.


edit: oh, and have a backup plan for your file server/NASbox....trust me on this.
 
Not necessarily. He can use a RAID 5 array. My ReadyNAS uses soemthing called X-RAID technology, but it's similar to RAID 5. I lose a little more than one hard drive out of 4. I have 4x500GB drives in there. I have about 1.4TB of space, but it's worth it because if one hard drive crashes, I can replace it and not lose any data. Can't say the same for a non-RAID system.
 
It has been said before, but RAID is not a backup plan. I was asking about the backup plan for his NAS box, which should already be in either RAID 1, 10, 5 or 6.

If you want a backup plan on top of that, for all your data, you're going to have to double up on hard drives and make timestamped copies.
 
I have a setup already, an old Dell Ultrium drive (100GB native/200GB compressed tape cartridges). This is not enough for the entire cluster, but is enough to backup the most important stuff.

That's the key.....drives will fail, and it's easier to ignore a storage unit than it is your main PC....

I can afford to lose a few hundred gigs of porn....it's the financials I do on the computer that I can't afford to lose, family pictures, etc.
 
Cyrilix said:
It has been said before, but RAID is not a backup plan. I was asking about the backup plan for his NAS box, which should already be in either RAID 1, 10, 5 or 6.

If you want a backup plan on top of that, for all your data, you're going to have to double up on hard drives and make timestamped copies.
Click to expand...

Whichever method he goes with (file server or NAS), RAID is definitely the way to go. I don't see the need to do a backup on top of that. It's overkill and unless you're running mission critical stuff, a backup to a backup is unnecessary.

If he doesn't go RAID, he can just decide on what all he needs backed up. Maybe only back up documents, pictures, etc; if he loses the 500GB of pr0n, he can always download new ones. ;)
 
Egg-zactly.

Porn is optional stuff (but worthy of non-volatile mass storage IMO, especially anything of the marvelous Bianca Beauchamp, but I'm going off-topic here...).

It's the important stuff, financials, online transaction reciepts, etc that matter.

Yes, I keep all my online transactions documented in a giant spreadsheet....this makes it very easy to find out what some mystery payment is, and how to go about cancelling it, or to just manage the monthly budget better.

However, this stuff is important enough not to lose, thus gets tape backups.

On an off-topic, if you store sensitive personal files on a network shared drive (especially if have wireless access to it), please for the love of god encrypt the hell out of it....protect yourself.
 
If you're going to be backing up 200 - 600+ GB on a regular basis to tape, investigate LTO.

1TB HDs in external e-sata boxes would be a good tertiary backup as well - in the event of server failure you could at least plug these into a desktop and keep going.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top