i think tis a good idea to have FS vs NAS and related discussions in one place. Here. I'll get the ball rolling with copy-paste of my post from NAS thread.
i made FS out of 1GHz P3 256 RAM onboard gfx disabled onboard sound,lan,floppy and parallel,serial,firewire ports
Bought PCI-SATA 4-port ~$30, gygabit eithernet (4k Jumbo f.) $10, USB 2.0 $10 PSU: Antec Earthwatts EA380 (active PFC, >=80% efficiency at any load) $5 OS: modded XP (cut down to 130MB size, customized specifically for FS) with nLite.
FS... Oh, forgot to mention it is Print Server as well, has 2 printers connected to it... So, FPS lol has no monitor nor kb-mouse, is managed over network with free XP tool Remote Desktop Connection.
In JBOD config i get 250-340 mbps transfers (30-40 MB/s), but i bought wrong RAID card, no RAID-5 support. Planning to get 4-th 500gb hdd and RAID-5 capable SATA-PCI card.
In the end, it looks to me that if u r a tech, u'll choose FS, not a tech - NAS...
kostyanka said:In the end, it looks to me that if u r a tech, u'll choose FS, not a tech - NAS...
Yes and no...
Most techs might go your route since they typically have all the parts sitting around.
It is much nicer to have a NAS. Generally speaking, the NAS is quieter, uses less power, and is nice and small. Most NAS also have print server capabilities.
NAS is quieter generaly speaking - probably so, but the one i built with cpu hsf 80mm fan, 2 case 120mm fans modded to 5V (cooling 2 hdd cages) and that EA380, the whole thing is just about silent. I have to stick my head under the table to hear it.
NAS uses less power Sure. But how much more does it cost? And how much do u value FS flexibility and speed? And what about prolonged hdd life from been actively cooled in FS vs passively in most NAS? What about feeding hdd's quality power from EA380 vs crapy NAS power brick?
NAS is nice and small Disagree. I have 7 hdd's in FS, one being 4GB and has just OS on it (probably should throw it away and put os on one of the other newer, faster hdd). What kind of NAS r we talking about? 2 hdd cage? 4? NAS gets really expensive for 4 and more hdd's AFAIK.
So, could 4hdd RAID-5 NAS still be quieter, use less power (read - cheaper in lets say 5 years run), have USB 2.0 or if i wish to - esata, firewire, wifi, bluetooth gigabit eithernet (30-40 MB/s transfers, hopefuly more after raid-5) print serving and look nicer than single FPS box that sits under my desk? Sure not!
And i dont even mention Bittorrent, Limewire, Usenet...
If you want to do other things, like torrent, you need a machine. It could just be another PC, like you are using, or it could be an actual server. Either way, a NAS simply isn't meant to do anything other than S (storage).
--edit - forgot to say above, for just storage NAS can be nice because it is SIMPLE.
1. let's get clear on what is a server 2. i have a feeling u didnt read through my earlier posts in this thread, as i have mentioned there what type of os i use and why i think nas is bad for hdd's. Here, i'll copy-paste:
OS: modded XP (cut down to 130MB size, customized specifically for FS) with nLite And what about prolonged hdd life from been actively cooled in FS vs passively in most NAS? What about feeding hdd's quality power from EA380 vs crapy NAS power brick?
"As for NAS being slow - cheap ones, yes." And expensive ones are... expensive, no? lol R u trying to say that if money were no object, than the NAS is better than FS? That would be a separate question and unrelated imho to a discussion about real world home file storage.
minidrag said:An actual server is a server chasis, a server motherboard, and very importantly a server OS like Server 2003.
As for NAS being slow - cheap ones, yes.
NAS being more expensive - compared to a PC pretending to be a server, yes.
Unhealthy for hard drives? Why do you say that?I disagree. Server hardware and a server OS like Server 2003 are not necessary depending on what functions you'll be using the server.
I'm using an older Antec case with an Athlon 1800+, 512MB RAM, 800GB across three drives running on Xubuntu as a file "server" in the basement. The "server" is semi-headless; there's a monitor nearby if necessary, but I usually RDP/xVNC to administer the system. I have Samba shares configured so that any of my desktop or laptop computers can access the media files on the "server."
Since the "server" is not simply a NAS, I run torrents 24/7 serving various *nix distros and FOSS archives. The "server" also runs a FAH client as well as an eBay sniping app, jbidwatcher.
Ironically, this "server" used to run FreeNAS until a corruption somewhere prevented data persistence. I would lose all the files after certain reboots. I never figured it out, and I went the Xubuntu "server" route instead.
My current NAS solution is cheap. It costed about $100 more than the drive that it came with. NAS can be cheaper depending on your needs. NAS can be smaller depending on your needs. I think you are being NASist thinking that all NAS is the same.
My current NAS solution is extremely small. I don't know how you can disagree with me on the size. My NAS is the size of an external hard drive.
My current NAS drive is fast. I dont notice any difference grabbing files from it than from grabbing files from a file server.
Many NAS devices are the size of an external hard drive. My current NAS is exactly the size of an external hard drive as it only holds one drive. For expansion it has 2 USB slots to hook either 2 more USB drives up to it or 2 printers. You can't get much smaller than that.
I think you have it stuck in your head that a NAS has to be robust and expandible. There are many different types of NAS solutions out there.
If you wanted a NAS with RAID, then your arguements might be valid. There are some small Dual Drive NAS units out there with RAID mirror capabilities as well.
squirrelproductions said:I disagree. Server hardware and a server OS like Server 2003 are not necessary depending on what functions you'll be using the server. I never said that a real server was necessary. OP asked me what I meant by real server and I was explaining.
I have plenty of clients that use a PC with a desktop OS as a pseudo server. There's not a thing wrong with that - it fits their needs and their budget. But it isn't a true server.
kostyanka said:OS: modded XP (cut down to 130MB size, customized specifically for FS) with nLite And what about prolonged hdd life from been actively cooled in FS vs passively in most NAS? What about feeding hdd's quality power from EA380 vs crapy NAS power brick?
"As for NAS being slow - cheap ones, yes." And expensive ones are... expensive, no? lol R u trying to say that if money were no object, than the NAS is better than FS? That would be a separate question and unrelated imho to a discussion about real world home file storage.
Yes, I read that you were not running a server OS - that was why I pointed out that a 'true' server wouldn't run XP.
Any good NAS will be actively cooled.
We are talking apples and oranges here. You are talking about $200 or $300 NAS boxes. I'm talking about $700 for a low end box with no drives. I was simply pointing out that it isn't safe to make over generalized statements, like you were, about NAS and servers when your experience is only with the cheaper / lower end stuff.
I didn't see anything in this thread that specified you were only talking about real world file storage for the home. All I saw was NAS and FS. Maybe I missed something...
minidrag said:...servers...pseudo servers...true servers...well, going by definition link to which i provided, what i have is a server. But i'll agree to disagree, semantics rnt important.
I didn't see anything in this thread that specified you were only talking about real world file storage for the home...Please take a look at the first word of this thread's title.
riznick said:...I think you are being NASist thinking that all NAS is the same...My current NAS solution is extremely small. I don't know how you can disagree with me on the size. My NAS is the size of an external hard drive.if u r sure 1 hdd is all u'll ever need, then i agree, NAS is more viable. More often then not though need for storage space grows... So later one would have to get external hdd, then second NAS, 2-hdd NAS... And before u know u'll have a stack of NAS's 10' high. The horror! The horror!My current NAS drive is fast. I dont notice any difference grabbing files from it than from grabbing files from a file server.err... How fast? And what FS?If you wanted a NAS with RAID, then your arguements might be valid. There are some small Dual Drive NAS units out there with RAID mirror capabilities as well.i dont want to lose half of my hdd to raid-1. I want 4-hdd raid-5! or better.
Interesting discussion since it was something I considered myself.
Of course the main influence for getting a NAS vs FS in the end was the missus, who didn't want another pc box sitting around because it won't match the furniture as well as running out of real estate (being in CA in a small place because anything bigger is unaffordable).
This doesn't mean that I couldn't build a FS if I really wanted to.
minidrag said:One little word... i think most people had enough common sence to realize i wasnt talking about enterprise environment even though i didnt constantly add HOME to FS, FPS abbreviations. And i also think u knew that too, u just wanted to look big and show off.
Zdog said:...Of course the main influence for getting a NAS vs FS in the end was the missus...Ha! Well, i'm the king of my castle! Err... Well, I'm the king of my office room! Hmmm... those drapes... Well, i'm the king of my computer table ... area!!!
kostyanka said:And i also think u knew that too, u just wanted to look big and show off. Don't go making assumptions about people - it's always a bad idea. I misunderstood the topic. Shoot me if it'll make you feel better.
I think that anything at home with central storage (be it a FS or a NAS) is a good idea to have in any home. It makes for faster data back up and it is just plain stupid not to have everything in more than one place. I have a Dell T105 with dual 750 gig drives in it all for data with a seperate hard drive JUST for OS. Now when my other machines start getting sluggish I can do a full OS install and not have to worry about every losing any data cause it's not really stored on the laptops any more. Good stuff. I do want to go major overkill now and also get an external 750 gig drive (firewire or USB) to backup everything onto.
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
