• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

NAS or cheap PC?

J

joecool

Platinum Member
I've finally decided I can't get by just sharing files from one of my computers, and am ready to take the NAS plunge. I'm really digging the Netgear ReadyNAS duo - seems to do everything I need and then some. However it ain't cheap - $250 bare, plus whatever I spend on hds - could be $400 with a pair of 500GB drives.

Now over the weekend I see two desktop boxes for less than $300 at Staples or Omax or somebody, and it occurs to me that a dedicated PC as file server isn't a bad way to go - more flexible than the NAS since it's a full-on PC, and cheaper! But I'm still kinda stuck on the NAS - I like the much smaller form factor, the fact that I don't need to hook a monitor and keyboard up to it (yeah, i've got a kvm, but i use that for other stuff), the fact that it, in theory, will be easier to maintain.

anybody have any thoughts on this? any experience? what's the best way to share files across your home network, and especially, back up your critical data?
 
how many hard drives are we talking? just two?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16856119011

i would probably do this. you can get 1 tbyte of storage in that box for less than the cost of the empty netgear NAS, in addition to all the functionality of a windows machine.

with the 32-bit PCI slot there is nothing stopping you from putting all of that into some $15 mATX case years from now if you want to move up to 4 or 6 disks. if you need RAID 1 you'll have to get a PCI controller anyway... not many intel atom boards have the ICH7R. i'd probably just do software RAID.

for the initial setup, you'll want a monitor so you can see what you're doing, but once you've got it integrated into your LAN with your shares set up the way you want them, just tuck it away in a corner and use remote desktop to get into it. home servers really don't need monitor/keyboard...

 
Originally posted by: RebateMonger
Windows Home Servers make excellent file servers, as well as offering automated daily backups for all your PCs

They do automated backups, super easy file and PC recovery, selectable folder redundancy, a web server, remote PC and file access, and extremely simple expandability.
Click to expand...

indeed, but they have no display or audio output and are thus not PCs

for $350 he may as well just buy the netgear and get his own disks, but he says he wants flexibility.

of course, if it were my NAS i would get this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16813153143

and it becomes a server useful for many things

that way you can throw in a PCI gigabit ethernet controller for fast intranet transfers. i'd use the 100mbps controller for ICS/routing. and you still have a 1x PCIe and 32-bit PCI for additional storage controllers if the need arises, but you sacrifice the ITX form factor (that's the whole point, a flea market case that can hold 8+ drives is perfect for this thing).

 
actually flexibility ain't that big a deal - i just want simple file sharing and backing up. i'm pretty sold on the netgear but the pc's are so cheap i'm wondering if that's smarter - it's probably cheaper and does provide more functionality - and could even be used as a back up box if one of the main machines dies (as recently happened). is much as my geek heart loves the dedicated device with all the whiz-bang features, is there any reason a plain old pc wouldn't be a good solution?
 
If you run Linux you could start with an Atom barebones for $90 - $150 (Foxconn or MSI Wind), just add RAM and the HDDs (2 in the Wind if you use the 5.25" bay too).
 
windows home server looks cool but i don't have time to learn a new system right now. a pc running vista or win7 will be able to sit on my network as shared drives; i can use synctoy to back up to it. it can serve data to an xbox 360 for pictures/music/movies in the family room. is there anything windows home server can do besides all this, that i actually need?
 
Originally posted by: RebateMonger
Windows Home Servers make excellent file servers, as well as offering automated daily backups for all your PCs
Click to expand...

That's a pretty cool product for holding 4 drives. There were some Hot Deals action a few months back with a vendor giving free extra HDDs with it.

Originally posted by: joecool
actually flexibility ain't that big a deal - i just want simple file sharing and backing up.
Click to expand...

A Windows Home Server would suffice for that.

Alternately, how about a VIA ARTiGO A2000? You'll have to roll your own HDDs and OS, but it is about as small as you can get at 260mm x 135mm x 115mm and it is a full PC with a VGA port and audio ports. Supports two HDDs and even a bootable CF socket.
 
As funny as it might sound there is very little to learn about WHS, if you know any variant of Windows post Win 2000 there is nothing to it.

Setting it up is straight forward almost No decision to make. The interface is the usuall Windows interface (looks like Win 2000).

By default is set as a NAS and the only thing you need to do is the BackUps schedule.

There are a lot of goodies (most of them are free Add-Ons) that can be used on the OS, if you want any. you learn as you go/ each one takes few minutes to learn.

The Add-Ons are optional, and are not needed for the regular operation of the server.

http://www.whsplus.com/
 
I'd go with Vista personally -- it'll be much faster than a typical consumer NAS box, and probably/potentially faster then WHS as well.

One significant issue would be data redundancy though. If you're building up a file server, odds are that you're going to accumulate tons of data there, with some potentially irreplaceable information (e.g family pictures, videos, documents). For that WHS gives a simple data duplication solution provided that you have more than 1 storage drive. For consumer OS's, you can

(1) ensure that you maintain manual external backups of your critical data
(2) use some sort of RAID drive configuration

Ideally you would do both (1) and (2), and notably (1) even if you have WHS duplication.
 
Originally posted by: joecool
windows home server looks cool but i don't have time to learn a new system right now. a pc running vista or win7 will be able to sit on my network as shared drives; i can use synctoy to back up to it. it can serve data to an xbox 360 for pictures/music/movies in the family room. is there anything windows home server can do besides all this, that i actually need?
Click to expand...
WHS is extremely easy to set up and maintain. It takes about five minutes per PC to set up the fully automatic full disk image backups. You can restore an entire PC or a single file to the way it was a day ago or six months ago.

Backups are extremely efficient since only one copy of a file is stored. Ten PCs running XP will basically only need a single copy of XP on the backup server. Also, backup management is automatic. No need to keep track of which PCs have been backed up and having to delete old backups.

WHS is also designed to work with media devices like XBox and Windows Media Center. Recorded videos will automatically be sent to a special storage area in the WHS. It can automatically convert those videos to other formats, like for a Zune or mobile phone.

You can build your own WHS if you have a six-year-old computer or such. The software is $100. But buying a pre-built one is much simpler and very cheap for what you are getting.
 
i moved from 6x250gb in raid5 in a server box to a 4x750gb in a promise ns4300n NAS (http://www.promise.com/product...ng.asp?product_id=177) and couldnt be happier. i dont have as much time to fiddle on my computers as I used to, having all that storage available with hardly any interaction is so much nicer than having to admin another complete box. its not the *best* solution in terms of flexibility, but it does everything I need it to and the ease of use is worth it.
 
So to summarize my options:

1) NAS - dedicated device, has geek bling (for me anyway), but not cheap
2) cheap pc - many options here, from SFF to a regular machine. more flexible, probably cheaper than nas, but will require extra software for automated backups, etc.
3) WHS (thanks for the extra option guys!) - sounds like it's ideally suited to my needs, can run on a cheap pc, any downside?

kinda leaning towards the cheap pc as this point, since it's what i know. any reason this would be a horrible idea?
 
a cheap pc will allow you to run XP/Vista/7 and virtualize WHS so you can technically have options 2 and 3 on the same machine sharing a single ethernet interface.

if you plan on having lots and lots of traffic going in and out of the device, i urge you to find something with gigabit ethernet and make sure you have a gigabit switch.
 
Originally posted by: joecool
kinda leaning towards the cheap pc as this point, since it's what i know. any reason this would be a horrible idea?
Click to expand...
If all you need is a file server, most any box will do that. The complications come if you want to make image backups of your PCs, with disk redundancy if you want it, and with expansion of your storage pool.

Regarding redundancy:
It's over-rated for non-business use and risky to totally trust it with important data. My preference is to keep backups. If you have extra money after you've set up backups, then you can consider redundancy.
 
Originally posted by: joecool
So to summarize my options:

1) NAS - dedicated device, has geek bling (for me anyway), but not cheap
Click to expand...

NAS use a proprietary file system. If the box goes down, you can't get your data unless you buy the same box again. I would NEVER accept those terms for my data system.
 
Originally posted by: lxskllr
Originally posted by: joecool
So to summarize my options:

1) NAS - dedicated device, has geek bling (for me anyway), but not cheap
Click to expand...

NAS use a proprietary file system. If the box goes down, you can't get your data unless you buy the same box again. I would NEVER accept those terms for my data system.
Click to expand...

WOW.

did not know.
 
Originally posted by: lxskllr
Originally posted by: joecool
So to summarize my options:

1) NAS - dedicated device, has geek bling (for me anyway), but not cheap
Click to expand...

NAS use a proprietary file system. If the box goes down, you can't get your data unless you buy the same box again. I would NEVER accept those terms for my data system.
Click to expand...

The same is usually true for onboard RAID & dedicated RAID cards.
 
Originally posted by: alyarb
a cheap pc will allow you to run XP/Vista/7 and virtualize WHS so you can technically have options 2 and 3 on the same machine sharing a single ethernet interface.
Click to expand...
Yes, you can virtualize WHS on an XP, Vista, or W7 box using MS Virtual Server 2005 R2 and, I imagine, other makes of virtualization software. But it's a bit technical for someone who doesn't want to play with such things.

For those who want to virtualize WHS on XP using Virtual Server 2005:

1) Turn OFF Simple File Sharing on XP
2) You HAVE to use the SCSI disk controller (rather than the IDE disk controller) in Virtual Server 2005 to create a virtual disk larger than 127 GB
3) To load the SCSI disk controller, you have to load the device from a virtual floppy disk included in Virtual Server

It's not for the inexperienced, but it is documented in at least one post on the Internet.
 
so if i go NAS, i can't just pull the drive out of the nas box, plug it into my pc, and have instant access to my files? that's a deal killer!

i really just need simple file sharing and backup capability. currently on my personal machine i have several folders i share on my network - pictures and some other stuff. however, when my machine goes down, as it recently did, or if i want to boot off a different os, the files are unavailable. this is no longer acceptable. also, i need a more robust backup system - an easy way to back up all the machines to a single location, which can then be backed up off-site.

a plain old pc with some syncing software (i'm thinking synctoy) can do all this, not quite as automated as i'd like, but it's easy and i know it works.
 
lol, the file sharing will be simple in a windows workgroup, dont worry. "simple file sharing" is just an expression for a system windows uses to browse other network resources. disabling this system doesn't mean the file sharing becomes complicated.

if i were you, i would scrap the WHS altogether. get a simple windows xp machine with your pairs of terabyte or half-terabyte disks, and use the software that you know how to use/like to use. backup and syncing is simple no matter how you do it, and there's no need to throw in extra hardware/software to turn this into a grand experiment.

windows xp disk management allows you to chop up your NTFS disks into as many partitions (volumes) as you like, and you can have certain volumes set to be mirror images of each other, so you can have your redundancy cake and eat it too, while still keeping everything safe and sound under a relatively simple NTFS dynamic disk, that can be transported into another windows machine in the case of failure.
 
One other thiing is what kind of backups you want. Do you want to just copy data files, or do you want image backups of PCs? And do you need to be able to back up open files?

There's lots of ways to copy files. The built-in Windows backup utilities take advantage of VSS, which means that open files can be backed up and not skipped. If you just copy or sync files and lose a hard drive or get malware, you'll want to do a full reinstall of Windows and all your applications and data files.

If you make image backups, you can restore an entire PC in one shot, including all the applications and settings. If your PC loses its hard disk or gets contaminated, you can bring it back to life pretty quickly and don't have to re-install anything. Going this route takes special software, like that offered by Acronis or StorageCraft or Windows 7 or WHS.
 
Given the price of HD today and the compression that is used by the Image copy programs, the best solution for an End user is just to make schedules of image coping.

It simply make live extremely easy, and with application like Acronis Echo Universal Restore the image can be revived on any computer regardless of the make up of the hardware.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top