Network storage vs home server vs server

photodude

I've been considering getting some storage for my network. Options I'm considering are:
A) a 4 bay Network attached storage (NAS) 10/100/1000 Someinthing along the lines of This
B)A windows home server See link for an option

Or C) go all the way and set up a full server

Mostly looking for centralized files to help keep things organised and available when I move from the desktop(s) to laptops, might use backup features. Not sure if there are any real advantages for going server direction, but have thought of self-hosting my website if I went to a full server.

ardichoke

I'd recommend going with a NAS. They usually play nicer with other platforms than a windows home server will and generally cost less. Plus a NAS will likely draw less power since it is a purpose built machine and doesn't require hardware that is nearly as advanced as a full server.

As for self hosting your site, unless you have a commercial connection with a static IP and a really good uplink, I wouldn't recommend it. Even using DynDNS, every time your IP changes your site would be down while the new IP propagates. Most home connections have crappy upload speeds and home hosting is very uplink intensive. Those are the two major reasons home hosting isn't usually a good move.

photodude

Good points to consider, I guess I should eliminate the full server option since outside self-hosting my website I don't have much of a reason to pursue having a server (unless I get crazy and decide to do roaming profiles or RemoteFX)

The different platforms shouldn't be an issue, all my systems are Vista or win7 with only one XP I'm keeping until I make a VHD out of that OS. I don't think MAC or Linux will be added to the line up.

I wonder what real advantage a windows home server would have over a NAS I'm not sure I really see one.

ardichoke

I can't think of any off the top of my head. At least not if you're only looking for centralized storage. It's funny, I was actually looking at NASes just before I saw this thread. I've been looking to move all my media to a NAS ever since I built my home theater PC.

photodude

I'm pondering the Home server more after reading more about it, from Microsoft's marketing

They also mention another reason I would consider a full server "terminal server" options

Looks like if media streaming is desired then home server, if only file sharing go NAS. Both are some what cross platform capable.

(what's with jkbfaith's post? is it Spam or a virus?)

ardichoke

Yeah, it's spam. I flagged it.

As for media streaming, you can do that with your existing desktop. Just get the NAS, mount it on the desktop and run your streaming software from there using something like http://www.orb.com/en

Snarkasm

Or you can get a NAS that has a media server included in it. That MS marketing is disingenuous at best.

I have a QNAP TS-419P that has Twonky Media Server embedded in it that streams to my PS3. Everything I have is stored on the NAS, and I have web interfaces set up so I can access and download my files wherever I am. In other words, I don't think WHS is the only way you can do media streaming. That's goofy.

RichD

I have been looking at a similar scenario and have opted for the following.

I have installed a second 1TB drive in my desktop and set the whole drive as a share. I then migrated my entire desktop profile to the shared drive. I can then access my files from my laptop using a mapped network drive. Alternatively you can use something like sync toy to set up a scheduled synchronisation of your documents on your laptop and the desktop.

It is a bit long winded but It works for me. You also have to be careful how much of your profile you sync. Documents, Music, Pictures, Contacts and Favs are fine but I set my whole profile to share and ended up with random icons on my desktop where that had synchronised.

You are effectivly setting up your desktop to act as a server. By using the sync function you don't have to have the desktop turned on the whole time. Its not terribly efficient in terms of disk space as there is a lot of duplicate data but at the moment that is not an issue for me.

Snarkasm

That'll work if you're willing to leave the desktop on all the time. As soon as something happens with it, though, it goes down. You also need another TB drive if you do use your sync toy to keep a mirror of the data on your laptop.

A NAS, on the other hand, can consume as little as 10W, while your computer's probably pulling 150-300W, and you map it the same way. You also don't expose your whole computer to the internet if you want to access your files outside your network; you just expose an entry point to your NAS instead.

RichD

indeed but at he minute i cant afford a nas which is why i have set it up like this.

Snarkasm

No doubt, just wanted to point out some of the upsides for new buyers.

ardichoke

This thread has convinced me that I need to bite the bullet and buy a NAS... and I wasn't even the one looking for advice >_< I'm such a consumer whore.

Vicar

photodude

Looking some into NAS vs Home server vs full server; I have found the following:
with 4-bay NAS prices start at around $330 bare with no eSATA port add $90 for 1TB
(adding eSATA to NAS drives the cost way up)
a Windows home server runs around $450 including a 1TB drive and an eSATA port

so cost seems about sixes, but the eSATA port is pushing me towards the home server.

My other option is to take an old computer I have and turn it into a server.....

ardichoke

In my mind, reusing old hardware is usually better than buying new hardware in most cases. If you have old computers lying around, cherry pick your best parts and build yourself a homebrew NAS. You can install something like FreeNAS on it and get a pretty nice setup for cheap most likely. Right now I'm looking at picking up an Atom ITX board and a few TB drives to build my own home NAS.

boasist

I had a powerhouse NAS self built, RAID 6, nice cache, fast and solid. Yet my use for the nas was too much. I needed power under the hood. Throwing 1080 or even 720 content around the house was a little much. Processing power just wasn't there.

So I sold off those parts, and picked up the WHS, I have the 480. The new 490 is even better.

OS setup is a cinch, all done through a nice bit of software on your PC. The software isn't neccesary as you can RDP to the machine as well (currently still 2003 server based). Sharing was simple, feeds to all of my devices with ease, itunes, xbox, TV (DLNA compatible), and more. So yes I would recommend a WHS.

Biggest bonus is the backup feature, auto sleep, and plugins.

Backups are great as they happen nightly, I was on rotational media, when I bought an SSD for my system, I just restored the previous nights backup to the SSD, and I was off. Amazing, totally worth the money for that feature alone. Only took about 30 minutes to flash 160gb of data. Done, all games, programs, emails, everything.

Auto Sleep - Just like a PC, it will put itself to sleep at the time interval you specify. Great to save a little green, and it will auto wake itself as well.

Plugins - Using the plugin community has shown to be really nice, many out there to help get the most use out of your system.

Good luck in your quest.

RootWyrm

If you're looking for a mid-range NAS for streaming with eSATA expander options, I'd say check out the Synology DS410. It'll set you back about $400-500 new, bare unit. You can find Samsung HD154J 1.5TB 5400RPM drives for around $85/ea; they work fine for multiple streams as long as it's not 720p or higher. Above that, definitely 7200RPM. WHS certainly has it's benefits and disadvantages. The honest answer I give folks as to why NAS is a better option comes down to what you want to do with it. There really isn't much WHS can offer you over some NASes at this point. Most are DLNA compatible, the Synology plays nice with Windows Media Player and a host of other software, Windows 7 already gives you a built in backup that can write to network shares. But WHS offers a more familiar interface, larger plugin community, etcetera. But if you're in a mixed OS environment, NAS with NFS is the way to go. And if you're re-purposing old hardware? Yes. FreeNAS is the one true way.

photodude

Did I read this right that NAS suck for streaming content above 720p?

I would then also assume they would suck for tossing large numbers of files around (240file @25-40MB each) That wouldn't work for what I intend it for.

Maybe I should reconsider what I need the network storage for......

backups, streaming, single location of media files (large numbers of photos and videos) was my first consideration.

Snarkasm

It depends what you're streaming. I stream 1080p mpeg2 consistently with zero stutter. If you have to do on-the-fly transcoding (i.e. reading an mkv and putting it out as something else), then the processors in most small NAS boxes may not stand up to it simply because they're 800MHz or so ARM processors. Higher end ones (QNAP TS-419 Pro, if I remember correctly) have better processors (dual-core Atom x86, I think) that can handle transcoding better. You can find more info in review threads and such if you're really concerned.

Either way, if you're just shuttling files, the processor isn't going to get in your way - you need fast disks and fast network for that. You won't have a problem with a NAS if that's all you're doing.