jamesf99 Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.1 #5 · NAS vs WHS for photo storage? | |
howardm4 wrote:
Mostly agree w/ EBH. NAS's are dumb. they speak NFS, AFP or SMB/CIFS. Get a decent one and they quite good but you can be limited by network throughput etc. How 'smart' do you want them to be? Yesterday's technology? Sure, but then again, so is Windows and it's networking technology.
You could easily get a 2 disk JBOD/RAID1 device, attach to a good PC via ESATA and share it also.
you might want to give these guys a ring: eaegis.com
Thanks. I think it was me that said NAS is/are/was "dumb".
've been running NAS drives for many years, so I know about some of the issues. Speed can be one, but there are many others. I'm dumb founded that in 2009 - almost 2010 - most are saying they support SATA 1 (vs SATA 2), there's no mention of 64bit support (time to get real as it's coming/here) and the streaming options are less than good on many. Firmware is locked in with no way to update it. Buying today means you're buying 2006/7 technology for the most part...
There are several NAS options that I've considered (and still am) but I decided that I'd expand my options to include the newer "media server" options, including those running WHS. I may be mistaken because I really just began looking today, but the new WHS seems to offer better power options, less hassle on the admin, etc.
There are a few concerns with using a regular stand alone "server", one of which is the monitoring, and then there's the server software, the constant "on state" etc. Attaching an external drive (e-sata or USB) to a PC on the network is less than optimal IMO. I didn't make a big deal of it, but the more I think about it, I really want something that can cycle down on the power drain when not serving/backing up. I want to get "greener". 
Thanks for the link. Looks like an interesting site with lots of options.
|