thehawkins wrote:
I will write something detailed this weekend and post it. Since I do assessments and writeups daily in the course of my job, it'd be helpful. I just hope we can keep it civil.
The Drobo solution is pretty interesting, but I would have liked to see a NAS version of it.
Thanks...I would very much appreciate that.
I too think that DROBO missed the mark by not having Ethernet. I don't need a full server (DHCP, FTP, etc.) which is probably why I haven't re-configured my old server . . . I just want/need a way to share disk space with a few computers (that, thanks to the arrival of the iMac, don't share a common OS) . . . and the Airport Extreme disk sharing solution didn't fly with me because I couldn't format the disk with FAT32 or NTFS, so I could disconnect from the Airport and connect directly to my Windows XP computer.
Bottom line . . . I don't really care what OS it's running, as long as the interface allows creating accounts to control access. This is one major feature that I believe the DROBO lacks, because it was designed to connect directly to one computer via USB. One device I was looking at (I think a D-Link) the reviewer expressed concern about the interface for creating users/groups and assigning access rights. Ideally, and this is a stretch, I would like a way to have disk quota (e.g. user A can only use 250GB of space, while user B has unlimited use of space) . . . so far, none of the devices I've looked at have that feature, so it's not a necessary feature.
One major concern for me is device failure and time to get back on-line. Regardless what OS it's running...if the unit fails after some period of time and it's out of production and I can't get it replaced/repaired, how the heck do I read the data? My (and this is a very personal thing) safest bet is to stick with what I know...Windows 2000 Server. But even then . . . what if the RAID card fails and I can't find one that recognizes my drives? Then I'm in the same boat as if I bought a hardware NAS that ran an OS that I knew nothing about.
I just can't make a decision which way to go. I guess I could say, the heck with the iMac and just get something that works with Windows . . . but then what happens if I decide to switch to Mac (which I keep saying I'm going to do)?
I too am struggling with this issue as of late. As the wedding work starts to die down over the next month or so, I am hoping to do a reworking of my computer architecture. Currently I have two desktop PCs and a laptop (all running WindowsXP). The one PC is my primary, while the other is essentially a Windows XP file storage server. That is, it has three 250gb drives in it that are accessible over the network either wired or wireless through a D-Link router.
This seems to work ok, but I wonder if I wouldn't be better off switching to a Windows Server 2003 environment. Are there many advantages of a Server 2003 setup as opposed to a Windows XP setup? I don't need multiple users, I just need multiple access points (desktop and laptop) as well as a viable backup routine.
If anyone has any suggestions, I would greatly appreciate it.
mlorne wrote:
This seems to work ok, but I wonder if I wouldn't be better off switching to a Windows Server 2003 environment. Are there many advantages of a Server 2003 setup as opposed to a Windows XP setup? I don't need multiple users, I just need multiple access points (desktop and laptop) as well as a viable backup routine.
If anyone has any suggestions, I would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks,
Michael
Windows 2003 is capable as a file server... but the cost of the OS alone is outrageous. As others have mentioned.. Home Server is available for $169. There are no real advantages of 2003 over XP in a 1 user environment.
One thing people have not mentioned is how much power these things consume. Some have suggesting getting Home server and using an old pc... but I can bet you will see a higher electric bill leaving an old PC on 24/7.
I am considering building a home server and will use on of these:
