NAS for file server backup
-
@fateknollogee said in NAS for file server backup:
@scottalanmiller said in NAS for file server backup:
Not really, you can get a decent NAS for $250 at a minimum. I have one right here. Works like a champ.
What model is this ?
Whatever their two bay starter model is. Been a while since I bought one, the two that I have just keep running.
-
@wrcombs said in NAS for file server backup:
When building a file server, I typically use Fedora.
edit
@scottalanmiller I'm Curious, Why Fedora? ( i have no other reason than to be curious, Cause i have no idea what it take to build a File server)Simple Rule: Because there is no compelling reason to choose an alternative, so stick with your standard.
Complex Reason: Because Fedora is enterprise grade, strongly tuned for storage needs, well supported, kept very much up to date and runs modern code. It avoids licensing costs, bad GUIs, outdated tech and similar pitfalls common to most alternatives.
-
@scottalanmiller said in NAS for file server backup:
@fateknollogee said in NAS for file server backup:
@scottalanmiller said in NAS for file server backup:
Not really, you can get a decent NAS for $250 at a minimum. I have one right here. Works like a champ.
What model is this ?
Whatever their two bay starter model is. Been a while since I bought one, the two that I have just keep running.
Quick Amazon result for reference.
-
@jaredbusch and that's Synology. Last time I priced it out (which was some time ago) the ReadyNAS were cheaper in this small end range.
-
Found a better choice.
-
@scottalanmiller said in NAS for file server backup:
@jaredbusch and that's Synology. Last time I priced it out (which was some time ago) the ReadyNAS were cheaper in this small end range.
ReadyNAS
-
Personal choice, I prefer rackmount!
-
@fateknollogee said in NAS for file server backup:
Personal choice, I prefer rackmount!
Not going to pay the premium for that on a basic NAS without a reason.
-
Anyone tried http://rockstor.com/
-
@jaredbusch said in NAS for file server backup:
@fateknollogee said in NAS for file server backup:
Personal choice, I prefer rackmount!
Not going to pay the premium for that on a basic NAS without a reason.
I hear ya but all my gear is in a rack!
-
@fateknollogee said in NAS for file server backup:
Anyone tried http://rockstor.com/
SF? Really? What is this 2001? No thanks.
-
@fateknollogee said in NAS for file server backup:
Personal choice, I prefer rackmount!
That'll rack up a lot more costs, no matter what, and eliminated the desktop approach, too.
-
@fateknollogee said in NAS for file server backup:
Anyone tried http://rockstor.com/
That stuff is expensive and mostly junk. It's based on designed not meant for SMB use and is not well suited to being shoehorned in where it doesn't fit. I've supported companies that got screwed buying this stuff.
-
@fateknollogee said in NAS for file server backup:
@jaredbusch said in NAS for file server backup:
@fateknollogee said in NAS for file server backup:
Personal choice, I prefer rackmount!
Not going to pay the premium for that on a basic NAS without a reason.
I hear ya but all my gear is in a rack!
You CAN just get a shelf. If you want a NAS, ReadyNAS and Synology allow you to pay for rack mount form factors. Still worlds cheaper than Rockstor and actual NAS. Rockstor is nothing, just consumer grade rack mount gear that you build your own "server" on. Better to go with a real server.
-
@scottalanmiller said in NAS for file server backup:
@fateknollogee said in NAS for file server backup:
Anyone tried http://rockstor.com/
That stuff is expensive and mostly junk. It's based on designed not meant for SMB use and is not well suited to being shoehorned in where it doesn't fit. I've supported companies that got screwed buying this stuff.
Rockstor is NAS software based on CentOS?
-
@fateknollogee said in NAS for file server backup:
Rockstor is NAS software based on CentOS?
"NAS Software" has no place, anywhere. This is a fundamentally flawed software category. By definition, it is not business ready. The fundamental purpose of NAS Software means that it's not used in serious setups and this leads to endless problems.
No matter what it is based on, it would be better to just use that thing. NAS Software all takes something decent, and makes it worse (slower, riskier, more dangerous, more effort) and often doesn't start with a good base - you'd not use CentOS or BtrFS for a normal file server, why would it be okay when put into something incorrectly called a NAS and crippled? Never, that's when.
Read: The Jurassic Park Effect
-
@scottalanmiller said in NAS for file server backup:
@fateknollogee said in NAS for file server backup:
Personal choice, I prefer rackmount!
That'll rack up a lot more costs, no matter what, and eliminated the desktop approach, too.
$250 premium for a little extra processor. No thanks. We racked our 4-bay desktop FF Synology on a shelf and it looks just fine, not that looks matter at all anyway.
-
@bnrstnr yeah, the price premium for the form factor tends to be nuts. Double the cost sometimes, just to make it look nice in a rack! Maybe if it was customer facing in some way, but not for normal use. And often there are other things that need to be on a rack shelf, anyway. Put them all together on one.
