NAS for file server backup
-
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.
