10 PC Office Data Storage Recommendations
-
@gjacobse said:
however you will be better suited to use a full server running AD...
This is just crazy. There is no AD in a business of this size. Why would you even think to introduce such complexity just for a simple share that a NAS can handle.
-
What makes a drive a "NAS drive"?
I was looking at the WD Reds that were mentioned.
Strangely enough after my OTHER issue with the drives, I was expecting to 2TB drives to be like $1,000 each. When I saw what the price was, I LOLed in my office.
-
@BRRABill said:
What makes a drive a "NAS drive"?
I was looking at the WD Reds that were mentioned.
Strangely enough after my OTHER issue with the drives, I was expecting to 2TB drives to be like $1,000 each. When I saw what the price was, I LOLed in my office.
http://www.smbitjournal.com/2014/05/understanding-the-western-digital-sata-drive-lineup-2014/
-
@BRRABill said:
What makes a drive a "NAS drive"?
it is network attached storage. that is all nothing else.
-
@BRRABill said:
What makes a drive a "NAS drive"?
Note, the physical drives them selves have nothing to do with it.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@BRRABill said:
What makes a drive a "NAS drive"?
it is network attached storage. that is all nothing else.
I believe he was asking about the drive itself, regular drive for any computer vs a drive you would put on a nas
-
@BRRABill said:
What makes a drive a "NAS drive"?
I was looking at the WD Reds that were mentioned.
Strangely enough after my OTHER issue with the drives, I was expecting to 2TB drives to be like $1,000 each. When I saw what the price was, I LOLed in my office.
^^^^^ exactly
I don't know how much data you have, but I can't recommend "over buying" enough. It's cheap & when you need it, you really need it. We're now rocking 4x 6TB in each DS415+ and so far all the drives we've upgraded from go into the 3614+'s until we can afford a nice matched set for those too.
-
@Romo said:
I believe he was asking about the drive itself, regular drive for any computer vs a drive you would put on a nas
There is no difference in them. You simply pick the drive that meets the specs you need. there is no such thing as a drive for NAS. no matter what certian companies try to market to you.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@gjacobse said:
however you will be better suited to use a full server running AD...
This is just crazy. There is no AD in a business of this size. Why would you even think to introduce such complexity just for a simple share that a NAS can handle.
I agree. Even Microsoft puts the crossover point at roughly 12 users, and they are quite aggressive about it.
-
Aggressive meaning "liberal" in this case.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@Romo said:
I believe he was asking about the drive itself, regular drive for any computer vs a drive you would put on a nas
There is no difference in them. You simply pick the drive that meets the specs you need. there is no such thing as a drive for NAS. no matter what certian companies try to market to you.
Yes you can put any drive on a NAS, but there is a reason most people recommend WD Reds for 24/7 use. I believe @scottalanmiller post http://www.smbitjournal.com/2014/05/understanding-the-western-digital-sata-drive-lineup-2014/ answers the OP's question, at least if using WD for drives
-
After reading that article, I was going to ask about the 5400rpm, but I see the Red Pro is 7200rpm.
I mean at this cost ... why not?????
-
Because it costs more, uses more electric and wears out faster. It's not purely about money vs. speed in the terms of straight acquisition cost.
-
@johnhooks said:
@BRRABill said:
What makes a drive a "NAS drive"?
I was looking at the WD Reds that were mentioned.
Strangely enough after my OTHER issue with the drives, I was expecting to 2TB drives to be like $1,000 each. When I saw what the price was, I LOLed in my office.
http://www.smbitjournal.com/2014/05/understanding-the-western-digital-sata-drive-lineup-2014/
The 2015 update for that is partway done.
-
@johnhooks said:
But you can have users on it that don't have access to any SMB shares, so those wouldn't be Samba users. Some can have access to only NFS shares or WebDAV.
Does the NAS make two different pools of users? If so I would call that SMB users, not Samba users. One is what it always is, one is an under the hood artifact. I realize it is semantics, but I think it gets important when we are talking about the very end user abstraction for which the NAS exists.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
But you can have users on it that don't have access to any SMB shares, so those wouldn't be Samba users. Some can have access to only NFS shares or WebDAV.
Does the NAS make two different pools of users? If so I would call that SMB users, not Samba users. One is what it always is, one is an under the hood artifact. I realize it is semantics, but I think it gets important when we are talking about the very end user abstraction for which the NAS exists.
Ha I'm not trying to argue with you
I'm just explaining why I used that term. I've never added one through the cli, so I don't know for sure if it's like other Linux systems, or if it does different pools of users. That seems like a waste though if it's two different pools. However, it might be because if you look at the permissions of the files and folders of a share via Windows Explorer, you get some random strings of characters and numbers. -
@johnhooks said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
But you can have users on it that don't have access to any SMB shares, so those wouldn't be Samba users. Some can have access to only NFS shares or WebDAV.
Does the NAS make two different pools of users? If so I would call that SMB users, not Samba users. One is what it always is, one is an under the hood artifact. I realize it is semantics, but I think it gets important when we are talking about the very end user abstraction for which the NAS exists.
Ha I'm not trying to argue with you
I'm just explaining why I used that term. I've never added one through the cli, so I don't know for sure if it's like other Linux systems, or if it does different pools of users. That seems like a waste though if it's two different pools. However, it might be because if you look at the permissions of the files and folders of a share via Windows Explorer, you get some random strings of characters and numbers.But if it is a single pool, then not Samba users - Samba is just reading accounts from the NAS and provided them through the SMB interface. If you start thinking about Samba when talking NAS you'll have a hard time. Yeah, in this case, there is Linux, Samba, XFS and other known elements down there. But this is an appliance, don't try to crack it open, even just in talking about it, and thinking of it as a server with applications. The function of a NAS is to be a black box. It only is useful when thought of that way.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Because it costs more, uses more electric and wears out faster. It's not purely about money vs. speed in the terms of straight acquisition cost.
But wouldn't that good a good tradeoff in a NAS that is serving data?
I see what you mean (from your article) of an archive system.
-
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Because it costs more, uses more electric and wears out faster. It's not purely about money vs. speed in the terms of straight acquisition cost.
But wouldn't that good a good tradeoff in a NAS that is serving data?
Certainly not necessarily. Only a good tradeoff if the speed was to be useful.
-
You guys talk like Jedi masters.
