Posts made by BRRABill

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?????

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.

@MattSpeller said:

@BRRABill nope, I think we actually have 2x 415+ and 2x monster size one. Been a while since I shopped for them but I think they have a couple tiers. The ones we have are the fancy pants models.

I guess my real question is ... how do you pick from all the models? LOL.

I think @scottalanmiller said based on storage capacity performance.

I'm not even going to look at them. I'll talk to @Brett-at-ioSafe when he chmies in.

@MattSpeller said:

Synology DS412+ (cloudsync user's folders is niiiiiice)

Is there a particular reason you recommend that model? (Which has apparently been replaced by the DS415+.)

Too many answers, I was having trouble keeping up. If I could mark "ANSWER" on both posts I would.

This seems VERY intruging. VERY.

@MattSpeller said:

You can also setup plain old network shares and the permissions work just like the NTFS ones you're used to.

That's the answer to the question I having trouble writing!

@MattSpeller said:

The synology NAS's are actually rather impressive. I'm much more fond of having a server, but with these beasties being so good it's hard to justify all the extra expense and maintenance of a server.

Looking at the website, definitely looks interesting.

@scottalanmiller said:

What would you describe as "doing users?"

Yeah after I typed that I thought it needed clarification.

Having never installed one of these things, how does it integrate with Windows, I guess is the question.

They'd have a Windows desktop logon, and then attach to a share, using the user account on the NAS?

@scottalanmiller said:

Active Directory, email server, instant messaging, database, etc.

Right, yeah I don't think so, nope.

The NAS (like the Synology) can do users?

@scottalanmiller said:

Unless you need server features

What would you qualify as a "server feature"?

So far sounds like no one thinks Server 2012/2016 is an option here?

Fresh from my (non infamous???) backup thread, I bring you this new thread. The answers to this will be quite helpful, as I run into this kind of scenario all the time.

Very small office. Let's say 5-10 employees. They are all storing data on their individual desktops.

Obviously, shared storage would be a big upgrade in many ways. So how do we get there?

What would you recommend in this scenario?

New server box with Server 2012/2016?
NAS box?
All cloud based?

Once we get that down, we'll discuss backups, so please consider that we'll need to back this up in your recommendations.

Always the Linux and Android people piping up.

I can certainly say I have learned a lot of licensing and activation.

I previously thought they were the same.

Like say I backed up an OEM machine, and wanted to BMR it to a new machine. This will not activate. Now, I can call Microsoft and they may or may not give me a new activation key, but regardless, this is NOT a valid use of the original OEM license. The new machine needs its own license.

There's a good cheese place near me in Philly.

I've never been there myself, but they are quite famous. Infamous? Well known.

http://www.dibruno.com/cheese/

Do you feel like you've been feeding a baby bird?

Actually, I think I get it now.

Server 2012R2 by itself = regular server
Then you "install" Hyper-V
The "original regular" server becomes another VM on top of Hyper-V, but can technically be used for nothing.

@scottalanmiller said:

No, Microsoft makes it appear that way for some insane reason, but HyperV is a type 1 hypervisor and not a part of Windows nor can it run on Windows nor can VMs run on Windows. If you are running HyperV, it is installed to the bare metal and all VMs run on top of it. Always, no exceptions. The "role" is an installation method to get to that point and not the generally recommended one. But it is nothing but an installer, Windows is always a VM on top of HyperV.

OK, that is definitely going into a separate thread, because I don't know what you mean.

@MattSpeller said:

@BRRABill gently guffaws and wiggles mustache

Did you see (I am sure you have) his speech at the White House Correspondent's Dinner?

@scottalanmiller said:

OSes can't host VMs. I think you are confusing Server with HyperV.

I am considering Hyper-V a feature/role of a Server 2012 machine. Is that incorrect?

I install 2012, I enable Hyper-V. I create VMs.