10 PC Office Data Storage Recommendations
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Unless you need server features
What would you qualify as a "server feature"?
-
@BRRABill said:
So far sounds like no one thinks Server 2012/2016 is an option here?
Cost would be outrageous for a company of this size. What would even bring them to the table, realistically? Spending $700 on licensing for what would amount to zero features is more money on software alone than the entire solution should cost.
-
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Unless you need server features
What would you qualify as a "server feature"?
Active Directory, email server, instant messaging, database, etc.
-
@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?
-
-
Synology (including ioSafe) and ReadyNAS both have AD Integration (useless in a group this small since you are below the AD threshold) and NTFS ACLs. Those are the "user" features.
-
Adding @Brett-at-ioSafe you can guess which vendor he is with.
-
@BRRABill said:
@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?
It will do Samba with users and permissions through its web gui.
-
@johnhooks said:
It will do Samba with users and permissions through its web gui.
Meaning SMB. Samba is the name of the underlying code but not relevant to the users of a NAS - that's just under the hood. It is an SMB server like Windows. It does the same SMB features that Windows would do.
-
@BRRABill said:
@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?
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.
-
@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?
-
@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.
-
Now pure hosted is a very valid approach too. It depends on the scenario, robustness of features desired, etc. Of course we expect any email, intranet and other features to be hosted. It is only the storage that we are discussing here.
Products like Google Apps include Google Drive. MS Office 365 includes One Drive for Business and SharePoint for storage. And you can build your own like ownCloud for cheap on services like Vultr. Plus there are third party products like ownCloud's own hosted server, DropBox, etc.
-
@BRRABill said:
Having never installed one of these things, how does it integrate with Windows, I guess is the question.
"Integrate with Windows" is a hard phrase to answer. They do SMB Share Security as designated by the SMB protocol specs and NTFS ACLs.
Answer this question: "How would a Windows server integrate with Windows." If you can answer that, I can help explain where a Synology would diverge from that, if at all. But since to me they are identical, I'm not sure how to describe one or the other.
-
@BRRABill said:
They'd have a Windows desktop logon, and then attach to a share, using the user account on the NAS?
Better than that, you can setup ... how to describe it... stealth folder backup (like folder redirection but data stays local and gets copied to NAS by a small application on the PC)
You can also setup plain old network shares and the permissions work just like the NTFS ones you're used to.
-
@BRRABill said:
They'd have a Windows desktop logon, and then attach to a share, using the user account on the NAS?
Same as attaching to any share, yes. This is just SMB that you are looking at.
-
@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!
-
@BRRABill said:
@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!
I have already answered that
SMB Shares and NTFS ACLs. -
Too many answers, I was having trouble keeping up. If I could mark "ANSWER" on both posts I would.
This seems VERY intruging. VERY.
-
Using a NAS (which size is purely determined by storage capacity and performance, not features) locally or all hosted (cloud, as it is often called incorrectly) are the only two standard answers for an environment like this. Those two cover effectively all use cases.
