10 PC Office Data Storage Recommendations
-
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.
-
@BRRABill These are not the disks you are looking for.
-
-
Star Wars talk is appropriate today, right?
Not always the best, speed isn't. More learning to do I do.
-
@BRRABill said:
Star Wars talk is appropriate today, right?
Star Wars and Spaceballs talk is appropriate every day!
-
@dafyre
MUAHAhhahahahah
-
Note to self:
Star Wars/Spaceballs mentions are a good way to bump up the reply rate in one's thread. -
@BRRABill said:
I'm not even going to look at them. I'll talk to @Brett-at-ioSafe when he chmies in.
Okay, I'm chiming in now! How can I help?
-
@Brett-at-ioSafe said:
@BRRABill said:
I'm not even going to look at them. I'll talk to @Brett-at-ioSafe when he chmies in.
Okay, I'm chiming in now! How can I help?
@BRRABill was wondering what model would be suitable for his five to ten users' storage requirement.
-
@scottalanmiller @Brett-at-ioSafe
Exactly!
Also, did you say all the devices are basically the same, except for processor? I'd love to get my hands on a cheapo one to play with.
-
@BRRABill said:
Also, did you say all the devices are basically the same, except for processor? I'd love to get my hands on a cheapo one to play with.
Yes, the bigger ones have more disks, bigger procs, more memory. But the core OS from both vendors remains the same across their product lines. You can all features the same from top to bottom in the lineups. So getting the smallest ones for learning is all that you need. I have both vendors' products at home.
-
I also have Drobo gear, but they make little that would apply to this type of audience. They are really about large volume, low performance SAN primarily. They do have the Drobo 5N for those with very specific needs.
-
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller @Brett-at-ioSafe
Exactly!
Also, did you say all the devices are basically the same, except for processor? I'd love to get my hands on a cheapo one to play with.
It really depends on your requirements and how much data you have. The 214 provides up to 12 TB of raw capacity while the 1515+ provides up to 90 TB (when used with expansion units). The 1515+ also has quad LAN ports for failover/Link Aggregation and supports Synology High Availability/automatic failover.
