|
Home > Archive > Data Storage > September 2004 > File Servers vs NAS?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
File Servers vs NAS?
|
|
|
| Hi all... another new person to the world of file servers.
Im looking into using an old computer, beefing it up a bit, and using it
for a home office storage unit. Also, Im looking into the 'home media
center' thing where wireless adapters that plug into stereos or tvs stream
data off of computers. And just recently I heard of network attached
storage. What is the difference between the two? Some of the devices I have
looked at for an mp3 device for a stereo require certain software be
installed (which I suppose means either a computer or a file server). One
will accept NAS. Is the real difference that file serves can run programs
and things other than hard drives, and NAS cannot?
Thanks
| |
| Faeandar 2004-08-22, 5:45 pm |
| On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:49:11 -0000, Theo <invalid@noemail.com> wrote:
>Hi all... another new person to the world of file servers.
>
>Im looking into using an old computer, beefing it up a bit, and using it
>for a home office storage unit. Also, Im looking into the 'home media
>center' thing where wireless adapters that plug into stereos or tvs stream
>data off of computers. And just recently I heard of network attached
>storage. What is the difference between the two? Some of the devices I have
>looked at for an mp3 device for a stereo require certain software be
>installed (which I suppose means either a computer or a file server). One
>will accept NAS. Is the real difference that file serves can run programs
>and things other than hard drives, and NAS cannot?
>
>Thanks
Depends on the NAS and file server. Unless you get a NAS appliance a
file server usually runs a windows or unix OS, so they too can run
applications all while serving files to clients over the network.
NAS is just the description and technology used for accessing files
over the network. It's not an application itself. If the server that
holds the files has an OS that can run apps then .....
If it has a proprietary OS designed to only do file sharing (NetApp or
BueArc come to mind) then no, you can't run other apps on it.
Heck, almost anything can be a file server and used as a NAS device.
All that's required is a network and the ability to give file access
to other users/hosts. My home PC acts as NAS since another computer
can access it.
~F
| |
| Will Dormann 2004-08-22, 5:45 pm |
| Theo wrote:
> Hi all... another new person to the world of file servers.
>
> Im looking into using an old computer, beefing it up a bit, and using it
> for a home office storage unit.
Look at my previous post in the thread "I want to build a 1.5TB storage
array for MythTV"
I used an old K6-III machine to build a 240GB RAID5 array, and it works
great. I can (and do) run other programs on it, too.
-WD
| |
|
| Faeandar <mr_castalot@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1ijci0ho2ccrh1o6jbbsralrfb58ja37vf@
4ax.com:
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:49:11 -0000, Theo <invalid@noemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Depends on the NAS and file server. Unless you get a NAS appliance a
> file server usually runs a windows or unix OS, so they too can run
> applications all while serving files to clients over the network.
>
> NAS is just the description and technology used for accessing files
> over the network. It's not an application itself. If the server that
> holds the files has an OS that can run apps then .....
> If it has a proprietary OS designed to only do file sharing (NetApp or
> BueArc come to mind) then no, you can't run other apps on it.
>
> Heck, almost anything can be a file server and used as a NAS device.
> All that's required is a network and the ability to give file access
> to other users/hosts. My home PC acts as NAS since another computer
> can access it.
>
> ~F
Ok thanks... it seems to be a matter of semantics, except for the ready-
to-go NAS devices I saw on newegg I think. So, an mp3box that would
require a small program to be installed and running on the storage machine
would not work with these plugandplay ones? Most have this requirement.
Also, for a first timer would a pentium 1 pc suffice? There is an old
compaq laying around, but the drive is small and it probably doesnt have
alot of memory or a network card. If I looked around I could probably pick
a newer one cheap someplace... if this would be more advisable.
| |
| Faeandar 2004-08-22, 5:45 pm |
| On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 01:30:34 -0000, Theo <invalid@noemail.com> wrote:
>Faeandar <mr_castalot@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:1ijci0ho2ccrh1o6jbbsralrfb58ja37vf@
4ax.com:
>
>
>Ok thanks... it seems to be a matter of semantics, except for the ready-
>to-go NAS devices I saw on newegg I think. So, an mp3box that would
>require a small program to be installed and running on the storage machine
>would not work with these plugandplay ones? Most have this requirement.
>
>Also, for a first timer would a pentium 1 pc suffice? There is an old
>compaq laying around, but the drive is small and it probably doesnt have
>alot of memory or a network card. If I looked around I could probably pick
>a newer one cheap someplace... if this would be more advisable.
Far more adviseable to get a new one if possible. For US$300 you can
get a pretty decent machine by any standard, 250 will get you a fully
funtional, NAS ready machine. If mp3's is your file share goal then
just load up your windows OS, put the mp3's on it, and share the
directory. After that any machine on your network will be able to
access it by simply typing \\servername\directoryname.
This is the mystery and magic that is NAS....
~F
| |
|
| I too build my own rack mountable 1U NAS storage unit for my
department. It costs less than $570 with 2 mirrored 160GB IDE
Harddisks. I use an Open-E NAS 2.0 Flash IDE Module. (It is a
self-boot NAS O.S. installed in a solid-state IDE module). A low-cost
1U rack server made by ColoMachine. It works great at ½ of the price
of a comparable commercial NAS unit.
Embedded NAS O.S.: <http://www.open-e.com>
1U Colomachine : <http://www.colomachine.com>
Will Dormann <wdormann@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message news:<KIudnb3xU8R_HrvcRVn-pA@comcast.com>...
> Theo wrote:
>
>
> Look at my previous post in the thread "I want to build a 1.5TB storage
> array for MythTV"
>
> I used an old K6-III machine to build a 240GB RAID5 array, and it works
> great. I can (and do) run other programs on it, too.
>
>
> -WD
| |
| Jesper Monsted 2004-08-23, 7:45 am |
| rchapman5@earthlink.net (RCman) wrote in
news:b3df2bd4.0408202312.26adb7e2@posting.google.com:
> I too build my own rack mountable 1U NAS storage unit for my
> department. It costs less than $570 with 2 mirrored 160GB IDE
> Harddisks. I use an Open-E NAS 2.0 Flash IDE Module. (It is a
> self-boot NAS O.S. installed in a solid-state IDE module). A low-cost
> 1U rack server made by ColoMachine. It works great at ½ of the price
> of a comparable commercial NAS unit.
Open-E NAS is quite expensive for a home unit like he's apparently trying
to build.
A freebsd, linux or windows server with samba or windows file sharing will
do fine for most, if not all, entry level systems.
--
/Jesper Monsted
| |
|
| Jesper Monsted <newsspam@rootweiler.dk.invalid> wrote in
news:Xns954E9F87588BBnewsspamrootweilerd
k@62.243.74.163:
> Open-E NAS is quite expensive for a home unit like he's apparently
> trying to build.
>
> A freebsd, linux or windows server with samba or windows file sharing
> will do fine for most, if not all, entry level systems.
Thats what its looking like, thanks. One thing I was hoping to avoid was
having another big box to have to find a place for. Has anyone tried those
adapters that have enthernet plug in one end (for the network) and USB
drives on the other for the storage?
| |
| Peter da Silva 2004-08-23, 5:45 pm |
| In article <Xns954E74E743DB4densnews123@216.168.3.44>,
Theo <invalid@noemail.com> wrote:
> Thats what its looking like, thanks. One thing I was hoping to avoid was
> having another big box to have to find a place for. Has anyone tried those
> adapters that have enthernet plug in one end (for the network) and USB
> drives on the other for the storage?
There was a long discussion on slashdot.org last week about one of them that
turned out to be a Linux box. The discussion was mainly on the "hackability"
of the box, but I was thinking that it sounded like a pretty useful little
gadget... and you can be sure that the people beating on the box will be
the first to shake loose any problems.
An unconventional way to do your research, perhaps, but probably worth looking
into.
http://www.tomsnetworking.com/Sections-article85.php
http://www.tomsnetworking.com/Sections-article86.php
http://www.batbox.org/nslu2-linux.html
--
I've seen things you people can't imagine. Chimneysweeps on fire over the roofs
of London. I've watched kite-strings glitter in the sun at Hyde Park Gate. All
these things will be lost in time, like chalk-paintings in the rain. `-_-'
Time for your nap. | Peter da Silva | Har du kramat din varg, idag? 'U`
| |
| Faeandar 2004-08-23, 5:45 pm |
| On 23 Aug 2004 13:41:00 GMT, Jesper Monsted
<newsspam@rootweiler.dk.invalid> wrote:
>rchapman5@earthlink.net (RCman) wrote in
>news:b3df2bd4.0408202312.26adb7e2@posting.google.com:
>
>
>Open-E NAS is quite expensive for a home unit like he's apparently trying
>to build.
>
>A freebsd, linux or windows server with samba or windows file sharing will
>do fine for most, if not all, entry level systems.
Might want to check out http://www.openfiler.org/
~F
| |
|
| peter@abbnm.com (Peter da Silva) wrote in
news:cgdg45$v9m$1@jeeves.eng.abbnm.com:
> I've seen things you people can't imagine. Chimneysweeps on fire over
> the roofs of London. I've watched kite-strings glitter in the sun at
> Hyde Park Gate. All these things will be lost in time, like
> chalk-paintings in the rain. `-_-' Time for your nap. | Peter da
> Silva | Har du kramat din varg, idag? 'U`
heh. even this unusual take on that ending sounded like Rutger Hauer
himself was saying it. :P
| |
|
| Faeandar <mr_castalot@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:51pki095vcg4sn2qsomb4m59h9i1pd90ae@
4ax.com:
> Might want to check out http://www.openfiler.org/
Looks interesting. From what I read it sounds like everything can be
handled remotely and the storage unit itself doesnt need a monitor or
keyboard... except when setting up linux for the first time.
| |
| Faeandar 2004-08-24, 2:51 am |
| On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 01:47:11 -0000, Theo <invalid@noemail.com> wrote:
>Faeandar <mr_castalot@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:51pki095vcg4sn2qsomb4m59h9i1pd90ae@
4ax.com:
>
>
>Looks interesting. From what I read it sounds like everything can be
>handled remotely and the storage unit itself doesnt need a monitor or
>keyboard... except when setting up linux for the first time.
Correct. It's a NetApp filer without some of the glitz and without
the price. Hard to beat free. And for what you want to accomplish it
seems ideal.
~F
| |
|
| Theo <invalid@noemail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns954E74E743DB4densnews123@216.168.3.44>...
> Jesper Monsted <newsspam@rootweiler.dk.invalid> wrote in
> news:Xns954E9F87588BBnewsspamrootweilerd
k@62.243.74.163:
>
>
> Thats what its looking like, thanks. One thing I was hoping to avoid was
> having another big box to have to find a place for. Has anyone tried those
> adapters that have enthernet plug in one end (for the network) and USB
> drives on the other for the storage?
Just got a Linksys NSLU2. After trying to build a low noise, low heat
PC (underclocked PII, 512MB & 2 X 160GB) for a file server, this seems
just the ticket. Although I had done everything I could think for
noise dampening, noise reduction and heat dissipation on the PII
system, I was never completely happy with the result - still too hot
and too many fans.
I took the two 160GB drives from the PII system and put them in USB
connected external enclosures. Since the power supplies for the drives
are external to the enclosures, there's not a lot of heat concentrated
anywhere - so no fans. A lot of power bricks lying around, but I can
deal with hiding those.
Quiet, cool, low power, and always on. Just what I wanted. As an
added bonus, the NSLU2 plus two drive enclosures was under $150
shipped to my door (obviously, drives are not included).
I really like the specialized servers. I have been running a little
ethernet print server for some time.
| |
|
| craigabennett@yahoo.com (Craig) wrote in
news:f609fdc4.0408241203.12565cba@posting.google.com:
> Quiet, cool, low power, and always on. Just what I wanted. As an
> added bonus, the NSLU2 plus two drive enclosures was under $150
> shipped to my door (obviously, drives are not included).
>
> I really like the specialized servers. I have been running a little
> ethernet print server for some time.
>
Is this the only company making similar devices at reasonable prices?
I saw this one last week and it looked interesting. But Im not so sure
about proprietary setups like disk format... or perhaps I am misreading
that. I know its linux but I would hope they would have included the parts
so older mac systems (8.x up) could work with it in addition to osx and
windows. Then again, it seems pretty inexpensive for what you get. I assume
to make the thing wireless another external device is needed.
| |
| John Willard 2004-08-24, 10:01 pm |
| So, how is the performance of Open-E NAS? Can it handle up to 50 users?
Was it based on SATA drives or PATA drives. I am too thinking about
building a NAS box for my office LAN.
JW
"RCman" <rchapman5@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:b3df2bd4.0408202312.26adb7e2@posting.google.com...
> I too build my own rack mountable 1U NAS storage unit for my
> department. It costs less than $570 with 2 mirrored 160GB IDE
> Harddisks. I use an Open-E NAS 2.0 Flash IDE Module. (It is a
> self-boot NAS O.S. installed in a solid-state IDE module). A low-cost
> 1U rack server made by ColoMachine. It works great at ½ of the price
> of a comparable commercial NAS unit.
>
> Embedded NAS O.S.: <http://www.open-e.com>
> 1U Colomachine : <http://www.colomachine.com>
>
| |
| Peter da Silva 2004-08-25, 5:45 pm |
| In article <1pgli0p8i74oeb8gbukfmdd8g02m4kci36@4ax.com>,
Faeandar <mr_castalot@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Correct. It's a NetApp filer without some of the glitz and without
> the price. Hard to beat free. And for what you want to accomplish it
> seems ideal.
It looks good, but is it really feature-comparable with Network Appliance?
Or does "without some of the glitz" mean "without features like snapshots
and snapmirror?"
--
I've seen things you people can't imagine. Chimneysweeps on fire over the roofs
of London. I've watched kite-strings glitter in the sun at Hyde Park Gate. All
these things will be lost in time, like chalk-paintings in the rain. `-_-'
Time for your nap. | Peter da Silva | Har du kramat din varg, idag? 'U`
| |
| Faeandar 2004-08-27, 5:46 pm |
| On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:23:27 +0000 (UTC), peter@abbnm.com (Peter da
Silva) wrote:
>In article <1pgli0p8i74oeb8gbukfmdd8g02m4kci36@4ax.com>,
>Faeandar <mr_castalot@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>It looks good, but is it really feature-comparable with Network Appliance?
>
>Or does "without some of the glitz" mean "without features like snapshots
>and snapmirror?"
Well you didn't read it then did you? It has snapshots though nothing
like NetApp's. It has volume migration and replication, though
nothing like NetApp's. It has quota management features, though not
quite like NetApp's.
In essence, it is an OpenFiler feature, though not like NetApp's.
It's free and open, so no it won't be feature comparable.
~F
| |
| Peter da Silva 2004-08-27, 5:46 pm |
| In article <uqbqi05l6d2a0i0l0448uv03h7tcutpnuv@4ax.com>,
Faeandar <mr_castalot@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In essence, it is an OpenFiler feature, though not like NetApp's.
So it's not a "Netapp, but free".
It may be better than a Netapp, or worse than a Netapp, but it's no more
a "Netapp, but free" than Linux is "Windows, but free".
--
I've seen things you people can't imagine. Chimneysweeps on fire over the roofs
of London. I've watched kite-strings glitter in the sun at Hyde Park Gate. All
these things will be lost in time, like chalk-paintings in the rain. `-_-'
Time for your nap. | Peter da Silva | Har du kramat din varg, idag? 'U`
| |
|
| Theo <invalid@noemail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns954FA5376EBDFdensnews123@216.168.3.44>...
> craigabennett@yahoo.com (Craig) wrote in
> news:f609fdc4.0408241203.12565cba@posting.google.com:
>
>
> Is this the only company making similar devices at reasonable prices?
>
> I saw this one last week and it looked interesting. But Im not so sure
> about proprietary setups like disk format... or perhaps I am misreading
> that. I know its linux but I would hope they would have included the parts
> so older mac systems (8.x up) could work with it in addition to osx and
> windows. Then again, it seems pretty inexpensive for what you get. I assume
> to make the thing wireless another external device is needed.
I actually run Linux on a couple of machines at home, so having the
drive running the EXT3 filesystem wasn't an issue for me. The EXT3
filesystem is a really nice high-performance file system with a
Journal for fast access and fast recovery in case of accidental power
downs, power hits, etc. For an overview of EXT3:
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.ph...22-004-20-NW-RH and
for the gory details:
http://olstrans.sourceforge.net/rel...2000-ext3.html.
NetGear has a nice little Wireless Media Router, WGT634U, that a
co-worker has runnning in his house. A little more expensive, but it
supports Linux, NTFS, FAT16 and FAT32 filesystems, so it is a little
more flexible in the drives that you can attach. It also provides a
wireless connection (802.11b) so you don't need an access point.
In my particular case, I have a separate DSL router, access point,
print server and now a file server. I find it cheaper and easier to
upgrade the individual components and also a lot easier to relocate
individual components when I need to rather than having all of the
functions in a single box. Then again, I have computer equipment,
media players, and all sorts of other junk scattered throughout the
house, so I may not be the average case. All that is to say that the
NSLU2 is a file server and only a file server - only provides wired
connectivity to an Ethernet.
There are some small NAS devices that would be suitable for home use,
but I like being able to change out the drives and have the
adaptability of a file server. Other than Netgear, I'm not sure who
else is making small, inexpensive file servers, but I don't think I am
going out on a limb by predicting that there will be a bunch of new
products in this space very soon.
BTW. Both the NetGear and Linksys products allow you to access files
from other machines using CIFS (Samba) so Mac, WinTel and Linux
machines should all have no problem using the drives.
To be brutally honest, I like the Netgear product's flexibility and
configuration options better than the NSLU2 that I bought...but the
NSLU2 does everything I needed it to do and it's very cool (my wife,
who is not a geek, might dispute the coolness factor, but come on, I
have a Linux file server that literally fits in the palm of my hand).
| |
| Yura Pismerov 2004-09-08, 5:45 pm |
|
Craig,
Could you confirm that NSLU2 supports files larger than 2GB ?
Thanks in advance.
Craig wrote:
> Theo <invalid@noemail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns954FA5376EBDFdensnews123@216.168.3.44>...
>
>
> I actually run Linux on a couple of machines at home, so having the
> drive running the EXT3 filesystem wasn't an issue for me. The EXT3
> filesystem is a really nice high-performance file system with a
> Journal for fast access and fast recovery in case of accidental power
> downs, power hits, etc. For an overview of EXT3:
> http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.ph...22-004-20-NW-RH and
> for the gory details:
> http://olstrans.sourceforge.net/rel...2000-ext3.html.
>
> NetGear has a nice little Wireless Media Router, WGT634U, that a
> co-worker has runnning in his house. A little more expensive, but it
> supports Linux, NTFS, FAT16 and FAT32 filesystems, so it is a little
> more flexible in the drives that you can attach. It also provides a
> wireless connection (802.11b) so you don't need an access point.
>
> In my particular case, I have a separate DSL router, access point,
> print server and now a file server. I find it cheaper and easier to
> upgrade the individual components and also a lot easier to relocate
> individual components when I need to rather than having all of the
> functions in a single box. Then again, I have computer equipment,
> media players, and all sorts of other junk scattered throughout the
> house, so I may not be the average case. All that is to say that the
> NSLU2 is a file server and only a file server - only provides wired
> connectivity to an Ethernet.
>
> There are some small NAS devices that would be suitable for home use,
> but I like being able to change out the drives and have the
> adaptability of a file server. Other than Netgear, I'm not sure who
> else is making small, inexpensive file servers, but I don't think I am
> going out on a limb by predicting that there will be a bunch of new
> products in this space very soon.
>
> BTW. Both the NetGear and Linksys products allow you to access files
> from other machines using CIFS (Samba) so Mac, WinTel and Linux
> machines should all have no problem using the drives.
>
> To be brutally honest, I like the Netgear product's flexibility and
> configuration options better than the NSLU2 that I bought...but the
> NSLU2 does everything I needed it to do and it's very cool (my wife,
> who is not a geek, might dispute the coolness factor, but come on, I
> have a Linux file server that literally fits in the palm of my hand).
|
|
|
|
|