|
Home > Archive > Data Storage > January 2006 > Buffalo Terrastation 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 |
Buffalo Terrastation NAS
|
|
| kurtis@latech.edu 2006-01-27, 9:07 pm |
| Hello, first time posting to this group. Forgive me if I'm in the
wrong area. 
We got a couple of Buffalo Terrastations for our network about 9 months
ago. Just wanted to let everyone know a couple of things about this
device and possibly open up a general discussion about the
Terrastation's capabilities.
First of all, better plan on hooking it up to Gigabit Ethernet. It
kind of gave us trouble when it was connected to a 100MB switch. By
trouble I mean dropping your connection whilst backing up your files.
Second, both of them arrived in decent looking boxes. Problem was all
the internal packaging was deystroyed and the Terrastation was flopping
around inside the box. The outside of the box looked fine. The
inside was messed up bad. The UPS guy, who I know well, gave me that
"It aint my fault look".
Third, the kernel does not offer SMB. So, any kind of imaging
transfers can not be done in DOS. Bad news for those of us who use
Deployment Server from Altiris and Embedded Bootworks.
The tech support has recently been moved from one coast to the other.
They were in California, now they are somewhere on the Atlantic side.
Still have not sold out to India and the pre-sales guy I spoke to said
they never would. Take that with a grain of salt.
The knowledge base and the documentation is decent but not great.
You can not get group permissions to work through the FTP protocol.
So, you have to resort to giving individual users permissions. Groups
work with the other methods just not with FTP. This is a known issue
and they are asking the programmers of the kernel to fix it. Of course
the programmers are in Japan,,,
This is a pretty cool device. Lots of storage cheap. Just remember it
is a NAS not a SAN.
Network Attached Storage = cheap, cool little device for SOHO or quicky
backups.
Storage Area Network = Expensive, does what it says it will do,
somewhere you can actually store users data and sleep at night.
I will keep on buying these because we have found a way to work around
the limitations and it does work. So, after tearing them up I will say
that I still like the little Terrastation. I mean after all you get a
terrabyte for less than a grand US.
These opinions are the sole property of the poster. They are not
representative of any known intelligence in the universe, probably
wrong and most assuredly biased because the author is still pissed off
about waiting on hold for tech support for a damn hour!
Comments Please.
| |
| Faeandar 2006-01-27, 9:07 pm |
| On 25 Jan 2006 06:48:56 -0800, kurtis@latech.edu wrote:
>
>This is a pretty cool device. Lots of storage cheap. Just remember it
>is a NAS not a SAN.
>Network Attached Storage = cheap, cool little device for SOHO or quicky
>backups.
>Storage Area Network = Expensive, does what it says it will do,
>somewhere you can actually store users data and sleep at night.
I know nothing about the device you are posting about but this little
statement is something I think should be addressed.
NAS can be tier1 just like SAN can be tier3. The reliability,
avialability, or performance (with some caveats) are not a function of
NAS v. SAN but rather the technology behind it.
~F
| |
| kurtis@latech.edu 2006-01-27, 9:07 pm |
| Yep, your right. I was just trying to let folks know that the less
expensive solutions might not do everything they want. Basically, you
get what you pay for. We still use our Terrastation. It's nice to
have almost a terrabyte just sitting there.
| |
|
| In article <1138284202.263354.282810@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
kurtis@latech.edu says...
> Yep, your right. I was just trying to let folks know that the less
> expensive solutions might not do everything they want. Basically, you
> get what you pay for. We still use our Terrastation. It's nice to
> have almost a terrabyte just sitting there.
>
>
Im also on the lookout for a 'little' nas box ... id narrowed down my
criteria to:-
Windows 2k active directory integration as we run a W2k native domain
and would want to use existing permissions/groups, etc without messing
around creating new ones. Id use some sync software to get the data to
the box with permissions intact, etc.
The next need is raid5 with easy replacement of dead drives if the need
arises, prefer uptime/reliability.
Gigabit ethernet.
Adequate cooling for the drives.
|
|
|
|
|