I am trying to think through options for a mission-critical office
requiring a storage server.

What are the differences and pros/cons of a computer/server vs. a
freestanding NAS network accessible storage device?  Assume either one
will have a RAID 1 mirroring configuration.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

A server you have to buy an operating system, maintain software
patches, worry about security holes, maintain the OS which may or may
not have advances volume management capabilities.

NAS is up and running in minutes, dedicated system for file serving,
maximum flexibility for volume management.

richardkaplan2@gmail.com wrote:
> I am trying to think through options for a mission-critical office
> requiring a storage server.
>
> What are the differences and pros/cons of a computer/server vs. a
> freestanding NAS network accessible storage device?  Assume either one
> will have a RAID 1 mirroring configuration.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

I'd agree with everything the last poster said.  In addition, I'd add
that most real NAS systems have stripped out everything in the OS not
needed for file sharing, resulting in much higher performance.

NAS excels in ease of management and performance.  I'd take an actual
NAS box over a general purpose server any day.

If you want to spend $20-30 to learn more on the subject, my book
(Using SANs and NAS) is available:
http://www.amazon.com/Using-SANs-NA...n/dp/0596001533

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Stunster wrote:
> A server you have to buy an operating system, maintain software
> patches, worry about security holes, maintain the OS which may or may
> not have advances volume management capabilities.

> NAS is up and running in minutes, dedicated system for file serving,
> maximum flexibility for volume management.

Thanks... so what are the advantages of a server?

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Stunster wrote:
> A server you have to buy an operating system, maintain software
> patches, worry about security holes, maintain the OS which may or may
> not have advances volume management capabilities.

> NAS is up and running in minutes, dedicated system for file serving,
> maximum flexibility for volume management.

Thanks... so what are the advantages of a server?

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

The only one that comes to mind is that a server MAY be less expensive to
acquire.  However, if you consider the TCO of both, I think even a low-end
NAS system would win out.

On 4 Sep 2006 09:21:20 -0700, richardkaplan2@gmail.com <
richardkaplan2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Stunster wrote: 
> 
>
> Thanks... so what are the advantages of a server?
>
>  ________________________________________
_______
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe to this mailing list here:
>
> [url]http://backupcentral.com/mailman/listinfo/comp.arch.storage_backupcentral.com[/u
rl]
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"Stunster" <dgholt@gmail.com> writes:
> A server you have to buy an operating system, maintain software
> patches, worry about security holes, maintain the OS which may or may
> not have advances volume management capabilities.
>
> NAS is up and running in minutes, dedicated system for file serving,
> maximum flexibility for volume management.

What makes you think an NAS doesn't also need patches and have
security holes?

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Hi,

I think with an SAN/NAS-attached storage You have the following
advantages:

- scalability: The storage can grow far more than a direct attached
disk-storage
- availability/disaster-recovery: If You organize Your data well, You
can mount the remote-storage by another server and contitue Your business.


tbase [ruediger]
http://www.uname-a.net

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

<richardkaplan2@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157386880.776216.15130@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> Stunster wrote: 
> 
>
> Thanks... so what are the advantages of a server?
>
Usually general purpose hardware, making it easy and cheap to expand with
newer network cards, storage hardware etc. A server can also be used to run
other services and applications besides file serving

Rob

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On 3 Sep 2006 21:32:46 -0700, "W. Curtis Preston"
<backupmeister@gmail.com> wrote:

>I'd agree with everything the last poster said.  In addition, I'd add
>that most real NAS systems have stripped out everything in the OS not
>needed for file sharing, resulting in much higher performance.
>
>NAS excels in ease of management and performance.  I'd take an actual
>NAS box over a general purpose server any day.
>
>If you want to spend $20-30 to learn more on the subject, my book
>(Using SANs and NAS) is available:
>http://www.amazon.com/Using-SANs-NA...n/dp/0596001533


NAS systems also have an OS (though it needs less maintenance
certainly), it has bugs that need fixing, patches to install, firmware
updates, etc.  I agree it's easier to manage than a full-service OS
but to say it doesn't need any of those things is misleading.

Also, depending on the NAS and the server I may very well choose a
server over the NAS.  If you're talking NetApp, then no, there's no
server I would choose over it.  But if we're talking a very low end
NAS I would much prefer to build a Solaris NAS server instead.

~F

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]