Network attached storage?

Just build one, prebuilt are stupidly overpriced.

FreeNAS is the way to go. Just be sure to buy a 2GB USB3 flash drive for the OS to be on.

Well damn, I'm late for cyber Monday, but I'm going to spend the next year organizing my files anyway, kek

File: Microserver-06.jpg (457KB, 1603x1125px) Image search: [Google]

457KB, 1603x1125px

What's your storage requirements roughly?
Depending on what you're storing you might be better off with external drives.

If storing several TBs then roughly how much? Assume 4TB to be the maximum individual drive size you will fit in each bay (I know larger exists but just for now say 4TB) then take whatever size you came up with and cut it in half to account for RAID (you do want redundancy right?)

So for example 2-bay NAS ($80 start) is 2x4TB drives with 4TB useable
4-bay NAS ($210 start) is 4x4TB drives with 8TB useable.

Also consider if you want to do more with the system, e.g. streaming media or other server tasks in which case you might be better off with a Mini-ITX custom build or a Microserver.

For myself I have a Microserver with 1x250GB and 2x4TB drives (1 spare bay to fill later).
I use it as an ESXi host with VMs for Fileserver, Firewall, Domain Controller, WSUS and Deployment Tools

>>45413247
One or two drive NAS all almost cost the same.

And from three-four drive NAS onwards they're typically rip-offs and you're better off building your own, overall.

You can reach almost the same power consumption levels and more performance than 4 drive small enterprise NAS, quite easily.

>>45413691
>Depending on what you're storing you might be better off with external drives.
I wouldn't recommend that for "backup images of computers and phones".

External drives won't be connected to the device very often.

For most people daily or even weekly backups are out of the question when they have to attach the drive and then run it themselves... you'll end up with like bi-monthly to half-yearly or even yearly backups.

And that's typically quite worthless and problematic in a recovery situation (did I have this already backed up and where is it - fuck I recall I backed it up, didn't I...? maybe the old drive? ugh!)...

>>45413752
Depends how many devices. Lets say you only have two desktops to backup.
Bung a 1TB external in the back, schedule a backup each night and forget about it.

But I agree if the external is getting used for other things then it's harder to track.
Really we need more details on the environment to provide a more solid answer

>>45413785
OP mentioned computers and phones, so I'd expect multiple devices.

So you should probably use networked backup storage.

You could use someone's storage service or your own storage, but networked storage will typically work best by far.

>>45413691
>larger exists
And you don't want to use them.
More than 2 platters increases risk of damage, especially if you have these in a NAS where the vibrations from the drives compound one another.
2TB is generally as large as 2 platters is going to get for now

>>45413247
I'm currently using a raspi with owncloud and external 3 TB hard drive. works well for serving downloaded stuff, although i couldn't get the music streaming to work.

I currently have a cheapass D-Link DNS-320L 2 bay NAS. It's connected via ethernet to my router. Serves as media storage for the house. There's two 3TB drives in there, and they're going to run out of space in about half a year, maybe.

Anyway, I'm not in the mood or position to fork out money to upgrade to 2 x 4TB. I'm also worried that because the D-Link NAS runs Linux and has the drives formatted in ext2? that should the NAS fail, it'd be a pain in the ass to get my files back easily (Linux liveCD followed by many hours of data retrieval). I'm not using the NAS for backup, it's merely central media storage.

Anyway.. I think there are three options I can go with:

1. Upgrade to a 4 bay NAS. Not keen on buying new, I saw some craigslist ads for a used 4 bay Netgear ReadyNAS V1, could be good.

2. Fiddle with alternative firmware? I saw that there's an alternate firmware called "alt-f" for D-Link NAS models. I've played around with Android ROMs and shit, but this looks like it's way out of my league and is too early in development to be reliable and stable (at least the community is there and they're actively working on fixes for my model). Still, it supports NTFS, which means if it does work, I could begin converting my NAS drives over to NTFS now. In the event that the NAS hardware dies, I can slot the drives into my desktop and start using them again right away.

3. Homemade NAS. I have a HTPC in the living room I could turn into a NAS server, it can hold up to six drives and possibly more with bay adaptors. I also have a bunch of smaller capacity drives (2x2TB, 2x3TB, and a few under 1TB) that I could use. Problem is, it's an HTPC and it's required to run Windows, so I can't have it switched over to something like FreeNAS running 24/7. Is simply running Windows and having it share drives over wifi/powerline good enough? Anyone have issues with something like that?

>>45413895
Every time I see NAS get mentioned by non-business owners I just wonder at the stupidity of people.

What does /g/ think about dedicating a computer to storage(and only storage) and running all other services on other devices?
Nothing has direct access to the storage device, everything has to to through some low-powered device first.
For example: raspberry pi for a torrent client that downloads shit

>>45413917
Ehh, they're marketed as such. Blame not the consumer confused by incorrect terminology, but the marketers that perpetuate it.

>>45413922
> Nothing has direct access to the storage device, everything has to to through some low-powered device first.
Weird. No, If anything, you should make your storage device itself fairly low power consumption, because it will run 24/7...

> For example: raspberry pi for a torrent client that downloads shit
That's not quite only storage. It's also torrent client/server functionality.

You might as well also add UpNp with transcoding for the media files, a web server, and what not... if you need it.

>>45413917
Private users with multiple computers (family's, your own, doesn't matter...) that need to deposit backups or share data (be it media or documents or something else) somewhere have just as much use for a NAS as businesses do.

>>45413975
>Private users with multiple computers (family's, your own, doesn't matter...) that need to deposit backups or share data (be it media or documents or something else) somewhere have just as much use for a NAS as businesses do.

They can use local FTP for the same purpose
No one, not even most small businesses need something as extreme as NAS

>>45414027
>They can use local FTP for the same purpose
Eh, that one is running on a NAS, too?

> as extreme as NAS
... extreme?

NAS are just (usually small, not so power-hungry, 24/7 powered) storage computers attached to a network that run a bunch of network protocols to make their storage accessible over the network.

Nothing is extreme about this.

NAS does not imply iSCSI in an optical high-speed network, even though some companies may do that if they need to.

>>45414027
>They can use local FTP for the same purpose
Are you 'aving a giggle mate?
Which of their devices do you supposed is running this FTP server?

>>45414027
the fuck is the difference between that and NAS?

it's still the same thing, a hard drive in an enclosure connected to network

>>45414081
anything with a post-1995 cpu can run a FTP server you stupid cunt

>>45414027
>NAS
>extreme

Are you from the 1960's?

>>45414102
...and this thing with storage in it which is attached to the network *wouldn't* be Network Attached Storage somehow?

>>45414102
What a NAS is:
>a computer attached to a network, running 1 or more services
What you're describing:
>a computer attached to a network, running 1 or more services

Do you have a special case of the retard perhaps?

>>45414123
exactly my fucking point, why do you need something specific when all computers can do that shit anyway?

>>45413895
Third option could probably work and would certainly be adequate for a home user.

In Windows you can use Mirrored volumes as a kind of 'software RAID' so you could duplicate the files over the 2x1TB and 2x2TB disks and either disk on it's own is readable by Windows if the HTPC or one drive in the mirror should fail

>>45414130
>exactly my fucking point

No one here has any idea what you think your point is.

You're saying no one needs a NAS, and then describing something that is a NAS and saying they should use that instead.

In fact now I'm certain you have no fucking idea what a NAS is, and possibly think that they're magic boxes with live pixies inside them.

>>45414127
Are you new here perhaps?
A NAS is different to a computer with FTP. People go out and buy these fucking things specifically because they probably think there's some niggerjew magic in there that helps their files move faster. You fucking idiot. It must be retard hour on /g/, because you fuckwits sure are coming out of the woodwork.

>>45414130
You can use any computer and convert it to a NAS.
The point is that it's a central storage method that's always available.

Maybe he's getting a NAS mixed up with a SAN or Disk Arrays which are much more specialized in their user base

>>45414141
no that's what morons like the guy who originally mentioned his NAS box think
this is basically what I think >>45414141
in case you weren't aware, dumbfuck, people go out and buy specific NAS boxes for a task that can be done by any computer, i.e. storing files

>>45414141
The niggerjew magic in these devices is the ease of use.
Nobody is claiming faster speeds.
/g/entoomen probably build their own NAS systems or re-purpose old stuff
Are you fucking drunk or something?

For example the people looking for niggerjew boxes usually end up buying a piece of crap like this

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Synology-DS212J-DiskStation-Bay-Desktop/dp/B005YW7OLM

Now fucking tell me it doesn't exists

>>45414152
No you fucking moron

He even mentioned the one he bought
>D-Link DNS-320L 2 bay NAS

>>45414141
>People go out and buy these fucking things specifically because they probably think there's some niggerjew magic in there that helps their files move faster.

Or, you know, because they're small form factor low power devices with a bunch of (possibly hotswap & hardware RAID) 3.5" drive bays that are specifically designed to be used as a NAS device.

But no it must be because they're morons because you say so because reasons.

>>45414152
>the ease of use.
yes setting up a FTP server is so hard, right
gtfo /g/, what are even doing here? you should be at starbucks right now with your macbook you fucking tool.

Purpose-built NAS devices have a number of features meant to distinguish them from just a Desktop PC with some hard drives.
Now most of these features can be added to the Desktop but require additional expansion cards:

>RAID configurations (most desktops would only support 0, 1 and maybe 5)
>Health monitoring (requires 3rd party software to replicate on PC)
>Multiple network interfaces (server-class motherboard or PCI NIC for desktop)
>Hot-swappable drives
>iSCSI, NFS and other file sharing protocols (available on desktop but less intuitive)
>One-click copy to USB

>>45414169
That's still a NAS. They really aren't that bad compared to DIY NAS devices.
The software used is really good and free as in freedom in the case of Synology(yes really you pleb)
>>45414176
Explain a retard how to set up and stream his movies from an FTP server.
I fucking dare you

>>45414159
That shitbox is pretty good at what it does.

>>45414204
>Explain a retard how to set up and stream his movies from an FTP server.
If a retard asked me, I would. If he didn't understand I'd tell him to fucking google it like I had to. Problem solved.

>>45414233
This is why you're a NEET

>>45414239
so are you, bitch

>>45414252
Sorry, I'm at work right now.

>Stream movies over FTP
Ok this is making my brain hurt

FTP is for uploading/downloading files on a remote server. If the server is on your local network then just use local file share protocols like NFS or the Windows equivalent (samba?)

For streaming of media from the storage server you need a media server component like Plex, XBMC Server or hell even the Digital Media Services in Windows Server Essentials

>>45414275
Yes but using a media server is analogous to using FTP. It's a service/server you run from a host to client and let's the client access a file(movie). Same fucking thing.

>>45414292
>media server is analogous to using FTP
No.

>>45414292
A Media server does the decoding work and streams the media to the client (think YouTube)

A File server would simply move the file to the client machine and leaves it up to the user to work out how to play it.

Both have different use cases.

>>45414275
>>45414308

not even him, but you're retarded, you're acting like downloading something over a local network and downloading something over the internet are 2 completely different things that need 2 different protocols, they're not, ftp is not only fine for this but actually optimal

>>45414308
it is you stupid fuck
get a dictionary and learn what analogous means because i can smell your 3rd world stink from here

>>45414330
FTP is a protocol that "streams" the data in a serial way (from start to finish, no fetching shit in the mid-section of the file)
This makes it unsuitable for what most people use a NAS for.
A media server does so much more.

>>45414317

ok, at this point you must be trolling, I mean do you actually think that youtube somehow "decodes" the video before sending it to you... I mean it doesn't even make sense, I guess i've fallen for the bait now

>>45414353
lel no, that is just how retarded they are
they think youtube is a magical niggerjew who is re-encoding each file as they send it over the mystical power of the innurnet

>>45414359
>>45414353
Do you honestly think Youtube works on FTP?

>>45414380
do you honestly think they decode something when they send it to you? wow you are maximum fucking retarded, even by /g/'s recently-low standards

>>45414380

noone ever claimed that..., it works over http though, according to your argument http would be perfect for a NAS then

>>45414353
>>45414390
Apologies YouTube was probably a bad example.
There is a reason the RTP protocol exists though I'm not sure if it is still in use or was superseded

>>45414390
>>45414411
Shut the fuck up about Youtube
FTP is unsuitable for most people's needs
A file server is NOT analogous to FTP.
One is a SERVER, the other is PROTOCOL.

>>45414423
>Apologies
It's rare for an idiot on /g/ to apologize so I'll let you off this time

>>45414390
DLAN media servers can transcode though.

>>45414450
>DLAN

DLNA, even.

File: ayyy.jpg (47KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 499x499px

>>45414433
check out this fuckwit

>>45414510
epic
Too much competition in /v/?