For network storage they can't be beat. Plus, this thing is barely bigger than the two raw drives themselves, requires no external devices, and is super quiet.

As to Green, they have no ill effects in this application whatsoever.

I've reused systems for decades and this is one of the best things I've ever done. YMMV

Not sure the points I tried to make in my post came across. This particular NAS rivals other NAS's in that it has powerful linux based software built-in that can do a whole lot of things. Here's a pretty good overview...

http://www.synology.com/us/products/dsm3.1beta/index.php

mlange - the key is "in this application."

I'm not sure what the application is! "Network storage" doesn't answer that question.

And Justin, what is your point? Which product on that page are you talking about? What are you using these silly things for?

I think we got your point(s).

It's not just a dumb RAID array. It comes with some software built in that allows you to do things like stream music and other files, automate backups, etc.

Most decent NAS devices offer similar functionality. It's all the rage now to build these more capable NAS devices that act a bit more like a dedicated server than just a dumb box of drives so, it's not all that special (or extra-competitively priced), in that regard.

But, you might have missed the point of some of our responses, which was:

It's still a pretty dumb box compared to just taking say, an old Dell Dimension 2400 (of which there are like, 50,000,000,000,000 available in the world, at about $100 - max - ferrinstance, I have four or five of them stacked up in my small company's computer room, right now...) that ALREADY has XP Pro on it (which can function just fine as a server for small LANs).

Or throwing FreeNAS, Ubuntu Apache, WHS or any other free or almost-free server packages on it.

Plus, you're keeping a bunch of lead, cadmium, etc. from going into a landfill somewhere.

Just buy a couple of cheap big drives, slap 'em in and you're there. And the resulting machine is not only cheaper (and better for the environment), but it can do WAAAAAAY more than any dedicated NAS can.


It's just a question of how much does any individual want to do, to save time, money or effort on their part.

Yes I know you can configure a PC to be a server. I've been running WHS for a few years now and it's OK. I think this NAS I'm talking about might actually be better. While not having the processing power, it's configured to do lots.

Mail Server
Web Server
File Server (with Mac OS X support)
Print Server
I-Tunes
DNLA Server
etc. etc.

There's some great stuff under the hood. As for saving the landfill you make a good point. But think about how much power is consumed by your server box vs. this NAS. I haven't done any calculations but considering it powers down and/or sleeps when not in use I think makes it a compelling choice to save on power.

I'm considering killing my WHS server box and going the NAS route.

How - or why do you need to - configure the slave machine as a server? Can't you just mount it from wherever else you want to access its drives?

I do understand the lure of dedicated boxes, of course. You could also use an old PC as a wi-fi router if you wanted to, but that's sort of unwieldy. Unlike Knife, however, I don't quite get the point of the NAS box.

What are you using it for, in other words? Why do you need RAID (something I hope to continue avoiding for my next 54 years!)?

Man, this is such an incredibly FUN topic!!!

I use mine as a drive host - a place to archive files. Raid 0 is used because in the event of a drive failure, all you do is slap in a replacement drive - the other disk rebuilds the necessary file images.

Simple.

I don't "configure" mine as a server, Nick. I just map/mount the drives, as you described. FTP will be a future use, too.

It's complete, the size of a tiny kid's shoebox, and it doesn't consume anything close to the power needed by any of my desktops. For less than $200 loaded it works for me.

Nick -

1.) A RAID 0 means having 2 drives in the same box that write the same data at the same time so you essentially have a backup drive in case one fails. Redundancy could really save your ass in the event a drive failed.

2.) The NAS has about the same functionality as a PC Server (arguable) and, in some ways, may be easier to configure and have more functionality

3.) Less power consumption - @$0.10/kwh (a guess) and 200w less than a PC (while the PC would otherwise be off), that would save you about $100/year plus any environmental benefits you want to add to the equation.

Thanks Justin.

Yes, I do know what RAID 0 is, but I prefer JBOD + incremental Time Machine back-ups + occasional SuperDuper mountable disk image back-up of my system drive, frozen in a working state and kept offline.

So now my question is why you need a server. Why not just network your machines like mlange is doing?

mlange, got it - archival. I'm not running a commercial facility, so that's not an issue for me; I have everything I've done in the last 20-odd years archived on my main machine.