Build a Windows NAS or keep my dedicated NAS?

Schizophonic · 19 Jun 2011 at 16:25

Currently my Buffalo Linkstation is coming up to its limit in terms of storage. I can add an additional USB hard drive but I want to explore this alternative option.

The Buffalo NAS drive is only really used for Network storage used between me and my house mates on a GB network. I don't use it much else like an BT client, FTP or any other services

I've got a Dell SFF GX620 with an 80GB hard drive with an Intel Duo Core and was thinking of using that as NAS drive. Question is - would it be more useful than my NAS?

The only positive side of using a dedicated PC like the Dell is:

Itunes server
Squeezebox service (currently have to switch on my PC for this)
Dedicated BT client

Also I can choose to expand the hard drive as bigger and faster drives comes about.

My only concern is the power consumption, will it be much more than my Buffalo NAS drive? What else would the Dell come into use if I had to use it as a media device?

theheyes · 19 Jun 2011 at 19:24

The PC will consume a lot more power than the Linkstation, and the benefits you listed can be run on some of the newer NAS boxes.

Schizophonic · 19 Jun 2011 at 21:40

theheyes said:
The PC will consume a lot more power than the Linkstation, and the benefits you listed can be run on some of the newer NAS boxes.

The thing is, it will cost me more money now if i want to buy a new NAS drive. If there anyway I can calculate the electricty used when either devices are plugged in?

lsg1r · 19 Jun 2011 at 22:54

Schizophonic said:
The only positive side of using a dedicated PC like the Dell is:

Itunes server

Squeezebox service (currently have to switch on my PC for this)

Dedicated BT client

My synology can do all that now (needs a plugin for squeezebox iirc) and that's years old, pretty much all decent nas's can do it now though.

Some buffalo nas's also have access to alternative firmware from people other than buffalo.

geon106 · 25 Jun 2011 at 17:59

For file sharing i've brought a cheap computer from ebay for £40, it has SATA and 4 slots for hard drives. The reason i suggest this as a method is because although it overall costs the same as a NAS drive(say £40 for computer and say £50 for 1TB hard drive so £90 total) but it has lots of room for expansion. Most NAS drives i've seen only have space for 2 drives. Plus using a computer as a server it can do other tasks too. I use Windows Server 2003 and Tversity

hawker1986 · 25 Jun 2011 at 18:15

I went down the PC route after a long debate with myself. I do have access to WHS though which is very good IMO, as I type this im migrating my data to WHS2011. The reason I got the PC is that its got more expandability than a NAS and a familiar interface and easily manages my home backups as well as file sharing. A 4-6 bay NAS would have been much more expensive. Mine costs very little to run with the low power HDDs and a 45W CPU. It and my router etc use <70W at the wall loaded and <50W idle, and its off while im out of the house using <10W. Works out v cheap. Admittedly im not sure what the power usage of the Intel system you have would be. You can get a watt meter from various places for like £15.

Hawker