Home server or nas ?
- Thread starter colly
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,980
- Location
- Swindon
Entirely depends on what you are going to serve data to, and how much if it you have. Plus how important is the data, and how long your arms are and how deep your pockets are.
Mainly for home use document backup plex. Nothing exciting really but maybe more in the future. I have been using pc based server. But my stepson recently got a nas 8 bay and is recommending that I do the same.
Pockets aren't large really lol. But thought I'd ask.
I do use it while out at work ( litho printer work shifts ) so I can log in if there are issues at home.
Data I'm not a backup freak although I should really which is where the stepson says the nas would be better.
Pockets aren't large really lol. But thought I'd ask.
I do use it while out at work ( litho printer work shifts ) so I can log in if there are issues at home.
Data I'm not a backup freak although I should really which is where the stepson says the nas would be better.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 8,706
- Location
- Nottingham
Depends, if you want something which you can just put in a forget then get a NAS. If you want to fiddle all the time get a server.
If you want to run Plex server on it then make sure you get one which is (a) compatible and (b) has enough CPU grunt if you need Plex to transcode anything.
A NAS is likely to be more expensive than a HP Microserver but is a turnkey solution. Personally I have done both, I used to run several PC based servers for many years at home which worked well and allowed me to fiddle. Now I don't really have the time to do that so I run NASes.
If you want to run Plex server on it then make sure you get one which is (a) compatible and (b) has enough CPU grunt if you need Plex to transcode anything.
A NAS is likely to be more expensive than a HP Microserver but is a turnkey solution. Personally I have done both, I used to run several PC based servers for many years at home which worked well and allowed me to fiddle. Now I don't really have the time to do that so I run NASes.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 795
I've done both too, and it really depends - exactly as memyselfandi says.
A NAS is primarily designed to share files. Manufacturers then tend to have plugins available for common home requirements - bit torrent client, usenet, cloud backup, etc.
If you want it to do something and there is no plugin available, then it's basically tough luck.
They come at a price premium, but you basically insert disks and power it up.
A home server can be pretty much any OS you want, with any of the software available for your chosen platform. If you plan the hardware, you could put ESXi on there and use multiple OSes, depending on your tinkering requirements.
This comes at the cost of your own time to set it all up and maintain it - and the time to learn about all this stuff.
A NAS isn't inherently 'better' for backups than a server. If your files are not stored on the NAS or server, or are stored only there - you're still at the same risk.
Your stepson may be referring to RAID, this is some protection, but should never be considered a backup.
A well considered and planned home server can easily be setup with resilient RAID in place. By the same token, a NAS could be setup with RAID0 and put you at more risk than no RAID at all.
A NAS is primarily designed to share files. Manufacturers then tend to have plugins available for common home requirements - bit torrent client, usenet, cloud backup, etc.
If you want it to do something and there is no plugin available, then it's basically tough luck.
They come at a price premium, but you basically insert disks and power it up.
A home server can be pretty much any OS you want, with any of the software available for your chosen platform. If you plan the hardware, you could put ESXi on there and use multiple OSes, depending on your tinkering requirements.
This comes at the cost of your own time to set it all up and maintain it - and the time to learn about all this stuff.
A NAS isn't inherently 'better' for backups than a server. If your files are not stored on the NAS or server, or are stored only there - you're still at the same risk.
Your stepson may be referring to RAID, this is some protection, but should never be considered a backup.
A well considered and planned home server can easily be setup with resilient RAID in place. By the same token, a NAS could be setup with RAID0 and put you at more risk than no RAID at all.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 1,502
Home server.
I started with a synolgy NAS but when I needed to expand I changed to a home server. If space is not an issue then I would go home server every time. You can still run it as a NAS using FreeNAS or Expenology or similar. Or you can build a it to be a NAS and so much more.
I wouldn't pay the premium for a bespoke NAS again. Home server is much more fun too.
I started with a synolgy NAS but when I needed to expand I changed to a home server. If space is not an issue then I would go home server every time. You can still run it as a NAS using FreeNAS or Expenology or similar. Or you can build a it to be a NAS and so much more.
I wouldn't pay the premium for a bespoke NAS again. Home server is much more fun too.
