or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › NAS or Server
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NAS or Server - Page 8

post #211 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

NAS boxes are starter options- and when you outgrow it your screwed.

Aside from NAS being very expensive, this is the main reason I'm leaning toward a server. My library is still pretty small but I have a lot of dvd's to rip yet, and from there everything will be much bigger (blu-ray) so I can see this getting up near 20 TB in the next few years. Here's my question: right now I have a quad core windows 7 box with a couple 2 TB data drives (os is on ssd) and will probably add a couple 3 TB drives over the next year. At that point I'd need to buy an expansion card to grow further, or I may decide to build a dedicated server. If I run flexraid now on my windows 7 installation, are there any gotchas when I want to move those drives to a dedicated server, possibly on whs? What about if I want to go to linux? What about a different software raid? Is it a bad idea, and I should just bite the bullet and build the dedicated server now?
post #212 of 251
One nice thing about NAS is its small size. Most are barely larger than the space it takes to house the drives. You'll be hard pressed to find a home-built server that comes close to the small foot print of a commercial NAS box. Also, some NAS boxes have expansion capabilties, and the expansion boxes are again barely larger than the space to house the drives.

Some higher end home office NAS boxes like those Intel processor based models made by Synology are full featured, with ready-to-install software for transcoding and streaming videos in realtime to IOS devices, VPN server for securely accessing your videos/pictures/etc from the Internet, plus chock full of other goodies. If you don't like to spend time tinkering with a home built server then NAS boxes are worth a look.
post #213 of 251
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Ivy bridge CPU - $40
http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?name=G1610BOX

+ something like this for simplicity

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16856119079

If you did not want the barebones h67 system you could go seperate components for a little more.


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811154087 $39
or

http://www.newegg.com/Special/ShellShocker.aspx?cm_sp=ShellShocker-_-11-237-026-_-02202013_3 $29

+
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157329

+ $25 stick of ram kit
Doesnt look like that cpu has onboard GPU.
post #214 of 251
Says who ?
post #215 of 251
Don't forget an SSD.
post #216 of 251
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Says who ?
I cant find anything showing it has onboard GPU anywhere. So unless it says it anywhere I have to assume it does not.
post #217 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by djtoodles View Post

I cant find anything showing it has onboard GPU anywhere. So unless it says it anywhere I have to assume it does not.

From Mfusick's link:

Graphics Base Frequency: 650 MHz
Graphics Max Dynamic Frequency: 1.05 GHz

http://ark.intel.com/products/71072/Intel-Celeron-Processor-G1610-2M-Cache-2_60-GHz

Look under graphics specifications.
post #218 of 251
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by macks View Post

From Mfusick's link:

Graphics Base Frequency: 650 MHz
Graphics Max Dynamic Frequency: 1.05 GHz

http://ark.intel.com/products/71072/Intel-Celeron-Processor-G1610-2M-Cache-2_60-GHz

Look under graphics specifications.
Nice! thanks for that. I should have looked at intels site. I was looking at vendors selling the cpu. And this should handle 1080P playback no problem? What about running a intense skin like aeon nox?
post #219 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by macks View Post

Don't forget an SSD.

He could just boot into XBMC directly from a USB stick.
post #220 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by djtoodles View Post

Nice! thanks for that. I should have looked at intels site. I was looking at vendors selling the cpu. And this should handle 1080P playback no problem? What about running a intense skin like aeon nox?

This is the newest Ivy Bridge chip. It's replacing the Sandy bridge CPU's like the G550/G530/G540 etc...

The GPU and performance relative to price is indeed a better solution than the other's IMO.

It can do 1080p or run any XBMC application without issue. I think you'd be very surprised how powerful that cheap lilttle CPU is. It can basically do anything... lol.

Aside from being a little weak for trancoding I don't think it has many drawbacks. I would not be surprised if it could trancode Plex even. It's really a nice little chip for under $40
post #221 of 251
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

This is the newest Ivy Bridge chip. It's replacing the Sandy bridge CPU's like the G550/G530/G540 etc...

The GPU and performance relative to price is indeed a better solution than the other's IMO.

It can do 1080p or run any XBMC application without issue. I think you'd be very surprised how powerful that cheap lilttle CPU is. It can basically do anything... lol.

Aside from being a little weak for trancoding I don't think it has many drawbacks. I would not be surprised if it could trancode Plex even. It's really a nice little chip for under $40
I have an old sata 300gb drive I can use for the OS. Since its only running network files for XBMC, maybe install spotify and foobar on the desktop. few youtube videos yenno basic stuff might be done from time to time. Pretty much XBMC only though.
post #222 of 251
Yup that would work fine. but you might like XMBC directly from USB stick better.
post #223 of 251
Just bought these two from Fry's yesterday without having to drive to Microcenter smile.gif

http://www.frys.com/product/7381124 Price-matched to $50

http://www.frys.com/product/7545196 Price-matched to $40

Got a $20 MIR on the motherboard, so it was $70+ tax biggrin.gif Adding it into a spare case with the extra 4GB stick of viper ddr3 1600 (from old slickdeal $12.50 - $25 for both already used the other)

Case was $40, they're going to be getting the Corsair builder cx430 that I've never been too fond of even though it was $25.

Best budget system ever - $147.50 w/o storage drives. Case is pretty low quality material, but you get what you pay for where budget cases are concerned
post #224 of 251
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer View Post

Just bought these two from Fry's yesterday without having to drive to Microcenter smile.gif

http://www.frys.com/product/7381124 Price-matched to $50

http://www.frys.com/product/7545196 Price-matched to $40

Got a $20 MIR on the motherboard, so it was $70+ tax biggrin.gif Adding it into a spare case with the extra 4GB stick of viper ddr3 1600 (from old slickdeal $12.50 - $25 for both already used the other)

Case was $40, they're going to be getting the Corsair builder cx430 that I've never been too fond of even though it was $25.

Best budget system ever - $147.50 w/o storage drives. Case is pretty low quality material, but you get what you pay for where budget cases are concerned

Damn thats a pretty good deal on mb + cpu. I might have to bite. The problem with the case is they are so expensive for a nice looking small form htpc style case.
post #225 of 251
I believe the final day for the twenty dollar mail in rebate is today
post #226 of 251
Thread Starter 
Anyone know where I can find a nice small case? I cannot seem to find a nice one. The Fractal node 304 seems to be the only small one I can find but it still is a bit too big. That and the damn case would be almost as much as everything else put together. I would rather spend a lot less on the case. either mtx or mitx is fine. Didnt really see anything on newegg.
post #227 of 251
I think this is a very worthwhile- if not a bit biased tongue.gifbiggrin.gif- thread, so I guess I'm reviving it a bit. I like the media/cpu side of the AVS: it is very much like the audio/speaker DIY side in many respects...both good and bad.

Myself, I ended up going the NAS route, specifically, the Synology 412+. I have nothing right now. And while it didn't take long for me to discover you can build a very capable CPU/server for $3-400, it also became apparent to me it would require a considerable increase in time, know-how, and execution- all of which come at a cost; for both the novice and expert alike.

In the end I looked at what I wanted to do: serve up my media to a couple different locales in my home. Clearly, either option would be up to the task, but one owned the double whammy of being less expensive AND more powerful...and yet I still went the other direction, lol. Why?

Well, it's already been answered here, but sometimes I think those that can AND do undersell the notion of plug and play/convenience. Every year I get older the value of the aforementioned become more and more valuable to me. Heck, enough so in this case I made a conscious decision to sacrifice a bit of performance AND pay more! What am I, freakin' nuts?! biggrin.giftongue.gif

Nope, I'm not nuts. I'm actually a fantastically sane guy who knows his limits...on multiple levels. First, to me, after I get done what I need to get done, where does the "extra" performance come in, anyway? It's the old headroom argument: if you're not using it, what value does it have? I'm basically looking for a reliable car that I'm going to drive to work everyday...I don't really care if its top speed is 100 or 200mph.

I know it's a bit different here because I don't have a crystal ball as to what the next ten years will bring, but who does? Seems to me that NAS' are no more or less vulnerable than DIY CPU's when it comes to the seemingly geometric increases in computer processing over just a matter of a couple of years and I think it's a safe bet that virtually ALL my options in 2013 will be either dinosaurs or limping along in 2017.

And then, if I'm going to have this thing for 4 years, what's another $300 anyway if it's doing what I want for the next four years and was easy to set up and maintain? To me, not much at all (and I prolly earn less than 75% on here, lol). On the other hand, I can see some here losing sleep over the same matter...and neither would be wrong. smile.gif For me, the idea that the resale of a commercial, well-respected NAS is prolly better than a DIY CPU I put together in my dining room held a bit of water too, but I could be wrong there, lol.

All this, and I still really do wonder about the real electricity costs between the two over a few years. I've seen some claims on this thread that don't even resemble what I've seen elsewhere re DIY CPUs, but I don't know enough to be sure, so please do not take offense. Still, the ~40 watts during operation and 15 during hibernation of the 412+ seem awfully tough to match, to me. I know I'm going to be paying for my electricity, so it's something I took into account, at least a bit.

Ok, rant over. I realize some have already spoke to what I'm getting at here...I would just caution everyone to NOT underestimate just what kind of premium some put on plug and play. Just as there is validity to wanting to squeeze every penny of performance out of a given design, there is real value in other methodologies.


Have a good one!

James
post #228 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

All this, and I still really do wonder about the real electricity costs between the two over a few years. I've seen some claims on this thread that don't even resemble what I've seen elsewhere re DIY CPUs, but I don't know enough to be sure, so please do not take offense. Still, the ~40 watts during operation and 15 during hibernation of the 412+ seem awfully tough to match, to me. I know I'm going to be paying for my electricity, so it's something I took into account, at least a bit

I also followed this thread before I ever posted here. It seems like too many are wanting to have/eat the cake

The 15W idle for synology and qnap boxes is a result of them running on ARM processors. The reality of an ARM processor is that it will not run SAB, transmission, plex, and XBMC very well. The high end intel synology boxes will, but they don't idle at 15W. SAB, transmission, plex will run on synology but peg the heck out of the ARM processor. You'll see 40W regularly, high speed SAB will be throttled by the CPU and it will keep your power consumption at 40W. A cheap G1610 would get right into that same territory, but finish all tasks way faster and idle down. A g1610 with disk spindown should idle at 30W or less, but some of the use cases in the thread seemed like the nas would be doing more than just sitting there serving files. For serving, ARM makes all kinds of sense. For video playback, transcoding, unraring, etc it should probably be avoided. It's a mythical power savings that will never be achieved but is constantly perpetuated

Plug this into a google search "plex synology playback site:forums.plexapp.com" without quotes
post #229 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4th-horseman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

All this, and I still really do wonder about the real electricity costs between the two over a few years. I've seen some claims on this thread that don't even resemble what I've seen elsewhere re DIY CPUs, but I don't know enough to be sure, so please do not take offense. Still, the ~40 watts during operation and 15 during hibernation of the 412+ seem awfully tough to match, to me. I know I'm going to be paying for my electricity, so it's something I took into account, at least a bit

I also followed this thread before I ever posted here. It seems like too many are wanting to have/eat the cake

The 15W idle for synology and qnap boxes is a result of them running on ARM processors. The reality of an ARM processor is that it will not run SAB, transmission, plex, and XBMC very well. The high end intel synology boxes will, but they don't idle at 15W. SAB, transmission, plex will run on synology but peg the heck out of the ARM processor. You'll see 40W regularly, high speed SAB will be throttled by the CPU and it will keep your power consumption at 40W. A cheap G1610 would get right into that same territory, but finish all tasks way faster and idle down. A g1610 with disk spindown should idle at 30W or less, but some of the use cases in the thread seemed like the nas would be doing more than just sitting there serving files. For serving, ARM makes all kinds of sense. For video playback, transcoding, unraring, etc it should probably be avoided. It's a mythical power savings that will never be achieved but is constantly perpetuated

Plug this into a google search "plex synology playback site:forums.plexapp.com" without quotes


Here:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=plex+synology+playback+site%3Aforums.plexapp.com

It's a good point you make because it looks like with the new Mediabrowser3 they have gone the route like PLEX where they have a server application that runs on the server - and a client application on the other end. As tech evolves this is likely the way things will go- and certainly there is more options and higher performance. I'm afraid if the HTPC arena continues to move that direction it's likely in a couple years that many NAS box owners might regret not having a server to run those awesome applications and provide those servers like transcoding, streaming, or remote online streaming etc... It's likely that with Smart TV's, Smart Phones, Tablets and all the new goodies that come out every day having a server to serve them all that can provide different appropriate resolutions to different devices will have some real benefit for many. Plus- it looks like DLNA and such is going to also be a big part of the future of streaming, and most NAS boxes today don't properly support it.

But then again you get back into the argument of NAS versus server. A NAS box isn't really a server. It is just network storage. Pretending it can, or should be able to do all those advanced functions seems silly. It's never going to be great. It's like taking a star highschool football player and pretending he can play in the NFL.
post #230 of 251
Sometimes the guys that are "biased" just are simply too geeky to appreciate the things noobs might appreciate. For instance- I totally dismiss the idea of unraid or a NAS box being simpler and more appliance like. I've build 6 real servers this year and I could do it in my sleep. It seems like every month another member of this forum is PM me to build them a server. I should open a business for it... lol. I make about $100 doing it and do it only because I like it- and I have a sickness that makes it fun for me.

It's really pretty simple to install an OS like WHS. It takes me 15 minutes and 4 clicks with my mouse. Flexraid takes another 10 minutes to set up. There is about 15 different places online with step by step guides that make it so easy even an idiot could do it flawlessly.

Perhaps what seems so simple, quick and easy to me seems like an impossible mountain to climb for others. I accept that. I can appreciate that. But honestly when I joined this forum I did not know anything about HTPC; I just have the self confidence to try. I always figured that if someone else was capable of doing something then why can't I do it too ??? With the internet- all the information you need is easily available.

Secondly- There is many who desire a lot more from a server. To me there is a difference between a NAS box and a server. A NAS box is a simple appliance that provided network attached storage. It's nothing more. If that is all you need then a NAS box makes perfect sense. But there is a million more things you can do with a "real server" that you can't do with a NAS box. So if you think you might want to do one, or more of those 1 million other things- then you probably are better off with a server (which doesn't cost more $)

Lastly- Performance is better with a server. Sky is the limit if your wallet isn't empty. You can make a super cheap server and you can make a super expensive server or anything in between.

For me- It's super cool to remote into my server on my second monitor and have a totally other machine to use. It's super handy when encoding - to have a couple machines to combine on the same task. It's cool having another machine to do one thing, and the other machine doing something else. I can run two instances of Mediacenter master- one on each machine and simultaneously manage the meta data on my 30TB media collection by having one machine do movies, and the other machine doing TV SHOWS. Having a server and decent performance on all my hardware limits the amount of time it takes me to to stuff. This frees up my personal time and reduces frustrations. I don't want to spend hours managing all my media. This has a value for those that would use it.

Plex or MediaBrowser3 server run way better on a server. My server can transcode 1080p on the fly and stream it at an appropriate resolution to my cell phone of tablet half way across the world. I watched a blu ray rip in Hawaii waiting for a plane delay coming back from my honeymoon. That is freaking half way across the world.

Not to mention my server will back up all my PC's and laptops- and offers hot swap of 24 HDD bays- and doesn't use much electricity at all. I am going to use it to automate my new theater build with overseer - and it can control my theater lighting, rope lighting, bar lighting... provide IP remote control options etc...

Honestly the sky is the limit - you can do so much with a real server that to think a simple NAS box or a OS on a USB stick box is the same thing is just silly. It's perfectly ok if someone decides that they don't need anything else a real server could do now or ever... and only desires basic NAS- and goes that route. Sounds like an intelligent plan that is appropriate for that person. But to pretend they are the same thing- or overvalue the myth of simplicity, promote the fallacy a server is hard to set up is doing others a disservice. It is no harder to build a server and set it up than any other PC, and you can buy preconfigured servers just like you can buy preconfigured PC's if your not up to the task.

Bottom line: A server is operating in a territory a NAS box can't go.
post #231 of 251
" But to pretend they are the same thing- or overvalue the myth of simplicity, promote the fallacy a server is hard to set up is doing others a disservice. It is no harder to build a server and set it up than any other PC, and you can buy preconfigured servers just like you can buy preconfigured PC's if your not up to the task."

I'm sorry but setting up and knocking down straw men doesn't really help in this dialog, I'm afraid.

The fact is no reasonable person is contending most of what you're asserting.

"Overvaluing the myth if simplicity."

Huh? Surely you're not suggesting all that goes into constructing, setting up and operating a DIY server is an equal to buying a synology-like NAS and populating it with drives?

Well maybe you are- you can never tell for sure in these parts.

I don't think anyone thinks these options are equal in most any regard...which has been pretty much bored out in this thread. The fact that people are PAYING you to do this speaks volumes, or at least it should to you.

Telling people what they should value- or worse- what they OVER value is pretty arrogant- consider someone telling you that you're foolish for spending the hours you do within your methodology- yeah, just as wrong.

As I said before, this is not unlike people telling others they're ("essentially" anyway, as few are cretinous enough do it anyway but clumsily clandestinely) crazy for spending $1500 on a subwoofer that doesn't perform as well as something thy could build for $900.

They either just don't get it or worse, again, feel it's their place to make value judgments on others. Either way, again, not cool.

I think we all understand a DIY server outperforms most NAS's and does it less expensively, most times.

Now, again, just understand- that's REALLY understand- we all have different goals and priorities.

In the end, I really care not to argue about it. By "bias" I simply meant there happened to be more people on this small thread representing one side a bit more vigorously than the other, it wasn't meant as a slight or to be particularly provocative. More viewpoints = more perspective, knowledge, and understanding.

At least it should anyway, lol.

Respectfully,
James
Edited by mastermaybe - 6/4/13 at 6:14pm
post #232 of 251
You've made some valid points and I can appreciate and even agree with many of them. I'm sorry if my post caused you an offense as certainly that was not my intention.

I just didn't read or see any place where you were taking any ownership at all of the fact your compromising or sacrificing performance or capability for the expense of simplicity at the same price points.

That's really the only point I was making. I am sorry if I did not translate that well enough. The bottom line is that for many people they simply don't want to comprimise or give up any performance or capabilities and spending more isn't an attractive option. For me- I seek for the most performance and the most capability for my given budget and I don't want to sacrifice any of it, and instead seek to maximize it all based on budget. I want to maximize value. Value for me is how well my server performs and what it can do relative to the cost. Value for you might be how easy it was to set up and save you personal time versus the cost. I see where we are different in the approach- and neither of us is right or wrong. Just different.

I didn't mean to say that it was as easy building a server as slapping drives into a NAS box because it isn't. I just mean to suggest that it's really not as hard as people think it is. Anyone that has build a PC can do it in an hour or so. Even if your a noob and never built a PC you can probably still pull it off. You just need to be willing to invest your personal time and effort to get it done- but for many the reward is in the accomplishment.

In the end the real debate comes down to - Is simple network storage all you need and are you willing to sacrifice capability and performance at the same price point for simplicity of set up and configuration ? If so.. You should get a NAS. If not.. you should look into a server. The real reason people build servers is because a NAS box won't do what they want properly. If you don't need a server at all there is little point in building one or owning one. Flip side, if you require a server's functionality there is little point in buying a NAS box that won't suffice or appropriately satisfy your needs. So the real solution, and the proper choice is going to come down to each individual and there is no right or wrong universal answer.

I appreciate your devils advocate viewpoint. I just don't agree a server is that hard to do- or that out of reach for people. There is a myth a server is overly complicated or very hard to do that isn't true. There is also a myth that a NAS box uses low power and server is an energy pig- and that isn't true either. The real matter to be considered is how will each person use it, what to they want, and what do they need. That is factors to consider when choosing a server or a NAS. Both are great; my point was a NAS isn't a server.
post #233 of 251
Again, just looking to learn here. I'm trying to better understand the real differences between a "server" and a "nas". At first glance it seems to me that they are much more similar than different, and it simply comes down to two things:

1. Some (ok, prolly MOST consumer) NAS' have limited or no possible expandability.

2. Their (NAS') CPU's are inferior to that of a DIY server.

Is there some other major distinction I'm missing? So basically if someone gets an expandable NAS with a high-end cpu they be in or approaching a DIY server, albeit at a considerable premium. (?)

In the end, either seem to be built to make files available across a network, correct? Where am I going wrong?

James
Edited by mastermaybe - 6/5/13 at 5:28am
post #234 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

Again, just looking to learn here. I'm trying to better understand the real differences between a "server" and a "nas". At first glance it seems to me that they are much more similar than different, and it simply comes down to two things:

1. Some (ok, prolly MOST consumer) NAS' have limited or no possible expandability.

2. Their (NAS') CPU's are inferior to that of a DIY server.

Is there some other major distinction I'm missing? So basically if someone gets an expandable NAS with a high-end cpu they be in or approaching a DIY server, albeit at a considerable premium. (?)

In the end, either seem to be built to make files available across a network, correct? Where am I going wrong?

In the beginning pages of this thread the OP seemed to want a NAS even though (I think) they had zero problems building a server, because they wanted the low idle power. A typical consumer nas is built on an ARM platform, and a DIY server will be built on Atom, Celeron, core i3, or AMD, etc. None of todays DIY options will ever idle as low as ARM. Maybe in a few years, but current tech will not do that without some "extreme" mods to the motherboard and power supplies. On the flipside, none of the Qnap, Synology, Drobo ARM solutions will handily run Plex+SAB+Transmission. The current day trade-off is that if you want to run those 3 apps constantly with good performance you need a x86_64 based NAS or a server, so forget the 15W idle. Also if you are doing those things all the time, you'll peg any ARM based NAS for it's full draw (and take longer to complete) instead of the nice 15W number. Seemingly, people want both, but it's just not in the cards *today*

The cheaper server route can idle down to 30W without much fuss, and it can chew through all of those tasks without bumping over 60W. It will also finish several things quicker in SAB/Transmission, so essentially it can use more power for a short time as opposed to a medium-high power draw for a longer extended period of time. Since you can't easily build an ARM server, you are still forced to buy a NAS if you want that low power draw. The only reason I mention all of this would be for those interested in that route to know the limits and tradeoffs. If you only serve files and plan to do nothing else, then it's perfect.
post #235 of 251
Ok; my understanding has been that since the synology 412 is Atom based it performs better than the cheaper NAS' with the ARMs...and can even run Plex.

Plex really isn't on my list anyway, but when we refer to DIY servers having the ability to do "other" things nas' cannot, is it largely relegated to transcoding?

James
post #236 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

Ok; my understanding has been that since the synology 412 is Atom based it performs better than the cheaper NAS' with the ARMs...and can even run Plex.

Plex really isn't on my list anyway, but when we refer to DIY servers having the ability to do "other" things nas' cannot, is it largely relegated to transcoding?

James

No. There is many functions of WHS that allow for lots of stuff a NAS can't do also. It's a combo of software and also better or more capable hardware.
post #237 of 251
I keep hearing/reading this but I'm not seeing much beyond increased CPU prowess/transcoding power. Care to give some examples or a link that makes it more clear? After reading awhile it seems higher end NAS' have evolved quite a bit in the last year or two with features and power that didn't exist a short time ago. Still behind in pure coy power though, no doubt. Read through some if the discussion here if you're bored, lol. http://lifehacker.com/5974253/do-you-run-a-home-server-or-nas

Edit: Never mind, I've read about a half-dozen threads on multiple forums about the matter and my mind hasn't changed much- for what I want anyway. The nice thing is it appears my 412 can always serve me down the road if I choose to go another direction.

Thanks!

James
Edited by mastermaybe - 6/5/13 at 6:25pm
post #238 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

No. There is many functions of WHS that allow for lots of stuff a NAS can't do also. It's a combo of software and also better or more capable hardware.

Mfusick, ESXi really would be right up your alley.
post #239 of 251
WHS has automatated backup integrated as one of it's core features and it works pretty well.

You can also do remote desktop and offload work to your server to allow dual machines to attack something like encoding much quicker.

You can easily set up a website, and remote web access so you can access your server and it's files when your away from home.

The list really could go on and on...
post #240 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy_Steb View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

No. There is many functions of WHS that allow for lots of stuff a NAS can't do also. It's a combo of software and also better or more capable hardware.

Mfusick, ESXi really would be right up your alley.

I know. It's been on my to do list for a while. After I upgrade my server chip from my $60 3.0ghz G860 Sandy to a real server chip. I almost did it today... but in the end the Z87 and 4770k got me smile.gif

What makes you say this? And what specifically do you think I would enjoy ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Home Theater Computers
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › NAS or Server