f



nas?

Anyone have a favorite Network Attached Storage (NAS) device?
Linux based would be good.
0
T
11/29/2016 7:23:44 AM
comp.os.linux.misc 33599 articles. 1 followers. amosa69 (78) is leader. Post Follow

15 Replies
720 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 55

On 11/29/2016 02:23 AM, T wrote:

> Anyone have a favorite Network Attached Storage (NAS) device?
> Linux based would be good.

Build your own using FreeNAS:

 > http://www.freenas.org/

Perce

0
Percival
11/29/2016 1:01:01 AM
On 29/11/16 07:23, T wrote:
> Anyone have a favorite Network Attached Storage (NAS) device?
> Linux based would be good.

Yeah. That ten your old box running XP at the moment that's too slow for 
a desktop, but has drive bays for 4x2TB drives...

I get them for between $0 and $100.....

-- 
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead 
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.
0
The
11/29/2016 10:24:14 AM
On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:24:14 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Yeah. That ten your old box running XP at the moment that's too slow for
> a desktop, but has drive bays for 4x2TB drives...
> 
> I get them for between $0 and $100.....

The real cost to watch is what you spend in electricity bills
with a dated and powerful (for the task) system, which isn't
a one time purchase and can be more than the cost of a new unit.


0
asdf
11/29/2016 9:46:08 PM
On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 23:23:44 -0800, T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Anyone have a favorite Network Attached Storage (NAS) device?
>Linux based would be good.

While FreeNAS is a good choice sometimes one simply wants a very
small, fully build NAS.   I recently installed a Seagate NAS2 in a
client  which absolutely loves it.  It is very small (about half the
size of a shoebox, it has two hot-swappable 2TB drives configured in a
RAID 1 (mirroed) mode, runs a Linux base as its operating system and
supports all NAS features.  It connects to the network (up to 1GBps)
and supports CIFS (SMB), NTFS and NFS.

The cost directly from Seagate was approx $300.  Well worth it.

Hopefully this helps
0
bobm3
11/30/2016 3:22:04 AM
On 29/11/16 21:46, asdf wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:24:14 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Yeah. That ten your old box running XP at the moment that's too slow for
>> a desktop, but has drive bays for 4x2TB drives...
>>
>> I get them for between $0 and $100.....
>
> The real cost to watch is what you spend in electricity bills
> with a dated and powerful (for the task) system, which isn't
> a one time purchase and can be more than the cost of a new unit.
>
>
Indeed. I even have a ATOM based board for that reason but I retired it 
as it was in a case with a screeching fan - the third fan, all ended 
screeching...:-(

BUT I am happy with what I now have. It probably warms the room 
slightly, which saves on oil, and by going all LED the electricity is a 
lot less.


-- 
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead 
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.
0
The
11/30/2016 6:16:53 AM
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:

> On 29/11/16 07:23, T wrote:
>> Anyone have a favorite Network Attached Storage (NAS) device?
>> Linux based would be good.
>
> Yeah. That ten your old box running XP at the moment that's too slow
> for a desktop, but has drive bays for 4x2TB drives...
>
> I get them for between $0 and $100.....

True. I built mine from cheap parts and stuff I had around:

- Awful mini-ITX case: $30.
- Motherboard including CPU: $60.
- Internal PSU (12-24VDC to ATX): $50.
- RAM: free from an old PC.
- Boot drive: free from an old laptop.
- External PSU: free from an old laptop.

Actual NAS drives are just two 1 TB drives in RAID 1 (Linux software
raid). Works great as a small file server, sharing over NFS and UPNP
(mediatomb). My occasional attempts to run a web browser or a VPN have
been fairly sad. Still, compared to my old Linux router from Buffalo
with a single 700 MHz CPU it's a screamer.

Anyways, I intend to put together something beefier with ECC RAM and
remote management. Low end Xeon CPU and small server board in other
words. Those things tend to cost somewhat more though.
0
Anssi
11/30/2016 9:59:35 AM
On 11/29/2016 07:22 PM, bobm3@worthless.info wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 23:23:44 -0800, T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Anyone have a favorite Network Attached Storage (NAS) device?
>> Linux based would be good.
>
> While FreeNAS is a good choice sometimes one simply wants a very
> small, fully build NAS.   I recently installed a Seagate NAS2 in a
> client  which absolutely loves it.  It is very small (about half the
> size of a shoebox, it has two hot-swappable 2TB drives configured in a
> RAID 1 (mirroed) mode, runs a Linux base as its operating system and
> supports all NAS features.  It connects to the network (up to 1GBps)
> and supports CIFS (SMB), NTFS and NFS.
>
> The cost directly from Seagate was approx $300.  Well worth it.
>
> Hopefully this helps
>

Thank you!
0
T
11/30/2016 10:20:04 PM
bobm3@worthless.info writes:

> On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 23:23:44 -0800, T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Anyone have a favorite Network Attached Storage (NAS) device?
>>Linux based would be good.
>
> While FreeNAS is a good choice sometimes one simply wants a very
> small, fully build NAS.   I recently installed a Seagate NAS2 in a
> client  which absolutely loves it.  It is very small (about half the
> size of a shoebox, it has two hot-swappable 2TB drives configured in a
> RAID 1 (mirroed) mode, runs a Linux base as its operating system and
> supports all NAS features.  It connects to the network (up to 1GBps)
> and supports CIFS (SMB), NTFS and NFS.
>
> The cost directly from Seagate was approx $300.  Well worth it.

Zyxel has a NAS product, and I think I read that it runs
Linux. iXsystems has some products as well, using FreeNAS, of course.

Synology makes some very nice NAS products, and I've been told they're
the best bang for the buck right now. You could also look at QNAP
products - I've heard some good things about them too.

We have a couple of NetGear NAS units where I work. I find them kind of
a pain to work on, but they seem to perform reasonably well, and they've
been reliable.

I'm going to replace my current storage system (a PC with a RAID
controller and multiple drives) with a newer and higher capacity system,
probably next summer, and Synology is what I've been thinking of
getting, if that helps.


0
Bud
12/1/2016 10:49:57 AM
On 12/01/2016 02:49 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
> bobm3@worthless.info writes:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 23:23:44 -0800, T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone have a favorite Network Attached Storage (NAS) device?
>>> Linux based would be good.
>>
>> While FreeNAS is a good choice sometimes one simply wants a very
>> small, fully build NAS.   I recently installed a Seagate NAS2 in a
>> client  which absolutely loves it.  It is very small (about half the
>> size of a shoebox, it has two hot-swappable 2TB drives configured in a
>> RAID 1 (mirroed) mode, runs a Linux base as its operating system and
>> supports all NAS features.  It connects to the network (up to 1GBps)
>> and supports CIFS (SMB), NTFS and NFS.
>>
>> The cost directly from Seagate was approx $300.  Well worth it.
>
> Zyxel has a NAS product, and I think I read that it runs
> Linux. iXsystems has some products as well, using FreeNAS, of course.
>
> Synology makes some very nice NAS products, and I've been told they're
> the best bang for the buck right now. You could also look at QNAP
> products - I've heard some good things about them too.
>
> We have a couple of NetGear NAS units where I work. I find them kind of
> a pain to work on, but they seem to perform reasonably well, and they've
> been reliable.
>
> I'm going to replace my current storage system (a PC with a RAID
> controller and multiple drives) with a newer and higher capacity system,
> probably next summer, and Synology is what I've been thinking of
> getting, if that helps.
>
>

Thank you!
0
T
12/1/2016 6:59:30 PM
* T <T@invalid.invalid>
| Anyone have a favorite Network Attached Storage (NAS) device?
| Linux based would be good.

We have Synology DS713+ and QNAP TS-269 Pro in use, both are Linux based
under the hood.

Synology feels more like a Linux-Admin would do it, no nasty surprises
so far.  The on-board backup has automatic timed versions, not only one.
Tech support is quite responsive.

QNAP makes the impression of "hammer-it-until-it-works-for-windows-users".
At our place it has some weird side-effects when using SMB and NFS
simultaneously, eg. files which are read-only on NFS (eg. checked in
read-only in RCS) are suddenly rw when accessing them via a SMB share
with rw-access mode:

    nfs% ls -l
    -r--r--r-- 1 ralf abg   0 Dec  1 19:48 testfile
    -r--r--r-- 1 ralf abg 177 Dec  1 19:49 testfile,v

    nfs% smbclient //fileserver/testshare
    Enter ralf's password: 
    Domain=[...] OS=[QTS] Server=[Samba 3.6.25]
    smb: \> dir
      testfile                            N        0  Thu Dec  1 19:48:39 2016
      testfile,v                          N      177  Thu Dec  1 19:49:00 2016

    smb: \> get testfile /tmp/foo
    getting file \testfile of size 0 as /tmp/foo (0.0 KiloBytes/sec) (average 0.0 KiloBytes/sec)
    smb: \> dir
      testfile                            N        0  Thu Dec  1 19:48:39 2016
      testfile,v                          N      177  Thu Dec  1 19:49:00 2016

    smb: \> exit
    
    nfs% ls -l
    -rw-r--r-- 1 ralf abg   0 Dec  1 19:48 testfile
    -r--r--r-- 1 ralf abg 177 Dec  1 19:49 testfile,v

    As you can see testfile which was mode r-- before the "smb get" is
    now suddenly rw-.  This does not happen with the synology NAS.

Same goes for users' home directories which get nailed mode 777 when
accessing them via SMB:

    nfs% cd
    nfs% ls -ld .
    drwxr-xr-x 240 ralf abg 36864 Dec  1 19:56 ./
    nfs% smbclient //fileserver/home
    Enter ralf's password: 
    Domain=[...] OS=[QTS] Server=[Samba 3.6.25]
    smb: \> exit
    nfs% ls -ld .
    drwxrwxrwx 240 ralf abg 36864 Dec  1 19:56 ./

With QNAP tech support it is a bit tedious to get them to understand
what the problem would be.  You can send them a detailed report of the
problem, even with probable cause, but the standard response is always
"please download report-tool from xyz and send a system report".  After
going three rounds of explanations, sending system reports etc, the next
QNAP-techie takes over the ticket, first request: "please download
report-tool from xyz and send a system report".

HTH
R'
0
Ralf
12/1/2016 7:03:44 PM
T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 12/01/2016 02:49 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
>> bobm3@worthless.info writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 23:23:44 -0800, T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anyone have a favorite Network Attached Storage (NAS) device?
>>>> Linux based would be good.
>>>
>>> While FreeNAS is a good choice sometimes one simply wants a very
>>> small, fully build NAS.   I recently installed a Seagate NAS2 in a
>>> client  which absolutely loves it.  It is very small (about half the
>>> size of a shoebox, it has two hot-swappable 2TB drives configured in a
>>> RAID 1 (mirroed) mode, runs a Linux base as its operating system and
>>> supports all NAS features.  It connects to the network (up to 1GBps)
>>> and supports CIFS (SMB), NTFS and NFS.
>>>
>>> The cost directly from Seagate was approx $300.  Well worth it.
>>
>> Zyxel has a NAS product, and I think I read that it runs
>> Linux. iXsystems has some products as well, using FreeNAS, of course.
>>
>> Synology makes some very nice NAS products, and I've been told they're
>> the best bang for the buck right now. You could also look at QNAP
>> products - I've heard some good things about them too.
>>
>> We have a couple of NetGear NAS units where I work. I find them kind of
>> a pain to work on, but they seem to perform reasonably well, and they've
>> been reliable.
>>
>> I'm going to replace my current storage system (a PC with a RAID
>> controller and multiple drives) with a newer and higher capacity system,
>> probably next summer, and Synology is what I've been thinking of
>> getting, if that helps.
> 
> Thank you!

Re Synology: I've had three Synology DS109J's on my lan since 2009,
and they're indeed terrific bang for the buck. At the time they were
$100 each, diskless, plus cost of your choice of disk (up to 2TB on
the DS109J's). And they're linux-based, cross-compiled for the
Power-Plus chip that box is built with. The newer Synology DS's are
based on intel-compatible chips. Besides all the normal stuff,
you can telnet to it, login as root, and mess around all you want,
though the DS109J has "busybox" rather than full-scale apps,
so it can be cumbersome, though the fs looks like a pretty standard
linux distribution. I'd guess newer DS's are even easier to mess with.
-- 
John Forkosh  ( mailto:  j@f.com  where j=john and f=forkosh )
0
JohnF
12/2/2016 11:19:13 AM
On 12/02/2016 03:19 AM, JohnF wrote:
> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 12/01/2016 02:49 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
>>> bobm3@worthless.info writes:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 23:23:44 -0800, T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Anyone have a favorite Network Attached Storage (NAS) device?
>>>>> Linux based would be good.
>>>>
>>>> While FreeNAS is a good choice sometimes one simply wants a very
>>>> small, fully build NAS.   I recently installed a Seagate NAS2 in a
>>>> client  which absolutely loves it.  It is very small (about half the
>>>> size of a shoebox, it has two hot-swappable 2TB drives configured in a
>>>> RAID 1 (mirroed) mode, runs a Linux base as its operating system and
>>>> supports all NAS features.  It connects to the network (up to 1GBps)
>>>> and supports CIFS (SMB), NTFS and NFS.
>>>>
>>>> The cost directly from Seagate was approx $300.  Well worth it.
>>>
>>> Zyxel has a NAS product, and I think I read that it runs
>>> Linux. iXsystems has some products as well, using FreeNAS, of course.
>>>
>>> Synology makes some very nice NAS products, and I've been told they're
>>> the best bang for the buck right now. You could also look at QNAP
>>> products - I've heard some good things about them too.
>>>
>>> We have a couple of NetGear NAS units where I work. I find them kind of
>>> a pain to work on, but they seem to perform reasonably well, and they've
>>> been reliable.
>>>
>>> I'm going to replace my current storage system (a PC with a RAID
>>> controller and multiple drives) with a newer and higher capacity system,
>>> probably next summer, and Synology is what I've been thinking of
>>> getting, if that helps.
>>
>> Thank you!
>
> Re Synology: I've had three Synology DS109J's on my lan since 2009,
> and they're indeed terrific bang for the buck. At the time they were
> $100 each, diskless, plus cost of your choice of disk (up to 2TB on
> the DS109J's). And they're linux-based, cross-compiled for the
> Power-Plus chip that box is built with. The newer Synology DS's are
> based on intel-compatible chips. Besides all the normal stuff,
> you can telnet to it, login as root, and mess around all you want,
> though the DS109J has "busybox" rather than full-scale apps,
> so it can be cumbersome, though the fs looks like a pretty standard
> linux distribution. I'd guess newer DS's are even easier to mess with.
>

Thank you!
0
T
12/5/2016 7:17:55 AM
On 12/01/2016 11:03 AM, Ralf Fassel wrote:
> * T <T@invalid.invalid>
> | Anyone have a favorite Network Attached Storage (NAS) device?
> | Linux based would be good.
>
> We have Synology DS713+ and QNAP TS-269 Pro in use, both are Linux based
> under the hood.
>
> Synology feels more like a Linux-Admin would do it, no nasty surprises
> so far.  The on-board backup has automatic timed versions, not only one.
> Tech support is quite responsive.
>
> QNAP makes the impression of "hammer-it-until-it-works-for-windows-users".
> At our place it has some weird side-effects when using SMB and NFS
> simultaneously, eg. files which are read-only on NFS (eg. checked in
> read-only in RCS) are suddenly rw when accessing them via a SMB share
> with rw-access mode:
>
>     nfs% ls -l
>     -r--r--r-- 1 ralf abg   0 Dec  1 19:48 testfile
>     -r--r--r-- 1 ralf abg 177 Dec  1 19:49 testfile,v
>
>     nfs% smbclient //fileserver/testshare
>     Enter ralf's password:
>     Domain=[...] OS=[QTS] Server=[Samba 3.6.25]
>     smb: \> dir
>       testfile                            N        0  Thu Dec  1 19:48:39 2016
>       testfile,v                          N      177  Thu Dec  1 19:49:00 2016
>
>     smb: \> get testfile /tmp/foo
>     getting file \testfile of size 0 as /tmp/foo (0.0 KiloBytes/sec) (average 0.0 KiloBytes/sec)
>     smb: \> dir
>       testfile                            N        0  Thu Dec  1 19:48:39 2016
>       testfile,v                          N      177  Thu Dec  1 19:49:00 2016
>
>     smb: \> exit
>
>     nfs% ls -l
>     -rw-r--r-- 1 ralf abg   0 Dec  1 19:48 testfile
>     -r--r--r-- 1 ralf abg 177 Dec  1 19:49 testfile,v
>
>     As you can see testfile which was mode r-- before the "smb get" is
>     now suddenly rw-.  This does not happen with the synology NAS.
>
> Same goes for users' home directories which get nailed mode 777 when
> accessing them via SMB:
>
>     nfs% cd
>     nfs% ls -ld .
>     drwxr-xr-x 240 ralf abg 36864 Dec  1 19:56 ./
>     nfs% smbclient //fileserver/home
>     Enter ralf's password:
>     Domain=[...] OS=[QTS] Server=[Samba 3.6.25]
>     smb: \> exit
>     nfs% ls -ld .
>     drwxrwxrwx 240 ralf abg 36864 Dec  1 19:56 ./
>
> With QNAP tech support it is a bit tedious to get them to understand
> what the problem would be.  You can send them a detailed report of the
> problem, even with probable cause, but the standard response is always
> "please download report-tool from xyz and send a system report".  After
> going three rounds of explanations, sending system reports etc, the next
> QNAP-techie takes over the ticket, first request: "please download
> report-tool from xyz and send a system report".
>
> HTH
> R'
>

Thank you!
0
T
12/5/2016 7:18:42 AM
T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote in news:o1jabi$kn1$1@dont-email.me:

> Anyone have a favorite Network Attached Storage (NAS) device?
> Linux based would be good.


I have a QNAP TS-212.  It's a 2 bay unit and I have
2 WD Red 3TB drives mirrored plus a WD My Book 3 TB USB drive. I have 
used the other USB port for print sereving, but when I obtained a 
wirelless printer, I discontinued this practice.

I have been running this unit for at least 3 years with no failures
in the nit itself - I did lose a 320G Maxstor drive which I replaced 
with the current configuration.

It runs Linux - but what variation?  One does not need Linux skills to 
administer it as QNAP provides a very nice web-based interface.

I originally purchased for file sharing, but have found a number of 
things I can now do with the rich set of Options.  I have proceeded 
with caution, as I still want to use it primarily for file sharing, so 
if I enable a feature and it degrades the file sharing performance, I 
turn it off. So far, no punts.

I runs a web server quite well and withthe DDNS facility from QNAP, I 
host our local chapter of Knights of COlumbus website, but on a 
scheduled basis.

I like the QNAP line of products, as they can satisfy everything from a 
basic up to a many-bay configuration.

As for the LINUX, I am primarily a Windows user, so I cannot judge the 
"quality" of the version in this unit - I just am not that concerned 
with it as long as it does the job I ask it to do.

I hope this has been useful.

John Carter
0
John
12/15/2016 3:27:35 PM
On 12/15/2016 07:27 AM, John Carter wrote:
> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote in news:o1jabi$kn1$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> Anyone have a favorite Network Attached Storage (NAS) device?
>> Linux based would be good.
>
>
> I have a QNAP TS-212.  It's a 2 bay unit and I have
> 2 WD Red 3TB drives mirrored plus a WD My Book 3 TB USB drive. I have
> used the other USB port for print sereving, but when I obtained a
> wirelless printer, I discontinued this practice.
>
> I have been running this unit for at least 3 years with no failures
> in the nit itself - I did lose a 320G Maxstor drive which I replaced
> with the current configuration.
>
> It runs Linux - but what variation?  One does not need Linux skills to
> administer it as QNAP provides a very nice web-based interface.
>
> I originally purchased for file sharing, but have found a number of
> things I can now do with the rich set of Options.  I have proceeded
> with caution, as I still want to use it primarily for file sharing, so
> if I enable a feature and it degrades the file sharing performance, I
> turn it off. So far, no punts.
>
> I runs a web server quite well and withthe DDNS facility from QNAP, I
> host our local chapter of Knights of COlumbus website, but on a
> scheduled basis.
>
> I like the QNAP line of products, as they can satisfy everything from a
> basic up to a many-bay configuration.
>
> As for the LINUX, I am primarily a Windows user, so I cannot judge the
> "quality" of the version in this unit - I just am not that concerned
> with it as long as it does the job I ask it to do.
>
> I hope this has been useful.
>
> John Carter
>

Thank you!
0
T
12/17/2016 4:48:10 AM
Reply: