What are the differences between sharing a folder over a network from a Win7 desktop, having a NAS, or having a Windows Home Server box?
April 13, 2011 3:13 PM Subscribe
What are the differences between sharing a folder over a network from a Win7 desktop, having a NAS, or having a Windows Home Server box? Is an actual server better than a folder share?
I've been trying to figure out what type of storage-centric piece of hardware to buy for my home network. I would access the contents of this hardware via a Windows 7 laptop. The way I see it, I have three options:
1. build a full-up Windows 7 desktop machine
2. buy a NAS box
3. build or buy a Windows Home Server box
What does #2 or #3 get you over #1? Is the connection to my laptop better, faster, or more reliable with NAS or WHS? Does it come down to some protocols being better than others? I don't really understand what "server" gets you over "folder share".
Any help would be great! I really need to figure out what to do since my old storage-centric desktop just died yesterday.
I've been trying to figure out what type of storage-centric piece of hardware to buy for my home network. I would access the contents of this hardware via a Windows 7 laptop. The way I see it, I have three options:
1. build a full-up Windows 7 desktop machine
2. buy a NAS box
3. build or buy a Windows Home Server box
What does #2 or #3 get you over #1? Is the connection to my laptop better, faster, or more reliable with NAS or WHS? Does it come down to some protocols being better than others? I don't really understand what "server" gets you over "folder share".
Any help would be great! I really need to figure out what to do since my old storage-centric desktop just died yesterday.
The connection won't be any better, faster or more reliable. You could make the case that the NAS product might be more reliable than the other two because it is a special purpose thing that only does a few things. Its harder for you to screw up because you can do fewer things with it. As for Win7 vs. WHS, you'd most likely by WHS if you were interested in the server features that it offers. You aren't likely to find those features in a NAS product nor in a plain Win7 desktop.
posted by mmascolino at 3:38 PM on April 13, 2011
posted by mmascolino at 3:38 PM on April 13, 2011
The NAS device won't get a virus that causes you to lose data.
posted by COD at 3:46 PM on April 13, 2011
posted by COD at 3:46 PM on April 13, 2011
The main problem with #1 is that if the machine is off (or rebooting) you can't access the file. Technically that's true with #2 and #3 as well, but you don't typically reboot a NAS or a Home Server.
A NAS will probably be smaller, cheaper, and use less power than the other solutions.
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 3:46 PM on April 13, 2011
A NAS will probably be smaller, cheaper, and use less power than the other solutions.
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 3:46 PM on April 13, 2011
I'm surprised that no one more knowledgeable has hopped in on this, so I'll take a swing with my mediocre knowledge.
Since at least one of the computers is running Windows, the protocol that your server or NAS uses to communicate with your laptop will be the same no matter what: you'll almost certainly use SMB for a Windows network because it's the default for Windows and Microsoft has made it pretty easy to configure. Any NAS worth its salt will almost certainly support SMB, though admittedly I've never owned a NAS.
So the only potential differences are: price and features. There are other things you can weigh, but unless you're a real power user you probably don't need to worry about them.
I'm sure you can do the price comparison yourself. My guess is it will be Windows Home Server > Win7 box > NAS.
Features: WHS comes with some nifty features. I'm not intimately familiar, but as Chocolate Pickle mentions it offers some backup features that work with all of your computers. See the features list that mmascolino linked to. You already know what Win7 does, you own it. Finally, a NAS isn't also a computer, so you can't surf the web on it when your laptop breaks. But it might support some RAID configurations more easily.
In the end, I'm overanalyzing it. There aren't going to be major performance differences either way. You should ask yourself, "would I like WHS's features? Would I like a new desktop? Or do I just need a NAS, nothing else?" For the average Joe, I'd say getting a Win7 box gives a lot of flexibility that a NAS doesn't have, because you can also use it as a computer. And WHS's features probably aren't all that important yo most people. So if you're the average person doing average download / watch / save stuff, and you can afford a whole Win7 box, I'd just buy the Win7 box and put a large HD in it that will be "shared data only." That way the HD that is serving the data isn't also doing OS stuff for Win7. If price is an issue, you might save a couple hundred bucks with a NAS. End of story.
As an aside: You're running backups with something like Crashplan, right? Onsite backups don't protect against a lot of potential issues: surges, fires, etc. So I don't think the backup features of WHS are really worth is since there are cheaper backup options.
posted by Tehhund at 3:55 PM on April 13, 2011
Since at least one of the computers is running Windows, the protocol that your server or NAS uses to communicate with your laptop will be the same no matter what: you'll almost certainly use SMB for a Windows network because it's the default for Windows and Microsoft has made it pretty easy to configure. Any NAS worth its salt will almost certainly support SMB, though admittedly I've never owned a NAS.
So the only potential differences are: price and features. There are other things you can weigh, but unless you're a real power user you probably don't need to worry about them.
I'm sure you can do the price comparison yourself. My guess is it will be Windows Home Server > Win7 box > NAS.
Features: WHS comes with some nifty features. I'm not intimately familiar, but as Chocolate Pickle mentions it offers some backup features that work with all of your computers. See the features list that mmascolino linked to. You already know what Win7 does, you own it. Finally, a NAS isn't also a computer, so you can't surf the web on it when your laptop breaks. But it might support some RAID configurations more easily.
In the end, I'm overanalyzing it. There aren't going to be major performance differences either way. You should ask yourself, "would I like WHS's features? Would I like a new desktop? Or do I just need a NAS, nothing else?" For the average Joe, I'd say getting a Win7 box gives a lot of flexibility that a NAS doesn't have, because you can also use it as a computer. And WHS's features probably aren't all that important yo most people. So if you're the average person doing average download / watch / save stuff, and you can afford a whole Win7 box, I'd just buy the Win7 box and put a large HD in it that will be "shared data only." That way the HD that is serving the data isn't also doing OS stuff for Win7. If price is an issue, you might save a couple hundred bucks with a NAS. End of story.
As an aside: You're running backups with something like Crashplan, right? Onsite backups don't protect against a lot of potential issues: surges, fires, etc. So I don't think the backup features of WHS are really worth is since there are cheaper backup options.
posted by Tehhund at 3:55 PM on April 13, 2011
WHS also supports redundant storage of files. It isn't RAID; it's handled at the level of the file system. You don't deal with physical drives on WHS, you create virtual storage areas, and you can designate them to be redundant or not, as you wish.
For all files kept in a redundant storage area, WHS will keep copies on two different physical HD's (assuming there are two, which really should be the case) so if you lose a drive, you won't lose your data.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 4:02 PM on April 13, 2011
For all files kept in a redundant storage area, WHS will keep copies on two different physical HD's (assuming there are two, which really should be the case) so if you lose a drive, you won't lose your data.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 4:02 PM on April 13, 2011
As for a NAS, it IS a computer, just a small, usually low powered one, running some flavour of linux. However, it has just one job, and it typically does it well and reliably - it'll be up all the time, as opposed to a regular old machine running Win7. It will also support various RAID configurations. It also might have an FTP server or bittorrent client built in, but that's about it for applications if you're not interested in tweaking it yourself. I love mine - it just sits in the corner and does it's job, I never have to worry about it, and all my computers and media players (BoxeeBox, WD HD Live) access it. It's also significantly cheaper than any PC, but other NAS's can get pricey very quickly.
posted by cgg at 4:13 PM on April 13, 2011
posted by cgg at 4:13 PM on April 13, 2011
So you have a Windows laptop that you use most of the time, and a Windows desktop that you use mostly for storage; you share that storage with the laptop. Do I have that correct?
The connection to your laptop is going to depend on the rest of your networking (router, wired vs wifi, etc.) so we can put that aside.
NAS is just Network Attached Storage, meaning that it's a couple of hard drives in a fancy box that you plug into your home network and share across computers; but it's not a computer itself. That's basically what a Windows Home Server is, with the possible addition of extras like automated backup of your laptop, since everything's Windows and meant to play nice with each other.
You already know that you can do what you want just by sharing the storage from another computer. A NAS or a Windows Home Server is going to run you about $500; but your laptop will be your only computer. Or for an extra few hundred you can get a 2nd Windows 7 computer.
You'll have to do a little more to maintain a second computer rather than just a NAS/WHS, but hey, you'll have a 2nd computer in the house, and it's not that much more money than you'd spend on just a storage device.
posted by bartleby at 4:26 PM on April 13, 2011
The connection to your laptop is going to depend on the rest of your networking (router, wired vs wifi, etc.) so we can put that aside.
NAS is just Network Attached Storage, meaning that it's a couple of hard drives in a fancy box that you plug into your home network and share across computers; but it's not a computer itself. That's basically what a Windows Home Server is, with the possible addition of extras like automated backup of your laptop, since everything's Windows and meant to play nice with each other.
You already know that you can do what you want just by sharing the storage from another computer. A NAS or a Windows Home Server is going to run you about $500; but your laptop will be your only computer. Or for an extra few hundred you can get a 2nd Windows 7 computer.
You'll have to do a little more to maintain a second computer rather than just a NAS/WHS, but hey, you'll have a 2nd computer in the house, and it's not that much more money than you'd spend on just a storage device.
posted by bartleby at 4:26 PM on April 13, 2011
Response by poster: One thing I want to have is torrents constantly seeding even if my laptop is off. This would mean this NAS / Win7 / WHS box would have to have some sort of torrent support on it's own.
I might also be getting into pushing music or video around my apartment with it, but I'm less familiar with that, as well.
bartleby, yes, you are correct. This NAS / Win7 / WHS hardware will be the data back-end while my Win7 laptop is the front end.
posted by decrescendo at 4:49 PM on April 13, 2011
I might also be getting into pushing music or video around my apartment with it, but I'm less familiar with that, as well.
bartleby, yes, you are correct. This NAS / Win7 / WHS hardware will be the data back-end while my Win7 laptop is the front end.
posted by decrescendo at 4:49 PM on April 13, 2011
Sorry, I just reread my post and should clarify. Neither a NAS or a WHS is a computer. At least not in the sense of 'my laptop is broken and I need to use another computer' or 'my guests need some way to check their email'. I'm assuming that you could use a 2nd computer more than extremely robust network storage.
posted by bartleby at 4:52 PM on April 13, 2011
posted by bartleby at 4:52 PM on April 13, 2011
Aha, torrents. There are NAS devices that have torrent clients built in or hackable-in. I don't know about WHS. But there are some consimer wifi routers that have builtin torrent clients coming out now, so that might be of interest (Belkin?); units that have USB ports for sharing external hard drives directly from the router have been out for a while.
I'm still leaning towards 2nd PC, but that's me. I'd suggest hooking it up to the TV and using Windows Media Center/Boxee/XBMC/HuluDesktop/Netflix/etc to push some entertainment options through it besides just storage and a spare computer.
posted by bartleby at 5:00 PM on April 13, 2011
I'm still leaning towards 2nd PC, but that's me. I'd suggest hooking it up to the TV and using Windows Media Center/Boxee/XBMC/HuluDesktop/Netflix/etc to push some entertainment options through it besides just storage and a spare computer.
posted by bartleby at 5:00 PM on April 13, 2011
I have one of these serving movies to two xbmc clients. It's got a torrent client built into it, accessible via the web interface. I think I paid $30 on a rebate deal at Microcenter [not counting the drive]. Looks like $50-60 is the going price.
No RAID, just a barebones NAS.
posted by chazlarson at 5:16 PM on April 13, 2011
No RAID, just a barebones NAS.
posted by chazlarson at 5:16 PM on April 13, 2011
Response by poster: Well, bartleby, that's been another thing in the back of my mind. Do I rely on my laptop to be fully functioning at all times? If I moved to NAS or WHS, it would HAVE to be. If I built a Win7 desktop, I would have at least a back up machine, if nothing else.
However, I'd still like to have the laptop and Win7 desktop using the same monitor, but I'm sure that's not too difficult.
posted by decrescendo at 6:06 PM on April 13, 2011
However, I'd still like to have the laptop and Win7 desktop using the same monitor, but I'm sure that's not too difficult.
posted by decrescendo at 6:06 PM on April 13, 2011
Things I like about my NAS:
1. quiet and low power
2. always on
3. world's easiest RAID. it emails me when a disk fails.
4. cheaper than a win7 desktop. no antivirus, no windows license, or graphics chips.
5. no windows update reboots.
6. Can totally run torrents and upnp.
7. small and can be located away from the desk and entertainment center, and easily portable to share with a friend.
8. runs more protocols than SMB, like FTP or NFS and SSHFS.
I haven't replaced my desktop yet, just anchored the laptop in it's stead. When that fails, I can buy the latest and greatest at the time, rather than the ages ago I last bought something. Hell, with the way cell phones are going, with the USB Host AB and HDMI, at some point you'll be able to basically dock your phone as a desktop.
posted by pwnguin at 8:00 PM on April 13, 2011
1. quiet and low power
2. always on
3. world's easiest RAID. it emails me when a disk fails.
4. cheaper than a win7 desktop. no antivirus, no windows license, or graphics chips.
5. no windows update reboots.
6. Can totally run torrents and upnp.
7. small and can be located away from the desk and entertainment center, and easily portable to share with a friend.
8. runs more protocols than SMB, like FTP or NFS and SSHFS.
I haven't replaced my desktop yet, just anchored the laptop in it's stead. When that fails, I can buy the latest and greatest at the time, rather than the ages ago I last bought something. Hell, with the way cell phones are going, with the USB Host AB and HDMI, at some point you'll be able to basically dock your phone as a desktop.
posted by pwnguin at 8:00 PM on April 13, 2011
I just bought a Synology NAS and am totally happy with it. It was pretty easy to set up. They offer a lot of "value add" features, like an iTunes server, torrent client, etc. You can even set it up as a web server if you want. It's very fast. It also does Apple Time Machine backups. They have a variety of models at a range of prices.
If your laptop breaks, how much of am emergency is it if you don't have access to a personal computer for a few days? Windows Home Server is a pretty decent product, but you likely won't gain much advantage from it. You can easily get a free backup program (like Syncbak) that you can use to backup to your NAS. Also, a NAS will do RAID, which protects your data if one of the drives dies. Of course, you should also subscribe to an online backup service like Backblaze.
posted by reddot at 7:49 PM on April 15, 2011
If your laptop breaks, how much of am emergency is it if you don't have access to a personal computer for a few days? Windows Home Server is a pretty decent product, but you likely won't gain much advantage from it. You can easily get a free backup program (like Syncbak) that you can use to backup to your NAS. Also, a NAS will do RAID, which protects your data if one of the drives dies. Of course, you should also subscribe to an online backup service like Backblaze.
posted by reddot at 7:49 PM on April 15, 2011
I have one of these, and I don't think I could beat the price+features combination. It supports up to 8TB of USB-connected drives, handles DLNA consistently across client devices better than software I've tried, has a bittorrent client built in, and offers rudimentary web server as well.
posted by notashroom at 3:32 PM on April 25, 2011
posted by notashroom at 3:32 PM on April 25, 2011
« Older Best software for managing clients with IT-related... | How can I edit someone's required google form list... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 3:17 PM on April 13, 2011