Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #17067 > unrolled thread

Need NAS recommendations

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  Need NAS recommendations T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-18 18:04 -0700
    Re: Need NAS recommendations The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-19 10:06 +0000
      Re: Need NAS recommendations T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-19 04:20 -0700
        Re: Need NAS recommendations gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-03-19 12:13 +0000
          Re: Need NAS recommendations The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-19 12:26 +0000
        Re: Need NAS recommendations The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-19 12:24 +0000
    Re: Need NAS recommendations Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-03-19 18:38 +0000
      Re: Need NAS recommendations James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> - 2016-03-19 12:20 -0700
        Re: Need NAS recommendations James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.cum> - 2016-03-19 17:34 -0500
          Re: Need NAS recommendations The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-19 22:44 +0000
          Re: Need NAS recommendations James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> - 2016-03-20 12:21 -0700
        Re: Need NAS recommendations JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.com> - 2016-03-24 08:18 +0000
    Re: Need NAS recommendations John Carter <me@mymailsvr.org> - 2016-03-21 16:25 +0000
      Re: Need NAS recommendations Dave <noone$$@llondel.org> - 2016-03-24 19:53 -0700

#17067 — Need NAS recommendations

Hi All,

Anyone have a favorite small (2 to 4 TB) Network Attached Storage
(NAS) that is Linux friendly. No weird drivers, etc..

Many thanks,
-T

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#17069

An old XP machine redisked and running linux?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17072

On 03/19/2016 03:06 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> An old XP machine redisked and running linux?

I have been reading review of NAS devices and OH HOLY S***
they are a pain in the neck.

So 1+ on your recommendation

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17073

In article <ncjcg0$pjk$2@dont-email.me>, T  <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 03/19/2016 03:06 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> An old XP machine redisked and running linux?
>
>I have been reading review of NAS devices and OH HOLY S***
>they are a pain in the neck.
>
>So 1+ on your recommendation

Or buy Raspberry Pi and a USB hard disk.  Cheap NAS.

-- 
If Jeb is  Charlie Brown kicking a football-pulled-away, Mitt  is a '50s
housewife with a  black eye who insists to her  friends the roast wasn't
dry.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17075

On 19/03/16 12:13, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <ncjcg0$pjk$2@dont-email.me>, T  <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 03/19/2016 03:06 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>> An old XP machine redisked and running linux?
>>
>> I have been reading review of NAS devices and OH HOLY S***
>> they are a pain in the neck.
>>
>> So 1+ on your recommendation
>
> Or buy Raspberry Pi and a USB hard disk.  Cheap NAS.
>
Disk speed ain't great.

Basically a small ATOM based board is by far the best way to string a 
lot of storage onto a network



-- 
He who shits in the road, will meet flies on his return.

"Mr Natural"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17074

On 19/03/16 11:20, T wrote:
> On 03/19/2016 03:06 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> An old XP machine redisked and running linux?
>
> I have been reading review of NAS devices and OH HOLY S***
> they are a pain in the neck.
>
> So 1+ on your recommendation

Seriously, My 'NAS' is an atom board in a small case with twin disks for 
resilience.

Unlike off the shelf NAS it runs as an NFS server
Unlike off the shelf NAS it performs automatic backups of its own data
Unlike off the shelf NAS it performs automatic backups of other machines 
  data
Unlike off the shelf NAS it runs miniDLNA as a media server.
Unlike off the shelf NAS it runs custom scripts that email me reinnders 
of things..
Unlike off the shelf NAS if it breaks, I can fix it.

Off the shelf NAS is for people who (are) run (by) Microsft


-- 
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17079

On 2016-03-19, T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Anyone have a favorite small (2 to 4 TB) Network Attached Storage
> (NAS) that is Linux friendly. No weird drivers, etc..

If you don't want to roll you own, I've found Synology to be pretty decent.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

  NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17080

On 03/19/2016 11:38 AM, Roger Blake wrote:
> If you don't want to roll you own, I've found Synology to be pretty decent.
>
  I concur. We have had Synology NAS (model DS411+II), a 4-disk unit,
for 4 years now. It has been quite stable; it just works. I especially
like their Timed Backup program; it is similar to Apple's Time Machine.
It is simple to use, and has made recovery from serious (user and
system) errors a cakewalk.
  I have no personal experience with this company: Drobos. Reputation is
good, though.
  Previously we had a Netgear unit. It was terrible. All of the disk
drives failed in the first year. It took their tech support a week to
get the unit working after the first drive croaked; it did not degrade
gracefully. Then the power supply died in year 2.

-- 
James Moe
jmm-list at sohnen-moe dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17082

Wrote: On 03/19/2016 11:38 AM, Roger Blake wrote: On 03/19/2016 11:38
AM, Roger Blake wrote:.
> If you don't want to roll you own, I've found Synology to be pretty decent.
>
It was made grade recovery from serious (userious (use, and system)
errors a 4-disk unit. It working afterrors a Netgear. I especially.
Then the first works. I has tech support a Netgear. It is similar 2.
It was been quite stable. All of the did now. I especially died Backup
program; it degrade recovery from serience with the first did no
personal expersonal experious (user tech support a caked; it did no
perious (useriously disk unit, for 4 year 2. It took to Apply died
Backup prograde recovery from seriously disk unit, for 4 year. It has
made recovery from serious (userious (use, and has made recovery from
serious (use, a 4-disk unit just year. We have croaked; it was made
recovery from serience with their took though. I concur. I especially
like to Apple's Timed Backup progracefully we have no personal
experious (use, and had a 4-disk drives failed Backup progracefully
week their Timed. It had Synology NAS (model DS411+II), a caked; it
works. I especially. Their Time Machine. Then the first works. I
especially. I company: Drobos. We had a Netgear 2. Then this concur.
It is concur. Previously week to use, a Netgear to use, a caked; it is
simple's Time Machine. It is similar 2. It is similar to use, a 4-disk
drives failed in this concur.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17083

On 19/03/16 22:34, James Moe wrote:
> Wrote: On 03/19/2016 11:38 AM, Roger Blake wrote: On 03/19/2016 11:38
> AM, Roger Blake wrote:.
>> If you don't want to roll you own, I've found Synology to be pretty
>> decent.
>>
> It was made grade recovery from serious (userious (use, and system)
> errors a 4-disk unit. It working afterrors a Netgear. I especially.
> Then the first works. I has tech support a Netgear. It is similar 2.
> It was been quite stable. All of the did now. I especially died Backup
> program; it degrade recovery from serience with the first did no
> personal expersonal experious (user tech support a caked; it did no
> perious (useriously disk unit, for 4 year 2. It took to Apply died
> Backup prograde recovery from seriously disk unit, for 4 year. It has
> made recovery from serious (userious (use, and has made recovery from
> serious (use, a 4-disk unit just year. We have croaked; it was made
> recovery from serience with their took though. I concur. I especially
> like to Apple's Timed Backup progracefully we have no personal
> experious (use, and had a 4-disk drives failed Backup progracefully
> week their Timed. It had Synology NAS (model DS411+II), a caked; it
> works. I especially. Their Time Machine. Then the first works. I
> especially. I company: Drobos. We had a Netgear 2. Then this concur.
> It is concur. Previously week to use, a Netgear to use, a caked; it is
> simple's Time Machine. It is similar 2. It is similar to use, a 4-disk
> drives failed in this concur.
>
Right. Absolutely. No argument. None at all. Caked Netgears nodammedgud

-- 
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and 
all women"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17084

On 03/19/2016 03:34 PM, James Moe wrote:
>> > If you don't want to roll you own, I've found Synology to be pretty decent.
>> >
> It was made grade recovery from serious (userious (use, and system)
> errors a 4-disk unit. It working afterrors a Netgear. I especially.
> [...]
>
  That was bizarre. Someone experimenting with their rant program? And
why put my address on it?

-- 
James Moe
jmm-list at sohnen-moe dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17099

James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> wrote:
> On 03/19/2016 11:38 AM, Roger Blake wrote:
>> If you don't want to roll you own, I've found Synology
>> to be pretty decent.
>>
> I concur. We have had Synology NAS (model DS411+II), a 4-disk unit,
> for 4 years now. It has been quite stable; it just works.

+1. I've had three Synology DS109j's (one-disk units) for 6 years now.
Ditto "stable and just works". They rysnc remotely just fine, though I
usually mount them (they run linux and mount fine as ext volumes) and
run rsync locally. Drawback is 100Mbps ethernet, though current DS115
and DS115j's are Gb.

But when they need replacement, not sure whether or not I'll replace them
with latest DS1xx's at that time. I also have a micro-atx jewel-case
size Asus VivoPC, which would likely serve just as well with a
properly-configured linux. Back in 2009, only acceptable (to me) option
was midtower form factor, but nowadays micro-atx comes with everything
I need already on-board (and usb3 supports occasional need for dvd, etc).
And midtower took much too much space for my NAS requirements, whereas
VivoPC (and/or NUC or Brix) would fit fine. So if I have boxes like that
lying around, I'll likely try them out as NAS's before buying another
NAS appliance box like Synology. But if I do buy an appliance, it will
almost certainly be another Synology DS1xx.
-- 
John Forkosh  ( mailto:  j@f.com  where j=john and f=forkosh )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17085

T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote in news:nci8dc$8ch$1@dont-email.me:

> Hi All,
> 
> Anyone have a favorite small (2 to 4 TB) Network Attached Storage
> (NAS) that is Linux friendly. No weird drivers, etc..
> 
> Many thanks,
> -T


I use a QNAP 2-bay(TS-212 I think)  server with a WD MyBook 3TB USB3 
drive. I have a single 320GB disk installed in the unit.  I am waiting 
for some tax money before I purchase a pair of 5TB drives and turn on 
RAID.

It runs Linux and has a pile of features that you can enable or not
depending upon your needs.

Now I don't mess wiht the Linux side, but do use the web interface to 
make the configuration changes I need.

It's reasonably priced, comes in many sizes (no of bays for disks), and
mine has been running for about 3 years with no failures and no re-
boots except for an occasional software/firmware update.

It may not be what some Linux experts want, but it does the job and I 
never have to do anything to it except for an occasional update check. 
In my opinion this is what a NAS should be not seen and not heard from, 
just functioning.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17100

John Carter wrote:

> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote in news:nci8dc$8ch$1@dont-email.me:
> 
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> Anyone have a favorite small (2 to 4 TB) Network Attached Storage
>> (NAS) that is Linux friendly. No weird drivers, etc..
>> 
>> Many thanks,
>> -T
> 
> 
> I use a QNAP 2-bay(TS-212 I think)  server with a WD MyBook 3TB USB3
> drive. I have a single 320GB disk installed in the unit.  I am waiting
> for some tax money before I purchase a pair of 5TB drives and turn on
> RAID.
> 

I have the TS-251+, which I admit I got because it was on offer and I was 
looking for a media centre box. It does a reasonable job of both - it gives 
me SMB and NFS support, I can ssh to it. It's got a couple of 2GB drives 
non-RAID at the moment but like you, at some point it'll acquire a couple of 
larger disks in RAID1. It's not my sole file storage, but it does provide 
yet another place to keep a copy of the photo album and music collection as 
well as having HDMI to drive the TV and stream video around.
-- 
Dave
Too many gadgets, too little time

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web