5

NAS seems to cost about the same price as a cheap desktop.

On the one hand the NAS has a dedicated Linux distro, but I could put OpenNAS, FreeNAS, etc, on a desktop PC.

If I go wth a desktop and network sharing on the drives, I can still use the "server" as a normal PC.

So - for home use, not business - why would I want to buy a NAS?

[Update (after the question was put on hold]

I agree that many of the comments are opinion based - and they are not helping me. Are there any technical reason, one way or another? Price may be used as an argument.

Btw in my case, the NAS/server would be used primarily as backup for the other PCs on the LAN. If I go for NAS, it won't be a major pain that I can't use it as a PC. With a server, I might do once a month, if even that often.

@holders - is that a good enough rewording, or can I improve it? I would be happy for one of you to edit the question, if you think that it can be asked without being opinion based. I really would like to hear a compelling case.

Mawg says reinstate Monica
  • 4,415
  • 2
    Honestly I don't know - its why I have a Home Server at home instead of a NAS - not only is it more flexible and capable (power draw is dominated by the hardddrives in both cases) but it was also cheaper. (A Dell T20 back in 2014) – DetlevCM Dec 06 '15 at 17:47
  • It depends on a lot of things. Just a desktop PC plus $/Eur 1000 windows license is a lot. And a proper server grade PC even adds more. Both incapability and in cost. – Hennes Dec 06 '15 at 20:40
  • 1
    @Hennes Linux does not cost a penny. Also, why spend 1000€ on a desktop PC? My Dell T20 was 167€ + drives & Sata card, 620€ total. far away from the 1000€ you quote. Even if I were stupid enough to buy Microsoft's Small Business Server, that's "only" 350€ (Home Server was around 100€ if you bought just the license). - Incidentally, any 4-bay NAS would cost at least 200€+ and more for the drives at the time. – DetlevCM Dec 06 '15 at 21:10
  • 1
    A proper server would be more expensive. For a "server PC' I assume redundant power supplies, ECC memory, prope rout of band management. In many cases a proper HW RAID card (a Eur 500-ish). RAID certified nearline SAS drives, .... Linux, BSD or whatever is fine is you know how to manage it. Some home users might. For many buisinesses the cost of a few windows licenses will be less than the cost of training (multiple!) people in it. – Hennes Dec 06 '15 at 21:21
  • It's for home. Not a business style "server", more a "file server", but in fact mainly for backups. Being able to use it as a PC would be a small bonus, but a relatively rare occurrence. – Mawg says reinstate Monica Dec 06 '15 at 21:45
  • @DetlevCM Some good points. I don't want to get into price discussions, but I probably want 4 HDDs so the case alone means that I am unlikely to be able to use a 167€ PC – Mawg says reinstate Monica Dec 06 '15 at 21:47
  • 1
    @Mawg The Dell T20 has 4 3.5" bays as well as space for a slimline CD/DVD etc. drive OR 2 2.5" drives. - An HP Microserver has a similar amount of bays. (Mine has 4 3.5" 3TB drives + 1 2.5" drive) - With a DIY solution it should be possible to add another cage in the future (there is a fair bit of space) – DetlevCM Dec 06 '15 at 22:18
  • 1
    I can treat a NAS as a PC. As already noted, a PC can be a NAS. So your quest to seek a "technical reason" may be unfruitful; the difference between a NAS and a more generalized PC is mainly the focus of the device, not some minor technical boundary that clearly classifies one device as definitely fitting one category. The "why" word, in both of your questions, is what is likely to keep just soliciting opinions. If you have a technical questions where you are looking for the technical reason, try making a new question and asking it. – TOOGAM Dec 06 '15 at 22:36
  • Well, I can't see your Dell T20 at that price, but it does look good and get some good reviews http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/peripherals/servers/dell-poweredge-t20-mini-tower-server-1257381/review So I may just look for one on ebay – Mawg says reinstate Monica Dec 07 '15 at 08:36
  • 1
    @Mawg This was back in summer 2014 - A T20 configuration with a G3220 Pentium and 4GB of ECC RAM and no drives could be had for 168€ from various shops. – DetlevCM Dec 07 '15 at 09:24

4 Answers4

6

For personal use, some of the selling features of a NAS are the facts that they are small and simple. They are mostly aimed at people who just want a local backup/media server and who don't want to do any set up or installing, they just want to plug it in, connect it to the network, and let it just work.

For slightly more advanced users, they might want to build their own custom server as you said.

Jack Pollock
  • 289
  • 2
  • 7
6

Reasons to buy a NAS

  • Generally smaller than desktop PC
  • Often quieter
  • Designed to run 24/7 (or to self start/stop by time of day)
  • Perform mirroring out of box (often no setup needed).
  • Hardware is optimized for purpose
  • Are supplied without unnecessary accessories
    • keyboards, mice
    • onboard graphics, sound I/O etc
  • Plug in and go
RedGrittyBrick
  • 83,047
  • 2
    A small server is also meant for 24/7 operation and also comes without a keyboard or mouse. (E.g. Dell T20, HP Microserver and similar) The "quieter" argument is also dubiout - unless something vibrates (Dell T20 with 7200rpm drives...), a small server will be no noisier than a NAS. – DetlevCM Dec 06 '15 at 17:46
  • @RedGrittyBrick: I doubt hardware of household NAS is more optimized than that of typical computer. Indeed, likely reverse is true: Synology has a cheap power-effective and very weak CPU, which computes XORs and hashes much slower than PC processor. – Nikita Kipriyanov Dec 06 '15 at 20:06
3

As a systems administrator, there's nothing I love more than proper servers. But I don't have one at home. I have had NASes for years now.

Why?

  1. They are much less work. You plug them in and they just go. You don't need to muck around with anything at all. Plug in drives, and set off.

  2. They come with so much out of the box. Linux is great - it can do everything, given enough time and knowledge.

    But you need to know a lot more about how to get it set up. You need to manually configure your RAID arrays, install all the tools you want, configure everything. On a NAS, it just works. Plex out of the box? Check. Apple Time Machine? Check. DLNA? Check. CIFS/SMB/NFS/AFP? Check. iSCSI? Check (although iSCSI on a small NAS is usally a bad idea). Dropbox? Check. Ability to easily load 3rd party apps that integrate with existing web interface? Check (Drobo, Synology, QNAP, and others).

  3. They are (often) much smaller than a home server.
  4. ANYONE can use them. This is the big thing for me - my wife doesn't need know anything at all about Linux to use a decent NAS. Everything is familiar - web interface, etc.

Now, they're not perfect, and they have their limitations, but ultimately, for 99.99% of the stuff that people do at home, then a NAS is a perfect way to deliver mass shared storage cheaply and efficiently with a high wife-acceptance-factor.

Mark Henderson
  • 6,420
  • 1
    Point 2 makes little sense if you are a system admin - setting up RAID with Samba shares as well as DNLA is very (!) easy on openSUSE. (If you need anything else, there is obviously a lot to chose from.) If you advocated "a clicky simple all in one interface solution" for a home user, it would make sense, however it makes little sense to me that you - as a system administrator - would use an inferior more expensive product at home. (A low end server costs less than a 4 bay NAS.) – DetlevCM Dec 06 '15 at 20:11
  • @DetlevCM it makes sense in context with everything else. I deal with that stuff all day at work, the last thing I want to do is deal with it at home as well. As for whether or not it's inferior, not every decision can be made in an ivory tower of ideal conditions, which is why I've outlined my reasons for the compromise. – Mark Henderson Dec 06 '15 at 20:13
  • 1
    @I still don't understand it though. Plus, a home network is a lot smaller - in most cases you set it up once and it just runs, that's how my home server runs. If you work for a large organisation with things patched over time, etc. there may be things to go wrong. At home, once it is set up it works. Plus, if the server dies, you just buy a new box and stick the drives in (the joys of software RAID such as mdadm) while with a NAS you'd have to get the same box - which is actually another argument against a NAS (hardware dependency). – DetlevCM Dec 06 '15 at 20:19
  • @DetlevCM My personal time is precious. I can spend an extra $150 and get a box that requires 5 minutes of setup and 0 maintenance, or I can save $150 and spend many hours installing the OS, setting up the RAID, installing all the different programs I want, mucking around with config files, dealing with whatever dependancies. And then teaching my wife how to log onto the box via SSH and teaching her how to... no way. Give me something that works, out of the box, that I never have to think about. – Mark Henderson Dec 06 '15 at 20:24
  • 1
    SSH, what for? The only person who'd need it would be you as an admin. For all the NAS usage that is not needed - Samba works without, same goes for DNLA once configured. Heck, you can even have auto updates if you so wanted. But I guess this discussion will just run round in circles... (With me not understanding your decision.) – DetlevCM Dec 06 '15 at 20:30
  • 2
    You don't need to understand my decision. The op asked why do people buy NAS. I have told him why I bought a NAS. End of story. – Mark Henderson Dec 06 '15 at 20:31
1

My analysis is that a server PC is cheaper and more powerful, with NAS boxes being remarkably expensive for the level of performance.

So if you can buy a PC or reclaim some hardware, and use a turnkey image on a usb key, I agree that the NAS product offerings are not at all attractive and are in fact repulsive.

random
  • 14,991
JDługosz
  • 607