Nas

[emr]

I'm looking for a NAS drive, anything from 250 to 400 Gb size.

Seen these two so far:

http://www.linksys.com/products/prod...id=35&prid=622

http://maxtor.com/portal/site/Maxtor...tview=Overview

They need to support reading from Mac OS 9 & X and Windows OS'.

Anyone got any recommendations?

TIA,

emr

[CJK]

If you got about 4 to 5 grand you can use one of these:

Snap 4500

They are pricy but they got some nice features, they are scalable and have plenty room to grow. But who wants to spend 5 grand on a few hard drives .

[emr]

If you got about 4 to 5 grand you can use one of these:

Snap 4500

They are pricy but they got some nice features, they are scalable and have plenty room to grow. But who wants to spend 5 grand on a few hard drives .

I like it, not sure they'll need 1.6 Tb storage space though; there are only 12 users. How much porn, viruses and spyware can they download after all?

emr

[TechZ]

LaCie make a whole range of these:

http://www.lacie.com/products/range.htm?id=10007

[confus-ed]

LaCie make a whole range of these:

http://www.lacie.com/products/range.htm?id=10007

'Them' though range from a connected usb disk which software makes network available (an external drive), to a 'real' NAS device which has its own IP & print spooling capabilities etc (like emr's first link).

Emr do you need fallover & hotswap & such or not ? If not, I'd say those linksys are ok for the money & generally I'd stay away from things that are glorified external drives as if the connected machine falls over, so does your 'nas'..

[kato2274]

build one for A LOT LESS!


a simple distro like smeserver will do quite nicely.

or if you are a little bit more technical, you can use fedora core or something similar and join it to your existing domain.

if you have an existing old PII or something laying around, you can throw in an IDE controller card (assuming it wouldn't support those bigger drives, but it might) put two drives in it. set up a software mirror raid and use samba to share files and printers etc.

I'm by no means much of a linux guru. much closer to noob, and I can do this. it's really quite easy with just a BIT of linux know how.

[confus-ed]

..really quite easy with just a BIT of linux know how.

Well he asked about Nas drives .. but I suppose - 'any old' M$ o/s might also do the job of 'file server' on a 'clunker' (12 machines might well warrant its own 'beast' to support network functions anyways, but that's an entirely different question methinks) perhaps not 'quite as well' but that requires no linux know how .

[emr]

'Them' though range from a connected usb disk which software makes network available (an external drive), to a 'real' NAS device which has its own IP & print spooling capabilities etc (like emr's first link).

Emr do you need fallover & hotswap & such or not ? If not, I'd say those linksys are ok for the money & generally I'd stay away from things that are glorified external drives as if the connected machine falls over, so does your 'nas'..

No need for anything too fancy such as hotswap, etc. Just need decent size drive that can store all their data centrally.

I do like the Linksys but they are considerably more expensive than the Maxtor I posted. Not sure why as the Maxtor seems to have a lot of the same functionality of the Linksys models albeit minus the print server.

Main issue is working out whether any of these NAS can support a file system that both Mac OS and MS OS will be able to read & write too. I emailed Maxtor and am awaiting a reply.

If anybody sees anything to support the fact that they do then let me know. My brain is a bit slow as I have a nasty summer cold / allergy thing going on at the moment.

Cue the violins!

emr

[emr]

build one for A LOT LESS!


a simple distro like smeserver will do quite nicely.

or if you are a little bit more technical, you can use fedora core or something similar and join it to your existing domain.

if you have an existing old PII or something laying around, you can throw in an IDE controller card (assuming it wouldn't support those bigger drives, but it might) put two drives in it. set up a software mirror raid and use samba to share files and printers etc.

I'm by no means much of a linux guru. much closer to noob, and I can do this. it's really quite easy with just a BIT of linux know how.

Thanks Kato,

This is a nice idea too. They are a bit wary of anything that looks like a pc however, the two pc's are from outside consultants in fact; real Mac fanatics, hence why I thought I would cut my losses and go for a NAS. Keep it plain and simple for them seems to be the way to go. I shall have a look at this though as the mention of Linux may keep them happy!

Thanks to everyone for their help!

emr

[kato2274]

Well he asked about Nas drives .. but I suppose -.

so what exactly is a nas drive? A hard drive hooked up to a circut board with a network card running embedded unix/linux. with samba sharing to share the drive and printers, and a web interface to configure everything.

and no -ed, any old M$ OS wouldn't do. XP Pro and 2000 Pro are limited to 10 concurrent connections, And both of those cost $. 98 would be way to unstable, and there would be no file security other than share paswwords. I won't even mention going to M$ server, which would work but would be cost prohibitive

NAS drives ARE just linux/unix machines packaged differently. so why buy that when you can build one yourself?.

[confus-ed]

so what exactly is a nas drive? A hard drive hooked up to a circut board with a network card running embedded unix/linux. with samba sharing to share the drive and printers, and a web interface to configure everything.

and no -ed, any old M$ OS wouldn't do. XP Pro and 2000 Pro are limited to 10 concurrent connections, And both of those cost $. 98 would be way to unstable, and there would be no file security other than share paswwords. I won't even mention going to M$ server, which would work but would be cost prohibitive

NAS drives ARE just linux/unix machines packaged differently. so why buy that when you can build one yourself?.

Well I'll just take 'exception' to every bit of that !!! .. to 'facilitate' the discusssion

NAS=Network AWARE Storage or Network Application Support, & simply it is a device that is capable of reponding to network protocols independent of any outside services or data inputs, so to repeat & to annoy Katto some more , any old box with any old o/s might qualify - nothing 'necessarily' to do with linux at all {why many of those USB external drives can't be called a 'true' NAS, & is what usually makes the cost difference Emr - so look again at the maxtors I think .. }.. (there's NAS boxes based on windows CE !!! I dunno who in their right minds would buy one, but hey ... )

The 'ten connection limit' in xp (is it now in w2k as well ?) is meant to be an anti-spyware thingymabob (which is fairly useless & mostly an annoyance for folks with file sharing programs) & can be fixed by a reg tweak, as for stabilility well this is windoze & price needent be an issue as there's no way for 12 clients you need a 'server' product to do some file sharing, & costs ? .. xp pro is my favourite 'cheap' client for this, once you turn a few services on..

[kato2274]

Well I'll just take 'exception' to every bit of that !!! .. to 'facilitate' the discusssion

NAS=Network AWARE Storage or Network Application Support, & simply it is a device that is capable of reponding to network protocols independent of any outside services or data inputs, so to repeat & to annoy Katto some more , any old box with any old o/s might qualify - nothing 'necessarily' to do with linux at all {why many of those USB external drives can't be called a 'true' NAS, & is what usually makes the cost difference Emr - so look again at the maxtors I think .. }.. (there's NAS boxes based on windows CE !!! I dunno who in their right minds would buy one, but hey ... )

I've never heard it called network AWARE storage as you say. it's always been Network Attached storage to me...but whatever. and I never said you had to be running unix / linux for it to be a NAS box. I just said that linux / unix is your best solution since that is what the majority of NAS boxes you are going to buy are going to be running (all be it embedded)

I have yet to see a NAS device based on anything but embeded linux/unix and have used several different brands in my corporate enviorment. I've used drives from SNAP, 3COM, LINKSYS (I believe) and simpletech. all ran embedded linux / unix. none were windoze based.

The 'ten connection limit' in xp (is it now in w2k as well ?) is meant to be an anti-spyware thingymabob (which is fairly useless & mostly an annoyance for folks with file sharing programs) & can be fixed by a reg tweak,

the reg tweak is handy to know. perhaps you can PM me that. And yes 2000 pro has always limited the number of concurrent connections....at least since service pack 2

there's no way for 12 clients you need a 'server' product to do some file sharing, & costs ? ..

this is definately debatable. I'd beg to differ with you on this opinion and say once you get over 5-6 people (IMO) a workgroup enviroment is no longer an effective and efficient way to go and you should have at least a DHCP server and DNS server running to help ease the network load. the most accepted number is 10 before switching over to a domain enviroment. I do agree that cost wise it's probably not worth a 'server' product (meaning 2K or 2003 server by M$) but luckily with some of the distros I mentioned earlier, like SME server you can emulate a windows NT domain and centralized all your administration for the cost of another pc and about 15 minutes of install / and setup interview that even the most non linux minded person could complete.

[confus-ed]

Changes to Functionality in Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2 details the 'why' of the 'ten concurrent connection' limit (which upon checking also affects w2k if patched) & this explains the 'why' of why I think its just dumb & how to get around it, if its causing you issue..

& for irony ... Sources say IBM to drop Windows-based storage , A Linux-based file server is expected to replace TotalStorage NAS devices to demonstarte that you can most definately have NAS type devices that aren't linux based !

[confus-ed]

..there's no way for 12 clients you need a 'server' product to do some file sharing..

this is definately debatable. I'd beg to differ with you on this opinion and say once you get over 5-6 people (IMO) a workgroup enviroment is no longer an effective and efficient way to go and you should have at least a DHCP server and DNS server running to help ease the network load. the most accepted number is 10 before switching over to a domain enviroment..

So while I'm 'ranting' I'll have a 'poke' at this bit too .... but you are quite right this is very 'debatable' , depending what you want & need & are doing, which Emr has probably thought about ...

Err all I want is file sharing, not a load of network services .. I don't want DHCP or DNS running at 'my end', I don't need all of that or want it, as then I'll have to adminster & support it, in which case NAS is maybe what I want instead ?

(which would be the entire point of the question !?! )

[kato2274]

So while I'm 'ranting' I'll have a 'poke' at this bit too .... but you are quite right this is very 'debatable' , depending what you want & need & are doing, which Emr has probably thought about ...

Err all I want is file sharing, not a load of network services .. I don't want DHCP or DNS running at 'my end', I don't need all of that or want it, as then I'll have to adminster & support it, in which case NAS is maybe what I want instead ?

(which would be the entire point of the question !?! )

:sigh: Sometimes I wonder why I bother to post anything to these forums anymore when it's just going to be 'corrected' no matter how correct the answer is