WHS vs NAS

[menthel]

Right, we have ordered sky so its time to get rid of my HTPC (parts to be for sale later!), so I need a device to feed the multitude of laptops, consoles and sonos kit in my house. My 2 thoughts were either a nice, simple NAS box that will play with my PS3, Xbox360 and sonos, containing all of my music and photos plus any video I may have. Or I could get one of the tranquil PC WHS boxes.

However I need to also have my printer on the network. The problem is the one I haave at present is a multi-function jobbie that won't play with any of the above!

So, what advice do you have for me to solve this problem in the most cost effective, quietest and electricity frugal way that won't annoy the wife?

[aidanjt]

A NAS box will work with more devices since they use a fully UPnP AV compliant MediaServer. They usually use less juice than a WHS box, too.

[menthel]

Any particular model/make suggestions?

[Singh400]

I'd definitely go with a WHS box. It's has endless uses. I've got one (self build) and I'm wasting much of it's potential. For a start it will backup any Windows PC connected to it automatically, allowing you to quickly restore the image should anything go wrong.

It has file/folder duplcation so RAID isn't needed (nor recommended as I think RAID somehow messes with the duplcation process?).

Not to mention the random brilliant add-ins you can get for it. There's one when you can remote administer any computers hooked up to the WHS.

[aidanjt]

It depends on what you're looking for, really. If you just need something for occasional writes and everything else is just light media streaming, something like the Synology CS407e is cheap, low power box, with plenty of features to tinker with. If you're after more of a heavy use home web/print/file/etc server substitute, something more beefy like the QNap TS-509 would be a better idea, IMHO.

[aidanjt]

I'd definitely go with a WHS box. It's has endless uses. I've got one (self build) and I'm wasting much of it's potential. For a start it will backup any Windows PC connected to it automatically, allowing you to quickly restore the image should anything go wrong.

It has file/folder duplcation so RAID isn't needed (nor recommended as I think RAID somehow messes with the duplcation process?).

Not to mention the random brilliant add-ins you can get for it. There's one when you can remote administer any computers hooked up to the WHS.

NAS boxes do all that, too. And they don't die when the primary HDD goes.

[TheAnimus]

A NAS box will work with more devices since they use a fully UPnP AV compliant MediaServer. They usually use less juice than a WHS box, too.

WHS can play with a lot more than just uPnP (which it fully supports).

It can also do transcoding on the fly for you, if one of your devices don't support flac say.

The power drain is minimal compared to the drives (i use WD green power) and UPS i have, it is after all the atom bored with naff chipset.

Firefly even lets iTunes and any mac retards you have in your home join in.

The thing is if you don't want the easy back up, wounderfully simple management interface, and it all working in 30 minuites, with all your home PCs backed up straight out of the box no effort stuff, its not worth it, and your paying quite some premium for it!

It depends if you will use the features of it or not. My self i love how simple the backup/restore is, it was mainly that i bought it for. The nice remote features are a bonus too thou.

[TheAnimus]

NAS boxes do all that, too. And they don't die when the primary HDD goes.

Yes, but they don't make it piss simple to do all that. Many NAS's also don't have any transcoding/media database hosting abilities.

WHS is for lazy people, its a cripple server os... Crippled! Intentionally, with dumbed down easy to use GUI. My god the whole thing is so simplified your up and running in minuites!

Its for utter lazy people, who can't be bothered to use PCs properly i say!(I should point out i've not been to the gym in a week here )

As for the primary drive failing, most complex NAS's have to have their os reside somewhere too you know.

A popular home build is to use low cost SSD for the OS anyway, as it saves a hell of a lot of case space (and can be, in the case of a collegue of mine hot melt glued to the chassis!). Reloading the primary OS drive is also, wounderfully straight forward, you put in a USB boot 'key' and run the simple user mode app server on any working desktop. Simples!

[CaptainCrash]

Unless space is a critical issue and/or you're clueless with computers, I can't see any advantage in an off-the-shelf NAS box over a custom-built server, running WHS or any other server OS.

If you choose your components carefully, running costs won't be significantly higher, and performance, flexibility, expandability and all-round value for money are in a different league.

[menthel]

Thanks all. I weighed up the options, looking at ease of use, power consumption, expandability and cost and got a WHS tranquil SQA-5H 1000 with the ram upgraded to 2gb. I have hdds at home that I can add and from the price of the next model up(2000) I can get a 1gb drive from ebuyer anyway! I looked at the NAS option but it did seem more complicated, with people having to use work arounds and having some knowledge of how to use the systems. So lets hope it all works well! Especially with my ubuntu netbook!

[menthel]

I would try w7 but I have a dell mini9 that only has 8gb of SSD! I think it might be a squeeze!

[neonplanet40]

Congrats Menthel, as the guys have said here the WHS is so easy to use and has so many addons for other things you might need. I'd reccommend visiting the wegotserved forums. It has lots of useful information on the WHS and also links to addons which you may find useful. To save power you could also do a wake on lan. Get the server to shut down at various times and power up at other times. Making it only consume as much power as you want it too.

[Jay]

I recently dumped FreeNAS for WHS and I have to admit WHS is very good.