Talk:Network-attached storage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Networking / Software / Hardware (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Networking task force (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 

Changes II[edit]

I think that this section has been edited incorrectly. Note the last passage:

Security when connected to Internet

NAS drives are generally safe to place on a network if connected to the internet, however there are some security concerns that need to be addressed by administrators. Some NAS drives (like the LANdrive for example) are based on a Linux operating system and are open source. There are a numerous firmware upgrades on the internet produced by various sources and NAS drive users are often tempted to No it is not.
--Thomo5000 03:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes[edit]

I think the following content needs more elaboration:

NAS was developed to address problems with direct attached storage, which included the effort required to administer and maintain "server farms", and the lack of scalability, reliability, availability, and performance. They can deliver significant ease of use, provide heterogeneous data sharing and enable organizations to automate and simplify their data management. Sltan 08:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

A NAS is not an appliance. A NAS Server may in fact be an appliance but NAS is storage technology. The differentiation between NAS and SAN is that a SAN is block level storage and a NAS is a filesystem. [See my drawing] I think this article should focus on the technology and not applications of the technology.

mennis 14 August, 2007

NAS versus NDAS[edit]

The table in List of External NAS Devices under $1000 mentions NDAS. Googling reveals the "D" is for "Direct", and that NDAS is apparently patented technology of Ximeta Inc. But what's the difference? (I've also been informed by Freecom that their Network MediaPlayer-35 is a NDAS rather than a NAS device and I'd rather like to have an independent view of what this might mean in the real world). Ralphbk 06:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

SAN - LAN comparisons/differences[edit]

Hi

SAN is often emphasized as LAN-Free in technical literature. Can there please be a small note on how a SAN is different from a LAN ? would be especially relavant for those who are already on LAN but have systems using SAN. Tends to get confusing at times.

Thanks

NAS under $1000 listing[edit]

I think getting rid of the listing of small NAS devices under $1000 was a disservice. Most people know NAS as embedded devices that they can go to the local store and buy with either a hard drive attached or one that accepts an installed hard drive. Looking at the current listing you would not even know such devices exist! It was removed secondary to "not being encyclopedic" this is what the page looked like before --Raumka 02:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The list had no relavince, and would be obsolete the moment it would be posted as some companies discontinue devices and others introduce news ones almost every day. Going to any store online or otherwise you can often find more then a few NAS devices under $1,000. PPGMD 02:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
But if you are going to list companies that provide enterprise level NAS why not at least list those companies who make for SOHO/consumer applications?(far more relevant to people like me who has only just found out about NAS and would disagree that most people know that these exist--172.203.167.135 15:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC))
There is a huge difference between a list of vendors that make NAS products and a list of NAS's with their feature set. I would not oppose a list of SOHO NAS Vendors, but if it got too large it would have to be forked out of the article. PPGMD 16:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Defense of my removal of all external links - Resolved?[edit]

Unbelievably, only three of the links at the bottom of the page were to projects or companies mentioned in the article: FreeNAS, NASLite and Openfiler. Each of those three now have full Wikipedia articles themselves, so I simply replaced the in-article external links with intrawiki links. I realise it may seem somewhat drastic to remove every single external link from the article but, aside from the above, every single one was more an advertisement than an actual article. That said, it might be advisable to start a seperate list of NAS and SAN vendors if the ad cruft starts coming in again. At least then it could be moved out of the article. MrZaiustalk 15:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why you are so keen on cannibalizing this article. Many articles in the wikipedia have a list of manufacturers Router is an example. This was a very useful and informative article, admittedly a bit sprawling that now is barely even topical, better information can be found even in the Storage area network article. Raumka 04:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The list was getting to the point where it was nearly as long as the article itself, and was a far from exhaustive list. Also, this article's manufacturer links don't compare well to those in Router, as every single link in those sections of Router were to other wikipedia articles. To the best of my knowledge, all of the manufacturer links removed that were not duplicated elsewhere in the article were to companies that weren't covered with a wikipedia article. MrZaiustalk 05:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Moot point now! Anonymous editor replaced the list of manufacturers with a list similar to that in Routers. Looks great. Dude/Dudette also added a chart (w/invalid https cert?) of NAS capabilities, stored in a wiki. MrZaiustalk 01:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I was that dude, unintended to do it anonymously. The chart was essentially what you removed in the first place. A bit outdated but quite comprehensive. I hope this works for everyone Raumka 03:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just re-removed the External Links section as it was only being used for spamvertising. Unfortunately my change comment was prematurely committed. ("You"). Ralphbk 14:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Quantum SnapServer[edit]

Wasn't this one of the first lower priced NAS product lines? The cheapest, smallest capacity, SnapServer was hardly bigger than an external 3.5" hard drive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bizzybody (talkcontribs) 09:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

power levels and power efficiency[edit]

The article needs a section devoted to power levels and power efficiency. A NAS typically runs 24/7. It is tempting and easy in concept to use a spare old computer as a network file server, and many small organizations do. But such a computer is consuming about 100 watts (even with the monitor turned off), and so costs about $100 in electricity a year! But an operating hard drive only needs about 3 watts, even less if it powers down on idle. So a small embedded-computer NAS should only average about 20 watts at most. So the potential electricity savings make it very important to carefully consider power consumption, and not to just use an old computer because it is available. Another option is to use an old laptop computer, which may only draw 50 watts or less. This is a particularly good use for laptops with defective LCD displays. The defective display may not matter for this application -- or an external display can be used for system administration. -69.87.203.254 21:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You can probably compress the above into a clean two-sentence statement at the end of Benefits. Be nice to have a source, though, if you're going to include power consumption statistics. MrZaiustalk 22:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Linux file name problem?[edit]

"The unit runs a linux type operating system and uses a filing system not up to par with Windows XP and Mac OS X. Many of my files, both pc and mac format, cannot be copied because of odd characters in the title." [1]
Many NAS are Linux-based. Does this mean that they all have problems storing some Windows files, because of name incompatibilities? Where is there a technical discussion of this potential problem? -69.87.203.254 22:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, more characters generally allowed in Linux filesystems than NTFS and are likely identical to Mac OS X. The filename limitations of both are dealt with in the corresponding articles. It's actually possible that the limitations are limitations of the SMB/NMB protocols/limitations of Samba, which is used in so many SoHo NAS. Worthy of some investigation. MrZaiustalk 22:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
If a Linux filesystem is used to store Windows files, and no special accomodation is made at the interface, there are many potential issues. For example, Linux filenames are case sensitive, and thus allow multiples of the "same" filename, where Windows would use case-insensitive filename matching. This alone could cause unexpected behavior for Windows users who simply want to store files, and don't want any complications! And, what about embedded spaces in filenames, common in Windows-world?-69.87.199.70 01:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
There's no problem with spaces in filenames in Linux. Pelago 14:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Another linux NAS OS[edit]

http://distrowatch.com/?newsid=04120 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.222.217.206 (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Made Additions[edit]

added image of a snapserver, added this page to the proper cat, this things are Server appliances. --Akc9000 19:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Appliance[edit]

"NAS differs from the traditional file serving and Direct Attached Storage, they are server appliances" Is this an error in syntax? "They" seems to refer not to NAS, but to "traditional" items. Someone kindly restructure the sentence or otherwise clarify the pronoun. Jim.henderson 15:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed --Kubanczyk 07:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

NAS Hacking Communities[edit]

I think it is essential for most of us who buy a comsumer NAS if alternative Firmwares are possible. Thats why i think the external link that i posted and which was removed again makes sense here. "Hacking" isn`t something bad. It can make the difference between buying it or not. We try to give an overview of existing NAS-hacking-communities to help users. I do not want to draw pagehits to our page in case you think i want to achieve that.
List of NAS hacking communities
Please comment. --mindbender —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.72.37 (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a political statement, it was policy. See WP:EL and WP:LINKFARM. Might try taking it to dmoz. MrZaiustalk 06:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

iSCSI is really NAS?[edit]

It is not a form of SAN, like AOE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vozesdoalem (talkcontribs) 12:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

iSCSI is a block protocol, so it is designed as a base of SAN (alternatively to FC/AOE/similar). It is not a file-level protocol, so it cannot serve as a base of NAS. But many enterprise NAS boxes (e.g. NetApp) provide additional SAN-oriented connectivity. --Kubanczyk (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal storage[edit]

Would something like this be suitable for personal storage? I've seen non-networked terabyte drives being sold at 1 or 2 TB now. NAS have also been sold at these sizes, as well as up to sizes like 4, 8 or 24. Could this be used where the "network" is a single home PC? Dictabeard (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Single board computer NAS[edit]

Some single board computers like the Raspberry Pi have been used as inexpensive NAS's. See

Mention in article. It makes a good NAS, just doesn't have QEMU and all that, but then again, most users wouldn't need or want that anyway. DevineDeity (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)