Ethenet PC to my NAS

[Spudwell06]

I tried searching for an answer, but i could not find one (that answers it more specifically).

 

If i had my NAS near me, can i plug my desktop into so i have access to my files as if the SSD was in the desktop (at least not to much latency), but still have access to it over the net.

 

I want to keep it as a NAS, and my PC as a desktop, but have them hardline connected.

 

(Both systems would have at least 2 ethernet ports, one for wifi, the other for direct file share so i can save space in my normal desktop)

[Electronics Wizardy]

Yea you can have a direct connections, but id just connect over the main switch unless you have a faster direct connection.

[Windows7ge]

Unless you have 10Gbit NICs you won't see any appreciable gain at all doing P2P as oppose to just routing the NAS through your home switch.

 

Unless you're also looking to do this for security/access restriction reasons.

[Biomecanoid]

21 minutes ago, Spudwell06 said:

I tried searching for an answer, but i could not find one (that answers it more specifically).

 

If i had my NAS near me, can i plug my desktop into so i have access to my files as if the SSD was in the desktop (at least not to much latency), but still have access to it over the net.

 

I want to keep it as a NAS, and my PC as a desktop, but have them hardline connected.

 

(Both systems would have at least 2 ethernet ports, one for wifi, the other for direct file share so i can save space in my normal desktop)

Wiring it directly to your PC does not have any performance benefits than wiring it to the switch/modem.   The NAS will be much slower than your local drives, unless your home network is 10Gbps and you have Raid on your NAS with fast drives

[Spudwell06]

9 hours ago, Windows7ge said:

you won't see any appreciable gain at all

 

9 hours ago, Biomecanoid said:

does not have any performance benefits

Thank you for the information! L

But is there a way to have those files shared between them without network bottleneck? 

Is there some pcie to pcie device? 

 

Thanks for your time btw

[Biomecanoid]

1 hour ago, Spudwell06 said:

 

Thank you for the information! L

But is there a way to have those files shared between them without network bottleneck? 

Is there some pcie to pcie device? 

 

Thanks for your time btw

Maybe if your NAS also has eSata, but I don't think its common practice. Otherwise you need a NAS with 10GB ethernet also 10GB ethernet on your computer and fast enough drives to saturate the link

[Spudwell06]

2 minutes ago, Biomecanoid said:

Maybe if your NAS also has eSata, but I don't think its common practice. Otherwise you need a NAS with 10GB ethernet also 10GB ethernet on your computer and fast enough drives to saturate the link

So is there no way to have direct file share without network usage?

[Biomecanoid]

1 hour ago, Spudwell06 said:

So is there no way to have direct file share without network usage?

You can connect your NAS to the PC directly but with 10gb NICs to not have latency. NAS stands for Network Attached Storage so that is its primary use. 

 

 

 

[Spudwell06]

7 hours ago, Biomecanoid said:

You can connect your NAS to the PC directly but with 10gb NICs to not have latency. NAS stands for Network Attached Storage so that is its primary use. 

Should I get a high core-count CPU (10+) and use virtualisation so i have 6 desktop cores, and have at least 4 cores for the NAS and other servers, so i have direct storage access and a NAS (or will it not work). 

[Windows7ge]

10 hours ago, Spudwell06 said:

 

Thank you for the information! L

But is there a way to have those files shared between them without network bottleneck? 

Is there some pcie to pcie device? 

 

Thanks for your time btw

If you want an SSD in the NAS you'll need a 10Gig network to not bottleneck it. You can Peer-to-peer this if you like. You just need to know how to setup the IP's manually.

 

1 minute ago, Spudwell06 said:

Should I get a high core-count CPU (10+) and use virtualisation so i have 6 desktop cores, and have at least 4 cores for the NAS and other servers, so i have direct storage access and a NAS (or will it not work). 

If the NAS is physically a separate box from your desktop you do not need any virtualization what-so-ever.

[Biomecanoid]

24 minutes ago, Spudwell06 said:

Should I get a high core-count CPU (10+) and use virtualisation so i have 6 desktop cores, and have at least 4 cores for the NAS and other servers, so i have direct storage access and a NAS (or will it not work). 

No need to go virtual just make raid arrays directly in your PC.

[Spudwell06]

4 hours ago, Windows7ge said:

If you want an SSD in the NAS you'll need a 10Gig network 

If the NAS is physically a separate box from your desktop you do not need any virtualization what-so-ever.

1) it would be HDD family storage, holiday (once long ago) photos and old films

2) if it had like 12 cores it would be one machine, but have some cores for a NAS (+ MC servers) and the remaining cores for gaming (I don't do streaming or editing, only light CAD and mostly gaming) 

3 hours ago, Biomecanoid said:

No need to go virtual just make raid arrays directly in your PC.

Would I go are 1 + 0 (raid 10) or something like z, 5 and 6?

[Windows7ge]

1 minute ago, Spudwell06 said:

1) it would be HDD family storage, holiday (once long ago) photos and old films

2) if it had like 12 cores it would be one machine, but have some cores for a NAS (+ MC servers) and the remaining cores for gaming (I don't do streaming or editing, only light CAD and mostly gaming) 

I wouldn't recommend mixing your desktop with a NAS. These are two appliances you general want separate from one another. If you like you can setup a hypervisor and create your different servers on-top of that but keep your desktop separate.

[Spudwell06]

10 hours ago, Windows7ge said:

I wouldn't recommend mixing your desktop with a NAS. These are two appliances you general want separate from one another. If you like you can setup a hypervisor and create your different servers on-top of that but keep your desktop separate.

Thanks, 

I dont want to argue

also why do i want them seperate: is it reliability, temps, what?

but...

i want access to all my files on my PC as if it were on the mobo

UK internet is not great (100mb bandwidth limit)

i want to have the files remotely

host game servers for my friends (cannot rent because me and my friends like modding and messing around)

 

What do i do, i hate that my internet sucks, but its what ive got. 

[Windows7ge]

6 hours ago, Spudwell06 said:

Thanks, 

I dont want to argue

also why do i want them seperate: is it reliability, temps, what?

but...

i want access to all my files on my PC as if it were on the mobo

UK internet is not great (100mb bandwidth limit)

i want to have the files remotely

host game servers for my friends (cannot rent because me and my friends like modding and messing around)

 

What do i do, i hate that my internet sucks, but its what ive got. 

My biggest counter-argument to this this type of setup would have to be reliability. Managing a desktop requires different practices to managing a server and this can cause inconvenience to others when the server may be off for hours and hours because you shut your desktop down, or install something that starts causing problems, accidently install a virus, or Windows decided to restart your computer on you. Or even worse, Windows Updater decides to bork your Windows install and now you just lost everything through no direct fault of your own and everybody's mad the servers are down for days until you can set them all back up.

 

You can map a network drive so a server on the network shows up under This PC as if it were a directly connect HDD.

 

Depending on the types of games and number of users you don't necessarily need a powerhouse computer to run them. Old desktops often get the job done fine.

[Spudwell06]

7 minutes ago, Windows7ge said:

You can map a network drive so a server on the network shows up under This PC as if it were a directly connect HDD.

I understand, but with a 100mb bandwidth cap, something else would be nice.

 

[Windows7ge]

1 hour ago, Spudwell06 said:

I understand, but with a 100mb bandwidth cap, something else would be nice.

Weather you virtualize, use independent boxes, or just use one Windows install to run all your services it won't change the fact that your bandwidth limit is 100Mbit. This will be the case regardless of which route you go. The only way you can get around that is requesting a higher bandwidth plan from your ISP or hosting your servers on a different network.

[Blue4130]

7 hours ago, Spudwell06 said:

I understand, but with a 100mb bandwidth cap, something else would be nice.

 

Uhhh your nas and desktop are on the same network in the same physical location, correct? Your isp bandwidth cap is irrelevant. 

 

It sounds like you want to hyper converge for the cool factor instead of meaningful reasons. It's fine, but in this case it seems like a bad idea.