What can a home server do that a NAS can't?

[Copie]

16 hours ago, Tamar said:

Well since a lot of NAS's can run apps like Plex, the line between what a NAS and a server are got blurred enough for me to be unrecognisable - hence this thread.

But many of the lower end NAS units lack the processing power to transcode full remux or UHD content in a single stream, let alone multiple.

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, Copie said:

But many of the lower end NAS units lack the processing power to transcode full remux or UHD content in a single stream, let alone multiple.

Sure, but you can also build/buy a piece of crap low end full desktop x86 Window Server that also cannot transcode in real time, etc.

 

@KuJoe what you are referring to as a "NAS", simply doesn't exist anymore, except in some off-brand or ultra-low-end segments. Even in the Enterprise world, NAS doesn't mean what you are referring to anymore.

 

In modern terminology, a NAS is a specific type of Server "Appliance".

 

Basically every single enterprise grade NAS is a small server, running a NAS OS.

 

A Server is generally a term reserved for a more general purpose Operating System, such as Linux or Windows, where you can install hundreds of additional types of services. A NAS usually runs a NAS OS, which is more limited (eg: only supporting a whitelist of plugins, or a smaller number of applications).

[KarsusTG]

There are a lot of things that a server can do that a NAS, as you are constructing it cannot normally do.  For instance, hosting virtual machines that have enough juice to actually do practical things.  Or compile containers.  Or host web, minecraft, and other gaming servers, etc.  How about an exchange server?  

[dalekphalm]

12 minutes ago, KarsusTG said:

There are a lot of things that a server can do that a NAS, as you are constructing it cannot normally do.  For instance, hosting virtual machines that have enough juice to actually do practical things.  Or compile containers.  Or host web, minecraft, and other gaming servers, etc.  How about an exchange server?  

Lots of NAS appliances come with Xeon and/or i-series processors these days. So hosting VM's is no problem. Same with websites, Minecraft, and Plex. Most NAS OS's have plugins for Minecraft and Plex.

 

In terms of gaming servers - no, but that's a software limitation, not a hardware limitation. Same with Exchange, which can only be hosted on a Windows server (So a Linux server is out too).

 

But you could just run a Windows Server VM to host both your Exchange and Gaming servers.

 

The term "NAS" really shouldn't be applied to a piece of hardware. A "NAS" is a service - "Network Attached Storage". Many different operating systems can create and serve a "NAS".

 

Windows File Server service is software for a NAS.

 

DAS and SAN, however, are a bit more specific in their meaning.

[KarsusTG]

37 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Lots of NAS appliances come with Xeon and/or i-series processors these days. So hosting VM's is no problem. Same with websites, Minecraft, and Plex. Most NAS OS's have plugins for Minecraft and Plex.

 

In terms of gaming servers - no, but that's a software limitation, not a hardware limitation. Same with Exchange, which can only be hosted on a Windows server (So a Linux server is out too).

 

But you could just run a Windows Server VM to host both your Exchange and Gaming servers.

 

The term "NAS" really shouldn't be applied to a piece of hardware. A "NAS" is a service - "Network Attached Storage". Many different operating systems can create and serve a "NAS".

 

Windows File Server service is software for a NAS.

 

DAS and SAN, however, are a bit more specific in their meaning.

 

But the op is referring to it as the home consumer level NAS appliance.  I have never personally seen one of those that had a decent Xeon and enough ram to do many of these things, especially all at once. 

 

Mostly what I see are QNap and Synology DS418 type models.  They can do some things, it's true, but trying to get one to host multiple servers, a virtual machine with relatively heavy compute requirements, and push HD video all at the same time is far FAR outside its wheelhouse.  The ram requirements alone exclude these devices.  I upgraded my server that I use as a NAS from 32gb to 64gb recently because I was constantly running low on ram.  

 

Basically you can use a NAS service on a server, but you cannot use a NAS device as a server...  Which is why I said as the OP is constructing it.  They really need a different name for those things.  

[Tamar]

On 30. 12. 2017 at 6:23 PM, KarsusTG said:

There are a lot of things that a server can do that a NAS, as you are constructing it cannot normally do.  For instance, hosting virtual machines that have enough juice to actually do practical things.  Or compile containers.  Or host web, minecraft, and other gaming servers, etc.  How about an exchange server?  

Why is that? Is it a lack of computing power, a lack of software available for a particular NAS OS or something else, like a need for actual expansion cards to do certain things? (You can probably tell I don't actually need anything like that right now, I'd just like to know how expensive it would be to get something which would allow me to do this stuff if needed in the future). How much power is enough to just run Plex and store and access data?

[Highflow]

lol, yeah what is what...  NAS products are getting insane with multi cores, tons of RAM...  they getting more like a fullsize pc , but if you build something on own design you can basically add hardware how you like it and change things when needed other than a compact enclosure were all kind of limits exist.

 

Instead of NAS you could build a nice DAS and get away from the networking, specially if you mainlly use it for simple backup and shares/storage

[Tamar]

49 minutes ago, Highflow said:

lol, yeah what is what...  NAS products are getting insane with multi cores, tons of RAM...  they getting more like a fullsize pc , but if you build something on own design you can basically add hardware how you like it and change things when needed other than a compact enclosure were all kind of limits exist.

 

Instead of NAS you could build a nice DAS and get away from the networking, specially if you mainlly use it for simple backup and shares/storage

Build... a DAS? I thought DAS's were just external drives made up of a RAID array. I want something to which the whole family can place their photos, music and movies and access them from all their devices, so a DAS doesn't really suit my situation. Right now I'm just wondering how much processing power I'm going to need, considering I may get to a point in time where a server could come in handy. I wouldn't mind building something on my own, but I have no idea on how to make a 24/7 running machine that I could trust with all of my (our) data and that wouldn't double its price in electricity bills on a year.

[Highflow]

A DAS is external storage enclosure directly accessible to the OS,

it can contain raid arrays , jbod or single drives.

You can also share maps or whole drives on it to your homenetwork as usually with your internal drives.

 

Big plus those enclosures dont use a motherboard cpu and ram , just a psu and expander/ expander backplane

[Tamar]

55 minutes ago, Highflow said:

A DAS is external storage enclosure directly accessible to the OS,

it can contain raid arrays , jbod or single drives.

You can also share maps or whole drives on it to your homenetwork as usually with your internal drives.

 

Big plus those enclosures dont use a motherboard cpu and ram , just a psu and expander/ expander backplane

Oh yeah, I already knew that. I kinda like the idea of having a centralised storage that runs 24/7 always to be accessed. Plus, after establishing a home network not long ago, I found out that file transfers are terribly slow on it. I don't know why it is so, but I'm hoping that getting a NAS/server will solve that.

[Paul Vreeland]

My home storage started life years ago as just a 4x drive bay NAS.

 

It since has evolved into a HTPC + NAS, then HTPC as a server + NAS, then upgraded to the home server with SAMBA that it is now and ditched the NAS.

 

I am now running VMs for webservers, game servers, private torrent tracker for my own developed software apps, light "console" type gaming with controllers.  I did go down in space due to my server not having enough drive bays with the HTPC case, but my priority isn't space for media only anymore.  It's silence, speed, power consumption, efficiency and looks.

 

This is what my home server has been upgraded to in its most recent incarnation:

 

AMD FX-8320E (8 core)

32 GB RAM

2x 256 GB SSD RAID 1 (BOOT)

2x 1 TB HDD RAID 1 (DATA)

Fanless AMD Radeon HD 6450

Silverstone SST-ML04B Case

Ubuntu 16.04 LTS server

 

All that having been said.  If you aren't super techie, go with the NAS.  If you are a tech-head you may find yourself tinkering until the NAS falls out of your network design or is repurposed for something else.

 

The problem you run into with long term storage is software compatibility years later.  My old NAS is no longer supported for any software updates so doesn't run the latest apps, security features, etc.  A full fledged server allowed me to transition to a longer term storage solution.  Parts fail?  Easy to replace.  Apps or OS out of date?  Run updates or upgrades.  Data dumping is a pain and I have been through it many times, mostly tinkering and upgrading the NAS.  I've replaced my NAS power supply, but as it ages, parts get more and more difficult to find.

[Tamar]

7 hours ago, Paul Vreeland said:

My home storage started life years ago as just a 4x drive bay NAS.

 

It since has evolved into a HTPC + NAS, then HTPC as a server + NAS, then upgraded to the home server with SAMBA that it is now and ditched the NAS.

 

I am now running VMs for webservers, game servers, private torrent tracker for my own developed software apps, light "console" type gaming with controllers.  I did go down in space due to my server not having enough drive bays with the HTPC case, but my priority isn't space for media only anymore.  It's silence, speed, power consumption, efficiency and looks.

 

This is what my home server has been upgraded to in its most recent incarnation:

 

AMD FX-8320E (8 core)

32 GB RAM

2x 256 GB SSD RAID 1 (BOOT)

2x 1 TB HDD RAID 1 (DATA)

Fanless AMD Radeon HD 6450

Silverstone SST-ML04B Case

Ubuntu 16.04 LTS server

 

All that having been said.  If you aren't super techie, go with the NAS.  If you are a tech-head you may find yourself tinkering until the NAS falls out of your network design or is repurposed for something else.

 

The problem you run into with long term storage is software compatibility years later.  My old NAS is no longer supported for any software updates so doesn't run the latest apps, security features, etc.  A full fledged server allowed me to transition to a longer term storage solution.  Parts fail?  Easy to replace.  Apps or OS out of date?  Run updates or upgrades.  Data dumping is a pain and I have been through it many times, mostly tinkering and upgrading the NAS.  I've replaced my NAS power supply, but as it ages, parts get more and more difficult to find.

Well I'd say I'm a pretty big techhead (amateurish, but still), but this is the first time I've ever gotten into networking. I don't have the money to build a machine with an 8 core processor and 32GB of RAM, in fact I'm not spending over $500 on the device. I'm quite sure that I'd learn how to get the most out of a server if I got one, I'm just not sure if I could build something as quiet and reliable as the things Synology make are. Plus, all I know about hardware is about desktops and laptops, I know nothing about server grade components and their performance.

[Paul Vreeland]

Yep.  I meant there is no problem starting with a NAS, that is what I did years ago.

 

My HTPC started life as a cheap dual core, single drive, 4 GB RAM machine in about 2012.

[Tamar]

On 30. 12. 2017 at 1:56 PM, Copie said:

But many of the lower end NAS units lack the processing power to transcode full remux or UHD content in a single stream, let alone multiple.

How do I find out whether a model is or isn't capable of doing that?

[Tamar]

1 hour ago, Paul Vreeland said:

Yep.  I meant there is no problem starting with a NAS, that is what I did years ago.

 

My HTPC started life as a cheap dual core, single drive, 4 GB RAM machine in about 2012.

Right, I might actually get a dedicated NAS device and then later upgrade to something I'll know i'll need when I do. Thank you.

[dalekphalm]

3 hours ago, Tamar said:

How do I find out whether a model is or isn't capable of doing that?

Any NAS appliance will have a feature list that will tell you what the OS is capable of, along with hardware specs (Number of drive bays, RAM, SoC/CPU, etc). You just jump on any good retailer like NewEgg and can look up these details - or visit the manufacturers website.

 

In terms of determining what the NAS can actually handle? It really comes down to looking at the specs and having the experience to make an educated guess.

 

For example, any of the ones running an ARM SoC are going to be severely limited in their transcoding abilities (possibly one HD stream, maybe two, tops), and likely won't be able to host VM's.

 

But once you look at NAS's running x86 hardware, it gets a lot easier to tell, since they're just "Servers in a box".

 

For example: A Synology DS218+ 2-bay NAS has a Dual Core Intel Celeron CPU. This CPU would be the same if you put it inside a desktop or a server. It's pretty low power, and won't be able to do much.

 

However, a Synology FS3016 -24-bay NAS has DUAL Intel Xeon E5-2620 V3's - that means this "NAS" has 12 cores and 24 threads.

 

This beast could serve out multiple 1080p or 4K streams, piece of cake. You can even use it to run VM's, of which it could handle a significant number of.

 

Easiest thing to do if you're not sure, is post the specs of the NAS and ask for help on what it can do. We can also offer suggestions, or even parts lists to build your own "home server" if you prefer instead.

[Chaz042]

On 12/28/2017 at 10:03 AM, Tamar said:

How is it just a hard drive if it has a networking OS and software built in? Sounds a lot like a server to me tbh.

Yea, you'd think a server tech would know this...