QNAP vs Windows server (file server)

[bhom]

I would like to get some opinions.  Our aging file server running Server 2008 is due for replacement and I am considering replacing it with a Qnap TVS-1271U-RP-i3-8G .  We only use the file server with basic AD to put permissions on different files and folders as well as a print server.  We have about 10-20 employees accessing the server at once and we primarly move spreadsheets, photos and videos.  In total i have about 30 user accounts which i could possibly thin out to 25, but that would max out a Windows server 2016 license and force me for a high end product.  That and a few other reasons such as easy expandability is making me lean towards running away from Microsoft for a file server and going with the QNAP.    I currently don't see any downfalls to this as it's only being used for basic purposes, but I am hoping others could share their experiences.   Thanks. 

[dalekphalm]

7 minutes ago, bhom said:

I would like to get some opinions.  Our aging file server running Server 2008 is due for replacement and I am considering replacing it with a Qnap TVS-1271U-RP-i3-8G .  We only use the file server with basic AD to put permissions on different files and folders as well as a print server.  We have about 10-20 employees accessing the server at once and we primarly move spreadsheets, photos and videos.  In total i have about 30 user accounts which i could possibly thin out to 25, but that would max out a Windows server 2016 license and force me for a high end product.  That and a few other reasons such as easy expandability is making me lean towards running away from Microsoft for a file server and going with the QNAP.    I currently don't see any downfalls to this as it's only being used for basic purposes, but I am hoping others could share their experiences.   Thanks. 

Assuming that specific model of QNAP NAS is capable of running as a Domain Controller - then yes, that could work. User permissions on QNAP software is more simplistic than full blown AD DC, but may be sufficient for your needs.

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Assuming that specific model of QNAP NAS is capable of running as a Domain Controller - then yes, that could work. User permissions on QNAP software is more simplistic than full blown AD DC, but may be sufficient for your needs.

Surprisingly it can, https://www.qnap.com/en/enterprise_apply_v2/con_show.php?op=showone&cid=5#e4_04

[dalekphalm]

59 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Surprisingly it can, https://www.qnap.com/en/enterprise_apply_v2/con_show.php?op=showone&cid=5#e4_04

Yeah I saw on the qnap site that some models can act as a DC. Really neat. 

[leadeater]

57 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Yeah I saw on the qnap site that some models can act as a DC. Really neat. 

I never knew it could, I'll have to remember that.

[bcguru9384]

10 hours ago, bhom said:

I would like to get some opinions.  Our aging file server running Server 2008 is due for replacement and I am considering replacing it with a Qnap TVS-1271U-RP-i3-8G .  We only use the file server with basic AD to put permissions on different files and folders as well as a print server.  We have about 10-20 employees accessing the server at once and we primarly move spreadsheets, photos and videos.  In total i have about 30 user accounts which i could possibly thin out to 25, but that would max out a Windows server 2016 license and force me for a high end product.  That and a few other reasons such as easy expandability is making me lean towards running away from Microsoft for a file server and going with the QNAP.    I currently don't see any downfalls to this as it's only being used for basic purposes, but I am hoping others could share their experiences.   Thanks. 

if you are really only doing items stated i would suggest win10 pro and use public folders as share setup(right click folder add permissions as well from private folder)and group policy settings will work as well as you can configure everything under either workgroup or domain 

you can share printer cams and scanners as well as files

[Levisallanon]

You might want to look into the server 2016 licence again. From what I remember the amount of users refers to it when you for example use it for RDS etc. but for a file server it doesn't work like that. But I could be mistaking. Besides that I tough they now completely used a per core based licence model instead of a user based licence model.

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, Levisallanon said:

You might want to look into the server 2016 licence again. From what I remember the amount of users refers to it when you for example use it for RDS etc. but for a file server it doesn't work like that. But I could be mistaking. Besides that I tough they now completely used a per core based licence model instead of a user based licence model.

As far as I know, it's not that simple still.

 

You need to license the server itself (Which is licensed n a per core basis). But you also need to license the clients, which come in two forms:

User CAL's (per user account)

Device CAL's (per device)

 

But it depends what you're doing. If you're connecting to the server as Domain users, you'll for sure need CAL's.

 

If you're using a Windows Server as a file server without a Domain setup? You technically probably still need CAL's, but on a practical level, you might not. Though I'd buy the CAL's anyway, on the infinitesimally small chance Microsoft decides to do an Audit (If we're talking about a workplace - if at home? Don't worry about them unless you're forced to).

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, Levisallanon said:

You might want to look into the server 2016 licence again. From what I remember the amount of users refers to it when you for example use it for RDS etc. but for a file server it doesn't work like that. But I could be mistaking. Besides that I tough they now completely used a per core based licence model instead of a user based licence model.

Not for Windows Server 2016 Essentials, it doesn't require CALs and is licensed for 25 users or 50 devices which ever best benefits you. That means it does apply to users connecting to network shares.

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

You technically probably still need CAL's, but on a practical level, you might not

You do, CALs are always required unless included with the product i.e. Server Essentials. Inter-server communication is exempt from user and device CALs but you are not allowed to Obfuscate/Multiplex user/devices sessions through a server to hide the true amount and it's always based on actual end user/device counts.

[Guest]

What were the devices?

 

Have you looked at all at AzureAD, OneDrive for Business, Teams and SharePoint Online?