RE: NAS or WHS

["Keith Finnett" <groups@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I started off with NAS, then went to WHS when the NAS was just too
slow. WH=
S
is so much better =96 not only a file server, but the way it backs up PCs
i=
n
the background is amazing =96 and i=92ve used it to restore PCs, retrieve
l=
ost
data, etc.. My advice =96 buy a WHS, don=92t waste money on a NAS.

=20

Keith

=20

From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx [mailto:ukha_d@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Geoff H
Sent: 27 November 2008 09:43
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subject: [ukha_d] NAS or WHS

=20

I would like to canvas opinion from the group as to the best way to go=20
with regards to providing network storage, primarily for backup, but=20
also so SWMBO can get access to the digital photos from her laptop.

I was going to buy a Synology CS407e which is currently around =A3250
for=20
a barebones unit, until I came across a HP Mediasmart Windows Home=20
Server with one 500Gb disk installed for around =A3300. I know Synology=20
NAS units have been recommended in the past but does anyone have=20
experience of the HP Mediasmart WHS system in particular and also how=20
WHS compares to a NAS unit. I am not too bothered about remote access,=20
the prime motivation is backing up, two desktop PCs and two laptop PCs=20
and also making available the digital photos, music and video.

Whichever method I choose, I have already got 3x500Gb disks available to=20
install into it to get me started.

What are peoples experiences with either route?

TIA
Geoff

=20

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.9.9/1804 - Release Date: 26/11/2008
20:53



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


------------------------------------

********************************************
Limited Time Offer - Free iPhone VAT Calculator
http://berble.com/index.php/component/content/article/109
********************************************=20=20