just that properly configured one of these routers can also provide a satisfactory experience for file/media sharing and backup purposes, quite cheaper also.
None of my simple scenarios were reliable for more than a couple of days running off the router. I didn't push it that hard, hit it will a few raspberry Pi backups. The hardware simply cannot support any extended load no matter how well, or not, it is configured. Yes, it will work for some people, under some circumstances but the issue is some poor smuck out there will put his life's work on there after reading someone "said it was ok". It's a router. It is not a NAS. At best, as pointed out above, it is a file share option. If this is your main, or only, router, do you really want to have it sucking up most of it resources doing stuff that a $20 raspberry Pi can do (arguably better) rather than doing what it is supposed to be doing, routing? (No, I'm not advocating using a $20 Pi as a true NAS either, just saying it is likely a better option than using your router, your key component to network connectivity)
Using a 32GB stick for entware, logging and so on, and a USB3 RAID1 4TB box (self powered) for disk services (samba and minidlna).
Pretty much anything goes wrong (corruption due to power failure, disconnected the, etc) and your router CPU will go to 100%.
Not saying this doesn't work for *you*, as it clearly does. Not saying it can't be done, as it clearly can. I am saying that the likelihood of it working well, for any length of time is extremely low given the variables. There are obviously ways to mitigate the potential for failure, such as running a true HDD, particularly with its own power supply as you are doing.
I do not think people are acting responsibly when it comes to these options, or this functionality, in promoting its use as a NAS.
