NAS vs Server for Small Business

[NetworkMonkey]

I have a client that's looking to upgrade the computer's around their office. They have 6 computer's total and all of them connect into a linux server for data storage. This is just setup as a workgroup and data server though. So my main question is. Do you think a company with 6 computers total needs a server, or would a good NAS meet their requirements? Their email and website is hosted off site, and they don't have any centralized business solutions.

Thanks for your input.

 

[00Roush]

It sounds like a fairly simple file server setup so a good NAS would probably meet their needs. Might use less power too.

I do have to ask though why you were thinking about replacing the current server? Low performance, high power usage, noise, or ease of use? With an NAS basically being just a specialized file server I wondered why you would want to replace a file server that is already in place.

00Roush

 

[stevech]

I have a client that's looking to upgrade the computer's around their office. They have 6 computer's total and all of them connect into a linux server for data storage. This is just setup as a workgroup and data server though. So my main question is. Do you think a company with 6 computers total needs a server, or would a good NAS meet their requirements? Their email and website is hosted off site, and they don't have any centralized business solutions.

Thanks for your input.

I'd say the main thing they need is a super reliable backup scheme that's automated and proven. Both on-site and off-site. What they have is adequate, I'd guess, though for 6 computers, probably running windows, I'd use a windows server or a plain Windows Professional with shares, and a good, good, backup scheme.

 

[NetworkMonkey]

The company recently got rid of their network admin and he had a primary and secondary server setup running Linux as their file server. The second server was just a backup in case the first server went down. Personally, this was TOTAL overkill for their needs. Though he was making work.

As for why we want to switch. The servers are getting pretty old and due for an upgrade. Plus it would be nice if they could have a NAS, which would be much easier for their tech in the office to manage versus the Linux server, which nobody knows a thing about or how it has been set up. So if I can put them into a NAS, where they can bring in a backup drive, backup the NAS contents and then take the drive off site, and also have online automated backups, that would be the best solution. Not to mention the space and power savings.

 

[00Roush]

The company recently got rid of their network admin and he had a primary and secondary server setup running Linux as their file server. The second server was just a backup in case the first server went down. Personally, this was TOTAL overkill for their needs. Though he was making work.

As for why we want to switch. The servers are getting pretty old and due for an upgrade. Plus it would be nice if they could have a NAS, which would be much easier for their tech in the office to manage versus the Linux server, which nobody knows a thing about or how it has been set up. So if I can put them into a NAS, where they can bring in a backup drive, backup the NAS contents and then take the drive off site, and also have online automated backups, that would be the best solution. Not to mention the space and power savings.

The primary and secondary server isn't a bad idea but it really depends on how important the data is to the business. For smaller businesses this is usually overkill as you mentioned.

Sounds like you already have a good plan in place. Going the NAS route is definately easier to use and manage. The downside is the higher price you have to pay for an NAS versus a DIY setup. In your case it definately sounds like it is worth it.

One thing I did want to bring up is that even though your clients servers might be old they might still be good machines for file serving. Then again that depends on how old and what type of hardware. In terms of desktop computers I kinda of make the cut off around 2003-2004 (mid range computer) for repurposing them to file servers provided the hardware is still working okay. Anything older is a bit slow and has trouble providing good gigabit speeds. In my experience anything newer has enough computing power for decent gigabit speeds. Just wanted to throw that out there.

Either way let us know how it goes.

00Roush