It depends on what you're trying to do in your situation. Keep in mind that a lot of the really cheap (ie under $2k US or so) NAS boxes are Linux or FreeBSD machines running Samba. As a result they aren't guaranteed to support something akin to VSS snapshots, will not participate in a NTFRS or DFS-R replication setup, will not participate in a BranchCache arrangement, etc.
The more expensive NAS boxes *are* Windows boxes - specifically Windows Storage Server - and generally possess all the features you'll find in a general-purpose Windows Server [2003|2003 R2|2003|2008 R2] file server. The big benefit to NASes is you don't need to buy CALs. IMO if you're already current on your CALs a Windows-based NAS doesn't hold a lot of benefit, and a Linux-based NAS is worthless if you need the advanced features found in a Server 2008 or Server 2008 R2 file server. As for redundant file servers - if you're using a SAN don't bother with a Windows or Linux file server, a lot of enterprise SAN devices natively speak NFS and CIFS (and more!). You'll need 2 (or more) of them for a clustered setup anyway. I guess a lot of that is arguing against NASes ;) RM wrote: > Today, in the world of Server 2008, servers have VSRM reporting, > flexible and granular soft/hard quotas, the ability to expand volumes, > the ability to grow RAID containers (with the right RAID controller), > the ability to participate in advanced 2003R2 style DFS replicas, and > volume shadow copy to support the client's Previous Versions tab. > 2008R2 will add BranchCache. > > In light of all this, at what point can you successfully argue in favor > of a NAS device? Is there a certain amount of TB's where servers become > unreliable or untrustworthy? Is an enterprise NAS device really better > than a clustered file server in front of SAN storage? -- Phil Brutsche p...@optimumdata.com ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
