Amen. The NAS solutions I have seen have been nothing but a pain in the butt. They end up trying to emulate or you end up adding with additional machines all of the functionality you are used to getting out of a basic file server and it becomes more complex to deal with and probably more expensive than simply spinning up the file server with a lot of disk in the first place. Disk is getting cheaper and cheaper and you can buy some awfully big disks that go into a server now.
joe -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mulnick, Al Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 9:19 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT: NAS and WSS <SNIP> Personally, I have yet to see the value of a NAS device in many organizations. It's supposed to be cheap space for those low performance applications such as file and print. I can solve that so much more easily, cheaply, and more completely without NAS. If you need to provision TB of data that is relatively static and doesn't have reliability concerns, NAS is a cheaper way to provision it vs. SAN but compared to straight OS, it's often cheaper and easier to use the straight OS out of the box since you'll inevitably want some auditing solution (sarbox?) that NAS is going to have more issues with. WSS may have solved this, but it's something to check. Al List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
