It sounds like a Synology device might fit your budget and expectations. As for a robocopy alternative, for what you are doing, you might want to look into rsync.
-- Espi On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:46 PM, J- P <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd rather not go that route, particularly what comes to mind is user A > makes some changes t Doc 1, then user B needs to review / edit Doc 1-, > then they start emailing it to eachother, or usb etc.. that's is why I'd > rather just supply them a "device" for a couple of hundred dollars and be > done with it- their total data (soup to nuts) is under 100gb > > I'm thinking at this point maybe some network based enclosure and > schedule a robocopy every 30 minutes? > > On that note, i;ve been robocopying forever, anything newer/better out > there? > > > Jean-Paul Natola > > > > ------------------------------ > From: [email protected] > Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 14:33:55 -0400 > Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] cost-effective storage failover > To: [email protected] > > > I guess an obvious answer would be to use Offline Files, if the > workstations have the space to store the cached files. > > > > If you go with that you should choose the option to encrypt the offline > files on the workstations. Also, I've learned not to use an alias for the > file server or to have DNS and NetBIOS names that differ from each other, > though I doubt you would have that problem in such a small office. (If > more than one name is used, Offline Files will probably see the names as > different servers.) It's not completely without problems, mostly involving > the time it takes to sync, but it seems to be much better on newer versions > of Windows than on Windows 2000 and XP. > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *J- P > *Sent:* Thursday, July 10, 2014 2:16 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [NTSysADM] cost-effective storage failover > > > > Hi all, > > For a small office (10 users) , i want to have a secondary storage device > that syncs with server share, so that in the event the the server goes > down (power supply goes, memory failure etc..), they can continue to work > till the server comes back online. > > They are too small to justify the expense of second physical server, any > thoughts? > > thanks > >
