YJTechy
15 pts. | Jun 15 2009 3:22PM GMT
Thanks for your input.
I had thought about the Linux file server because of the fact it’s Linux. I was thinking it might be a little more secure, stable, and potentially less susceptible to viruses.
I was thinking NAS because it would allow for a redundant solution that would also easy scalability….to add more had drives to expand out storage when needed.
What are the thoughts on that?
Mshen
23525 pts. | Jun 15 2009 10:08PM GMT
Those are very good reasons to use a linux file server. You should also consider access permissions, and whether your linux file server supports Single Sign-On with your client operating systems. It would be a pain for the users to have to login every time they need to access their networked files so make sure your linux distribution supports Active Directory LDAP authentication if you are leaning toward an Active Directory environment.
NAS storage is low cost, but not the most stable solutions out there. They all run some kind of OS, and I’ve found most run a simplified version of a Windows Server OS.
If you want scalability, you can go with an iSCSI or a Fiber Channel SAN. They are expensive, but they provide much better stability and flexibility than NAS boxes. Attaching a SAN LUN to your file server will make it look like the SAN is another drive directly attached to the server.






