Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
I just wish they would upgrade their DroboShare to connect via FW800 instead of USB. I really want for my Drobo to be a NAS on my gigabit network, but can't see spending $200 on the DroboShare knowing that my speeds are going to be bottlenecked by the connection between the Drobo and the DroboShare.
@Microxot: it is actually a very valid concern. I have one here in the office, and basically it's unusable except for very large single files. If I want to back a machine up to it I'm better off just plugging the drive directly into the machine...
I just don't get why it has only 1 HDD bay. I'd rather go for a eTRAYz that have 2 bays and gigabit ethernet for a little more than $ 90 #addonicsmininas
Sorry.. a NAS without gigabit ethernet seems almost pointless. As cool as the form factor is, it'd be truly kick ass with gigabit ethernet. #addonicsmininas
@shockwaver: Also 2.5" drive, no USB or eSATA external drive support.
Since you're not going to be dealing with dozens or hundreds of clients drive speed will never be the bottleneck but capacity limits imposed by the 2.5" form factor combined with lack of external expandability and the aforementioned slow network speed kill it. #addonicsmininas
@MadMacs: BYOHD. I don't know if it's $70 worth of convenience, except in very specific instances. It's not significantly more useful than a prepackaged external hard drive, except in those very specific instances.
The biggest use I can see for this is keeping a single hard drive accessible, but in a remote location (ex. security or environmental reasons.) Other than that, I certainly would not be in the market for this. Gigabit Ethernet and some redundancy (RAID) are my two biggest requirements for a NAS device; neither of which this has.
On another note:
I'd also like to propose that people who have multiple external hard drives, would be better served with no more than one or two external hard drives and a NAS. When one gets to the point where they have three or four (or more) external hard drives, the money they spent on the last two drives would have been spent more effectively on a NAS. #addonicsmininas
@Jack of all Tirades R.O.A.C.H.: Short Answer: They have all your files on them so you don't have to have them on your everyday computer(s).
Longer Answer: NAS is just a drive any computer on your network can access with a computer being directly attached to it. A home server is a computer that is left on all the time so other computers can access files on it. Both serve the same purpose (for the most part). If ALL you want to do with it is basic functions (like what is listed in this article) then a NAS is the way to go since they take up less room, easier to configure, and consume less power. A home server used to be your only option, but they are still nice if you want to do more complex things that a NAS simply can't do.
@kylewilson: VHS. You know, it's like a DVD but instead of a disk, it's a plastic brick with plastic streamers inside. Not as much fun as crepe paper, but serves in a pinch. Oh and I hear it was good for watching movies from and recording TV shows to back in the day. #addonicsmininas
@kylewilson: it is 250Gb you can clearly see above the barcode above one of the serial on the top right hand corner when the screen is turned on its side and you zoomed in 50x. jeez, some people dont see things when it is right in front of their face. lol #addonicsmininas
How fast does a NAS need to be when it's serving music and video? And how fast does the network have to be to be too slow for the latest 2.5" platters? Seems to me like power saving is a good benefit, and the speed loss would never be a factor.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
But where's the Ethernet, guys? Don't leave networked users out in the cold!
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
Agreed... if I ever buy a NAS it'll be one that supports RAID 1. #addonicsmininas
11/17/09
11/17/09
Since you're not going to be dealing with dozens or hundreds of clients drive speed will never be the bottleneck but capacity limits imposed by the 2.5" form factor combined with lack of external expandability and the aforementioned slow network speed kill it. #addonicsmininas
11/16/09
11/17/09
The biggest use I can see for this is keeping a single hard drive accessible, but in a remote location (ex. security or environmental reasons.) Other than that, I certainly would not be in the market for this. Gigabit Ethernet and some redundancy (RAID) are my two biggest requirements for a NAS device; neither of which this has.
On another note:
I'd also like to propose that people who have multiple external hard drives, would be better served with no more than one or two external hard drives and a NAS. When one gets to the point where they have three or four (or more) external hard drives, the money they spent on the last two drives would have been spent more effectively on a NAS. #addonicsmininas
11/17/09
11/16/09
11/17/09
Longer Answer: NAS is just a drive any computer on your network can access with a computer being directly attached to it. A home server is a computer that is left on all the time so other computers can access files on it. Both serve the same purpose (for the most part). If ALL you want to do with it is basic functions (like what is listed in this article) then a NAS is the way to go since they take up less room, easier to configure, and consume less power. A home server used to be your only option, but they are still nice if you want to do more complex things that a NAS simply can't do.
Longest Answer:
NAS [en.wikipedia.org]
Home Server [en.wikipedia.org]
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/17/09
Don't be an ass, you never know when you yourself might be wrong. #addonicsmininas
11/17/09
11/17/09
It doesn't really matter though, as the mini NAS is merely a carrier for an HDD of your choice. #addonicsmininas
11/18/09
They don't make a 200GB 7200rpm, lol
11/18/09
The model you linked to is a 7200.4, one of their newer models of HDDs. The model in the image is a 7200.2, an HDD whose capacity was capped at 200GB.
[www.google.com]
03/31/09
When will people get that RAID 0 is not for backup. In fact, it's the opposite!
03/31/09
03/31/09
03/31/09
03/31/09
03/31/09
03/31/09
03/31/09
Save Power - Save the Planet
Is it like Meatwad's computer made out of leaves?
03/31/09
03/31/09
"You'll pay for this, Captain Planet!"
03/31/09
03/31/09
03/31/09
03/31/09