this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)

Homelab

947 readers
1 users here now

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I currently have a 10-year old off-the-shelf NAS (Synology) that needs replacing soon. I haven't done much with it other than the simple things I mention later, so I still consider myself a novice when it comes to NAS, servers, and networking in general, but I've been reading a bit lately (which lead my to this sub). For a replacement I'm wondering whether to get another Synology, use an open source NAS/server OS, or just use a Windows PC. Windows is by far the OS I'm most comfortable with so I'm drawn to the final option. However, I regularly see articles and forum posts which frown upon the use Windows for NAS/server purposes even for simple home-use needs, although I can't remember reading a good explanation of why. I'd be grateful for some explanations as to why Windows (desktop version) is a poor choice as an OS for a simple home NAS/server.

Some observations from me (please critique if any issues in my thinking):

  • I initially assumed it was because Windows likely causes a high idle power consumption as its a large OS. But I recently measured the idle power consumption of a celeron-based mini PC running Windows and found it to be only 5W, which is lower than my Synology NAS when idle. It seems to me that any further power consumption savings that might be achieved by a smaller OS, or a more modern Synology, would be pretty negligible in terms of running costs.
  • I can see a significant downside of Windows for DIY builds is the cost of Windows license. I wonder is this accounts for most of the critique of Windows? If I went the Windows route I wouldn't do a DIY build. I would start with a PC which had a Windows OEM licence.
  • My needs are very simple (although I think probably represent a majority of home user needs). I need device which is accessible 24/7 on my home network and 1) can provide SMB files shares, 2) act as a target for backing up other devices on home network, 3) run cloud backup software (to back itself up to an off-site backup location) and, 4) run a media server (such as Plex), 5) provide 1-drive redundancy via RAID or a RAID-like solution (such as Windows Storage Spaces). It seems to me Windows is fine for this and people who frown upon Windows for NAS/server usage probably have more advanced needs.
(page 3) 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jampola@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago

You do you. If you don’t have the nous to manage a *nix based OS, go ahead and run Windows. We do this stuff for fun mate. As I’ve gotten older, I’m realising that I may as well leverage what I know to get there.

[–] GLotsapot@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago

TLDR: whatever setup makes you smile, and does what you need is the best setup. My only suggestion though would to use the Server versions of Windows, and not the desktop version.

Cpu Resources: yes windows has more background stuff that uses more resources, but let's not lie to ourselves - this isn't the 90s. Even a windows desktop now days runs at like 2% cpu. You got plenty left over

Memory resources: yeah windows uses more do to unneeded services, but RAM is cheap enough and easy to add.

Update reboots: windows desktop OS will automatically update and reboot by design. mS did this cause basically they were sick of their OS being called insecure , when in reality people were just not updating. There are ways to trick windows to not do this (like setting your NIC as metered), but you can't depend on that. You don't have this issue with Windows Server OS.

Storage options: windows server has a robust storage solution despite what some say here. I manage a server with around 48 drives in it with petabytes of space. Additionally it will allow you to use SMB/cifs , iscsi, and NFS shares.

So yeah... Windows costs more, and is a little more bloated.... But if you're comfortable with that trade off for ease of use, that you go for it! Ultimately in the long run you'll learn what works for you, and what doesn't - but as long as you enjoy it, and are proud of it... That's all that matters.

[–] jamhob@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago

I think a really major advantage to using Linux/BSD is that they are open and simple. Over time you gain an understanding and intuition about those systems that you are just not allowed to have with windows. You can recover from so many situations because you understand the problem and can come up with a solution. On windows you often would just have to cry and re-install… overwriting your data.

[–] HolidayPsycho@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago

The cost of Windows Server is basically zero with https://github.com/massgravel/Microsoft-Activation-Scripts . Yes. It can be used to activate Windows Server 2022.

Windows Server 2022 is basically another full desktop. There is no comparison to RDP in the Linux world.

The thing missing is Synology's SHR raid. But you can use DrivePool I guess.

All those concerns over resource overhead are useless, unless you want to use a very weak computer. Windows Server is extremely fast with modern day computer.

[–] Mango-Fuel@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago

Windows non-Server editions have a limited number of connections and after reaching that limit will start refusing connections. I know it's very easy to hit the limit when hosting a webpage, though I think I've never hit a limit when accessing file shares.

Windows home editions have (in the past had) limited file sharing and security options. This has been a large frustration of using those versions for me. Not sure if it's still like that with Windows 10/11. But you can just get Windows Pro anyway, it's not a limitation of non-server.

the connection limit is the big one, which is baked into windows specifically to prevent it from being used as a server. because $.

[–] InfaSyn@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago

Too bloated, too unstable, too insecure.

Will just reboot all the time and whore memory. Way more susceptible to malware.

[–] TrudeauAnallyRapedMe@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago

Windows reboots randomly and updates whenever it wants. More prone to viruses or other windows issues

[–] __ToneBone__@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago

Windows has a lot of overhead. It also doesn't have the capability to run common NAS filesystems like ZFS (to my knowledge) which adds good redundancy and performance increases. If you really wanted to run a Windows file server, you could look at Windows server as it's built more for the task but you'd run the risk of running an unlicensed Windows Server product which Microsoft doesn't like.

My advice would be to keep what you have currently and build something, probably virtually, that runs on a common Linux NAS OS like TrueNAS and see how you like it. Once you install TrueNAS, you don't have to manage it from a shell if you don't want to. It has a very nice web GUI.

[–] ChRoNo162@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago

I’ve used windows 10 for servers, was fine honestly

[–] -Alevan-@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago

Anybody can say anything, limux is still a CLI first os. And the CLI is easier for those coming from windows, than powershell. Thus, most of us run cli based server distros, where resources that would be used by a GUI are spared.

Also, most of the docker containers I run are Linux only. So I would have to use WSL1 if on a Windows Server or WSL2 on a W10/11. This means virtualisation, which costs resources.

At least, from my perspective its all about resource utilisation. (Also, I work with Windows PCs and Servers in my day job, for me its a relief ehen I can work with other systems).

[–] Charlie_Foxtrot-9999@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I agree that Windows Desktop has more overhead to run an manage. However, if I remember correctly, Windows Desktop has a limit on the number of open sockets it will allow to listen for incoming connections.

You will hit a point when you SMB shares may drop, and other servers running open listening ports will lose connection. You would be better off using a server OS for the things you want to do. You could try using:

Window Server Linux OS distros FreeBSD

You should install anti-virus on whatever you're running, and maybe a firewall as well.

[–] ozaz1@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago

You will hit a point when you SMB shares may drop, and other servers running open listening ports will lose connection. You would be better off using a server OS for the things you want to do.

I'm just a casual home user in a 4 person household. I'm not looking to create a nas/server for business-purposes or learn business-class networking **. I believe the connection limit in Windows is 20. I'm assuming this means max 20 concurrent connections and if this is the case, we won't trouble it.

** Probably I put my post in the wrong sub; I didn't entirely realise what homelabs meant when I posted (it's just that this sub dominates the reddit search results for home nas/server so seemed a good place to post). But the responses I received have been really useful all the same. I may end up trying one of the linux-based suggestions anyway even though I still think Windows desktop would work ok for my needs.

[–] Mint_Fury@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Lots of great responses here, I won't reiterate what everyone has already explained. The big benefits imo are redundancy using better file systems like ZFS (Truenas) or BTRFS (Synology, unraid), and in general better management of the drives, and data stored on them. These appliances support more robust raid configs as well, so you have a lot less risk losing data. The other big one is simplicity for what you need it to do. Creating an SMB share on a PC using windows isn't hard, but it's not nearly as simple as the 3 clicks it takes on the purpose built OS. These OSs also usually have built in solutions for hosting any other apps you may also want to play with. That's just my two cents.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] nowhereman1223@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago

End User Windows has a shit history with forcing updates on you and reboots just because you waited to long.

End User Windows is also not great at managing large numbers of storage drives.

They also aren't great to manage remotely.

[–] cmmmota@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago

Sever oriented Linux distros are designed with server workflows and high availability in mind. Desktop Windows isn't. However, if you're not running mission critical services, who cares? Do whatever is the most practical to you.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›