Replacing servers...

[Rod_Mustard]

we're going to be replacing two servers over the summer, these are windows 2000 servers with (for the time we purchased them) a bit of storage, not used for anything else other than home folders.

 

now, i'm looking at replacing these servers with nas device, like an Overland Snap Server.

 

the more i think about it, the less sense it seems to make to have a box running windows when all it does is share files when there are dedicated, more flexible devices on the market where you can upgrade the storage in a much easier, transparent way.

 

so, really how many of you gone down the nas route? better or worse than having a windows server sitting there?

[DavePoole]

Might be worth bearing this in mind: (From the Storage Team @ MS)

 

Reminder

File-level based storage on non-Windows devices is not supported by Microsoft. Only devices that have been qualified by the Windows Hardware Qualification Laboratory under the Server category are supported by Microsoft for file-based storage. While Microsoft can enable this deployment, the support is assumed 100% by the hardware device vendor in the case of non-Windows devices

 

First problem if not using a certified device my be non-working offline files for Vista clients.

[Rod_Mustard]

Offline files isn't an issue for us, we trialled it with teacher laptops, but the problem we found was that some changes were being reverted because they were logging onto the network, creating files, creating files at home, and when they connected the laptop to the network some of the files they created on the network were getting deleted. i'm sure this is fixed in vista, but tbh it's not really in issue for us and we're skipping vista anyhow.