File server or NAS

usb2 vs 10/100

I'd get the NAS if I wanted to let everyone screw with anyone elses docs if I didn't use any of the extra security that is provided by W2KS when configured properly and If I wanted to have another thing to manage.

I'd get another usb hard drive if I wanted to just say... hey guys there's more room on the server now!...

I'm going through exactly the same issue. Our file server (PowerEdge 2800) lease is up and I've been machinating on the same issues.

I decided on a NAS box, BUT, one with Storage Server 2003, instead of a pared-down LINUX kernel. We have a lot of large file duplication on our file server, despite my pleading for people to follow protocol to prevent it. Storage Server 2003 seeks out and replaces exact duplicates with shortcuts; this is OK in my book. The extra expense for the OS is worth the savings in both active and backup file storage usage.

The other huge benefit is, I can still use my existing anti-virus (TrendMicro) and backup (Retrospect) because they play well with the OS. Not having to change other systems while changing my storage device is a huge plus.

My only quandary now is, how much CPU and memory should I put on this box? I've settled on the Dell NF500, I can start with 4 SCSI (or SATA) at RAID 5 and add up to two more (it will dynamically increase the RAID capacity) and it has 4 GB Ethernet ports. I can't find stats on how much CPU time and memory is used by Windows Storage Server.

Maybe I'm over analyzing. I could just review my current file server's stats and base my decision on it's CPU and memory usage.