Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ambuyimx]

Hi,

So I am hoping this is not a stupid question that has been asked a 1000 times but I dont seem to find a straight answer...

So the Case is this we run a DNS 323 in the office and we have a single user for everyone, so basically everyone is logged in (20 computers) to the DNS at the same time under the same user.

My question is, Would that have any kind of impact on the DNS or not? I mean is it going to make it slower? Crappier.... Or should I create individual users for all members of the team?

Thank you for the help...

SR

[JavaLawyer]

So long as you are okay with everyone in your office having read and write access to all of the data stored on the DNS-323, you should be fine.

Unique user accounts and user groups are available for security purposes, where users need to be restricted to accessing/modifying specific directories on the DNS-323.  User groups are also useful for providing private storage space on a per user basis, as well as setting storage quotas for individual users.

[fordem]

I don't see there being a significant difference between 20 users with the same user name & 20 users with 20 different user names, you will however, see degradation as the number of users attempting simultaneous access increases - there is a difference between a "file server" and a NAS, and it is the processing power.

[ambuyimx]

I don't see there being a significant difference between 20 users with the same user name & 20 users with 20 different user names, you will however, see degradation as the number of users attempting simultaneous access increases - there is a difference between a "file server" and a NAS, and it is the processing power.

Thank you for your quick answers!

Fordem just a quick follow up.... What exactly to you mean by degradation and the difference between a file server and a NAS. At the office we do use the DNS 323 as a main place to put our work in and everyone has access to it and we basically work off it! Is that a bad idea?

Thank you!

[fordem]

File servers, as a general rule, will have more processing power than the average desktop, and will be optimized to perform the task required of them - redundant power supplies, redundant disk, redundant memory, multiple NICs that can be 'teamed' to provide either redundancy or increased throughput (or both) - you may notice, there is a focus on redundancy, or the flip side, availability - if a desktop fails, that's usually a single user affected, if a file server fails, it's an entire office.

Not all of these features are found on all file servers, in fact, on an entry level server, you might find only redundant disks (which you can do with the DNS-323), but, even the least expensive entry level server will have ECC memory (which provides a greater level of reliability) and will have firmware that allows a greater level of management, again optimized for the role it is required to play.

The DNS-323 on the other hand is a consumer NAS, with the focus on price not performance, throughput, even with a gigabit network, is a dismal 25 Mbyte/sec at best (in comparison a $500 entry level IBM xSeries is capable of over 100 Mbyte/sec), and as the number of simultaneous writes occurs, that 25 Mbyte/sec is going to plummet all the way down to less than 5Mbyte/sec (that's the degradation I'm referring to)

When I bought the DNS-323 I have (back in 2006), the intended role was to act as a file server for a small business client of mine, actually a single user with half a dozen systems, each performing a specialized task (a role that it has never filled because of a lack of a proper back up strategy) - ironically, it sits in my network, backing up my IBM xSeries servers.

Is your implementation a bad idea?

I don't know - it seems to be working for you - but let me ask, how do you back it up - and no RAID1 is not a backup - my IBM has RAID5 and that gets backed up to a DNS-323 running RAID1.

We, on this forum, have begged & pleaded with D-Link to add a back up function, to an external USB hard drive, but never got anywhere with it, it's not a particularly challenging task, at one point I had read/write access to an external USB disk, I just couldn't be bothered to build a web front end to manage the back ups.

[dosborne]

We, on this forum, have begged & pleaded with D-Link to add a back up function, to an external USB hard drive, but never got anywhere with it, it's not a particularly challenging task, at one point I had read/write access to an external USB disk, I just couldn't be bothered to build a web front end to manage the back ups.

Easy enough to do in about 30 minute to install FFP. Mine is fully automated and backs up nightly to an external 2TB drive.

As for suitability, as Fordem says, it depends on what you expect to get out of it and use it for. If you are editing Word docs, then it likely works just fine. If you are doing anything disk intensive, then other users will wait. It is NOT meant for continuous simultaneous access from multiple users.

[fordem]

Easy enough to do in about 30 minute to install FFP. Mine is fully automated and backs up nightly to an external 2TB drive.

Like I said, not difficult, but D-Link couldn't be bothered, and the last thing I want is a client calling me after he/she lost data, because of an unfamiliarity with a linux command line interface, a lot of people scoff at Windows, but, at the end of the day, Windows' ease of use is what has put the power of personal computing at the fingertips of millions, neither Apple not Ubuntu have been able to make inroads in Microsoft's marketshare.

The consumer & SOHO market, which is the focus of this device remains Windows dominated, DLink gave them a place to store their data and media, a way to stream it, even a way to share it via torrent, but chose to ignore the need to back it all up, and no the ctera solution was never really viable.