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.
I sit in r/datahoarder a lot and the general consensus is that BTRFS is unstable and should not be used, and instead people should use EXT4 or ideally ZFS. I know ZFS is the gold standard and expected to be more resource intensive and RAM hungry. Can you shed some light on why you’d use BTRFS?
I am by no means an expert, mostly a home tinkerer with a Plex server. I use BTRFS because my Synology supports it and I use ZFS on my Truenas box. I also use SHR with my Synology so BTRFS makes adding and upgrading drives really flexible as my media library grows. BTRFS and ZFS are very feature rich, as you mentioned ZFS is very RAM hungry which can be a limitation for people just looking to get into the server space on a budget. I think the instability of BTRFS comes from the way it stores data, it can get very fragmented. EXT4 in comparison is pretty boring but it works well and if you're just writing data to store it you might not need the features and overhead of the other file systems. Personally I have no real preference, I like my Synology and I like my Truenas machine and as a hobbyist they both serve me well, and I would take either over NTFS for a storage appliance.