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.
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.