reliable single-bay NAS instead of 2-bay NAS?

[htismaqe]

The big advantage of a bigger NAS isn't the number of bays, it's the processing power, IMO.

If I were to upgrade, that would be the reason. All of my data is essentially "local". The NAS is used for centralized storage and backup. If I were ever to implement VDI, or media streaming, or anything like that, I'd definitely want more horsepower. The little Marvell-based QNAP unit I have basically serves files and that's it (even though the software can do much more).

 

[L&LD]

The big advantage of a bigger NAS isn't the number of bays, it's the processing power, IMO.

Agree 100%.

But that has nothing to do with the reliability of it (title thread).

 

[Rob O'Toole]

Well, I went ahead and ordered a QNAP TS-231 at a good price.
Now, I will order a WD 3TB Red drive and wait. : )

 

[stevech]

Be sure to have a big USB3 backup drive

 

[Rob O'Toole]

Be sure to have a big USB3 backup drive

For sure ... at least 1kB.
: )

 

[L&LD]

For sure ... at least 1kB.
: )

Lol... kB?

VISD. (very important small data).

 

[Rob O'Toole]

I still have my first pc at home.
EGA display .... '286 CPU running at 20MHz clock speed!!
20MB HD and 640K RAM.

It still runs. It's a DOS machine, too whimpy to run even early days Windows.

 

[Rob O'Toole]

For backup how about a WD MyCloud instead of a USB3.0 HDD?
It wouldn't be running often and maybe reliability would be good.
Being networked, it doesn't have to live right next to the NAS.

 

[thiggins]

For backup how about a WD MyCloud instead of a USB3.0 HDD?

That or any other single-drive NAS (to keep cost down) should work fine.

 

[stevech]

USB3 HDD much less expensive.

 

[htismaqe]

It would be less expensive. If he didn't already own the MyCloud.