Would you use a QNAP NAS in this environment?

[claykin]

Hi.

I need a NAS (for Win client backup storage), simple SMTP server for limited outbound mail usage, and also to possibly to act as a Radius server for Enterprise Wifi auth.

I also need a fairly entry level Win Server (Such as Essentials 2012) to be a file server, AD, DHCP, WSUS. Nothing terribly complicated on the Win Server, but I have about 12 Win clients to manage so it will be easier this way.

Anyone have a real world opinion on doing this using a NAS (QNAP or Synology) and using Virtualization to run Server 2012 R2?

Am I making a mistake going this route?

One thing I read about QNAPs virtualization is that it doesn't support USB3 ports on the NAS. Supposedly only USB2. I'm wondering what major caveats I'll be learning the hard way...

Thanks

Scott

 

[thiggins]

If you want a Windows server, there are NASes from Seagate and Buffalo that run it directly.

Most NASes will act as AD servers. I think QNAP and Synology also have apps/add-ins that will support all your desired functions.

Seems like you're adding an unnecessary layer of complexity by running Windows Server as a VM

 

[claykin]

If you want a Windows server, there are NASes from Seagate and Buffalo that run it directly.

Most NASes will act as AD servers. I think QNAP and Synology also have apps/add-ins that will support all your desired functions.

Seems like you're adding an unnecessary layer of complexity by running Windows Server as a VM

I need Group Policy (OU) and Win client/user management. Please point me to a NAS addin that replicates these core Win Server functions.

The Seagate and Buffalo models I've seen all run Windows Storage Server. If I already had a Win Server (domain controller) on the LAN, those might be a good option.

Last, Server 2012 has no built in SMTP server and I have a few corporate apps that require connection to local SMTP to send (no SSL support and must be port 25). Yes, they are old school and unfortunately not any plans to update them. I'd also like a local RADIUS server and I see the Linux NAS units offer a Radius Addin. Should be much easier than trying to use Freeradius.

Tim, I'm trying to buy into the concept being promoted by QNAP with their virtualization station and the TS-x53 Pro boxes. Seemed to me SNB was very positive on the Virtualization Station.

Assuming what I asked in my original post is viable and a good option, my main concern is hardware reliability. Having all my eggs in one basket (QNAP) worries me a bit.

 

[stevech]

One can do group policy and all that without a domain controller? E.g., do that in workgroup mode?

 

[claykin]

If you want a Windows server, there are NASes from Seagate and Buffalo that run it directly.

Most NASes will act as AD servers. I think QNAP and Synology also have apps/add-ins that will support all your desired functions.

Seems like you're adding an unnecessary layer of complexity by running Windows Server as a VM

thiggins

I did some additional reading up on the QNAP products. I see where they support SAMBA4 to act as a basic domain controller. Kind of neat, but it doesn't include things like centralized management of the clients like I could get with Win Server. Server Essentials is inexpensive and if it can run in a VM reliably that could be a good option. From the reivews I've read (SNB and other sites) it sure seems like the 453Pro with 8GB RAM is more than up to the task.

Can SNB do an eval of the SAMBA 4 functionality? Some users may find this very handy.

BTW, the thing that still scares me about this is having all eggs in one basket and that basket being from a company that doesn't seem to have the best warranty options. These boxes for the most part come with a 2 year mail in warranty with "within 1 week" turnaround. Advanced replacement exchange options are ridiculously expensive to the point where it would make more sense to buy 2 units and replicate one to the second so you could have a spare ready to go if one had electronics failure. And BTW, Synology's warranty terms seem worse than QNAP. Netgear has the best warranty options, but seems not the best box (any longer).

 

[L&LD]

Re: all your eggs in one basket;

You need three NAS units, one mirroring the other and the third ready to be switched drives and you're up and running again (if the NAS hardware, other than the HDDs fail).

Yes, it gets expensive real fast. But your data and how much downtime you personally or the business can take is what should drive your purchases.

Warranty is never for your data. Even if they replaced the hardware same day, it may still be not enough if that was your one and only source of the data.

 

[claykin]

Re: all your eggs in one basket;

You need three NAS units, one mirroring the other and the third ready to be switched drives and you're up and running again (if the NAS hardware, other than the HDDs fail).

Yes, it gets expensive real fast. But your data and how much downtime you personally or the business can take is what should drive your purchases.

Warranty is never for your data. Even if they replaced the hardware same day, it may still be not enough if that was your one and only source of the data.

Thanks but I'm not concerned about losing data. I'm well versed in backup and plan to keep the NAS config, all share data and the VMs both onsite and offsite.

 

[stevech]

Thanks but I'm not concerned about losing data.

That's unique!

 

[claykin]

That's unique!

Seriously? Read the rest of what I wrote. I've got backup covered. Backup is not the subject of this thread. But thanks for your useful response.

 

[L&LD]

Thanks but I'm not concerned about losing data. I'm well versed in backup and plan to keep the NAS config, all share data and the VMs both onsite and offsite.

You didn't fully understand my reply.

The data is of course important by default. The 2nd and 3rd NAS units are the engines that keep your network running. That is also a form of backup.

And how you try to minimize the risk of 'all eggs in one basket'.

Again; warranty from any manufacturer does nothing if you need to be up and running in a matter of minutes or hours vs. days or weeks, or yes, even months.

 

[claykin]

You didn't fully understand my reply.

The data is of course important by default. The 2nd and 3rd NAS units are the engines that keep your network running. That is also a form of backup.

And how you try to minimize the risk of 'all eggs in one basket'.

Again; warranty from any manufacturer does nothing if you need to be up and running in a matter of minutes or hours vs. days or weeks, or yes, even months.

I understand and agree. My take on this is at the very least a 2nd NAS unit is necessary. In a better scenario, 3 units to do as you described. [emoji3]

In my current setup I've got a Win Server and I keep it imaged using Image for Windows. I have a spare desktop PC I have successfully tested restore of the Server image in the event of hardware failure (I test the restore quarterly). Fortunately in the last 6 years we never needed to rely on the backup PC. The Server has held up well but is sorely needing to be replaced. Mostly due to Server 2003R2 and 32 bit CPU.

I also have an older Netgear Readynas we use to keep backups of the Server and clients. I'm thinking to repurpose the Readynas to backup the QNAP data.

And yes, I also have off site backup (with versioning) for all critical data. My important disk images are also taken off site weekly.

So, I guess my concerns are mostly about dealing with restore of critical network services if the QNAP has a hardware (not disk) failure. With conventional Server hardware I can continue to Image as I am and find a newer donor desktop to use in the event of hardware failure. And I'm even less worried with conventional server hardware because I can typically get replacement parts in 24 hours.

Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[L&LD]

Concerns about hardware failures are exactly the reason to go to a VM.

Almost any system, even a laptop, can run a VM, so the interruption may only be as long as it takes to copy the latest version of the VM to that system.

If you don't want to have two or more NAS units for hardware backup purposes, then simply have a copy of the latest VM image available to a suitable system (that you may already have).

 

[claykin]

Concerns about hardware failures are exactly the reason to go to a VM.

Almost any system, even a laptop, can run a VM, so the interruption may only be as long as it takes to copy the latest version of the VM to that system.

If you don't want to have two or more NAS units for hardware backup purposes, then simply have a copy of the latest VM image available to a suitable system (that you may already have).

I got that. Except there's a few other things I will rely solely on the NAS. SMTP server and Radius to name two. I need to determine backup plans for those. Radius should be an easy workaround, just repurpose the WiFi APs to WPA2 personal. SMTP may be more complicated. I have old school industry software that will only connect to unauthenticated SMTP on port 25. My fiber Internet and backup Comcast Internet don't provide SMTP servers (unauth) on port 25. Its ridiculous, I know, but I've got to deal with it.

Maybe I'll just keep my Server 2003 around (as spare) just for SMTP. Unless someone can recommend something else simple.

 

[stevech]

Does QNAP (as does Synology) have an SMTP server in their NAS OS?

For other than a very large enterprise with a big IT staff, I would be intimidated about the work needed to sustain my own safe/secure SMTP server.

 

[claykin]

Does QNAP (as does Synology) have an SMTP server in their NAS OS?

For other than a very large enterprise with a big IT staff, I would be intimidated about the work needed to sustain my own safe/secure SMTP server.

QNAP has an SMTP server add in called Xmail. This would only be used for certain LAN clients to send email. I currently do this using Server 2003 built in SMTP server. SMTP server connections are restricted to LAN users only. No SMTP relaying allowed.

No problem with spam rejection either. We use a single domain to relay this email. I've set the relevant rDNS, A and SPF records to keep ISPs happy.

 

[hizzo3]

To the OP... If this is for a lab, go at it. If this is production, even in a small office I cringe at the idea.