Re: SBS 2003 or NAS ?
- From: "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" <lanwench@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:15:43 -0400
Jim <jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi All,
Have come across several of our customers recently whom we have
quoted for SBS only to find that they have spoken to other sources
who have informed them that having a fileserver isn't the way to go
and that they should have a network attached storage server... as
primarily they are much cheaper.and better.. Hmm
Can NAS boxes offer built in e-mail and firewall facilities these
days ?
NAS = network attached storage. That's it. (and I wouldn't use SBS as my
perimeter firewall anyway so that's a wash - they'd still need a *good*
firewall appliance)
I always thought that accessing files from a dedicated server was
quicker than accesing files from a NAS box.
No, this depends on hardware.
Perhaps things have moved on..?
Anyway the customers appear to be baulking at paying what appears to
be much more when they've been told that they can have the same
facilities for a lot less.
I suspect that they have been misinformed.
Thoughts anyone..
Jim.
The two biggest differences ...
Active directory gives them centralized security/user accounts and
management
Exchange gives them centralized mail/PIM
There are about nine thousand other differences, but you'll need to explain
that to them once they tell you what they've got & think they need.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: SBS 2003 or NAS ?
- From: Dave Nickason [SBS MVP]
- Re: SBS 2003 or NAS ?
- References:
- SBS 2003 or NAS ?
- From: Jim
- SBS 2003 or NAS ?
- Prev by Date: Intrusion Detection Strategies
- Next by Date: Re: After DNS update: critical services being blocked from listening on standard TCP/IP ports
- Previous by thread: Re: SBS 2003 or NAS ?
- Next by thread: Re: SBS 2003 or NAS ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
