[Le Flaneur]

For most people, Time Capsule is a fine combined router & NAS -- except when you think about the fact that if it malfunctions, you will likely lose both your router and more importantly, your backed up data. I know that the Capsule gives you a way to archive the Time Capsule data, but strangely, that is a *manual* method.

For those who are really serious about backups, isn't it better to get a separate router (even an Airport Extreme) and then something like a Netgear ReadyNAS Duo, which offers RAID mirroring of backups?

ReadyNAS Duo - NETGEAR.com

[ghporter]

My NAS is from CoolMax, but the same principle applies. For that matter, it applies to wireless routers in general—if they fail, they take both your wireless AND wired connection with them. I'm using a separate wired router with a wireless access point for that reason (among a few others).

The Time Capsule idea is sound, though, and while I'm sure that there are going to be some failures, I'll bet the rate is no higher than that for AirPort Base Stations.

[Le Flaneur]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

My NAS is from CoolMax, but the same principle applies. For that matter, it applies to wireless routers in general—if they fail, they take both your wireless AND wired connection with them. I'm using a separate wired router with a wireless access point for that reason (among a few others).

The Time Capsule idea is sound, though, and while I'm sure that there are going to be some failures, I'll bet the rate is no higher than that for AirPort Base Stations.

There's also the question of the reliability of the NAS. How many NAS units use mirrored RAID and have user-replaceable hard drives?

[ghporter]

I personally don't see a NAS needing a RAID structure. There's something else that seems better suited for that. To me, the NAS concept doesn't extend to something that would hold a RAID. That's what "Storage Area Networks" are for. SANs are network attached storage that appears to be locally mounted, but is physically attached to a server. Since NAS can be handled by a simple interface device and these devices don't need a separate server, they seem to be well suited for small-scale storage, while SANs need servers and thus seem to be well suited for RAID architectures.

[besson3c]

SANs tend to be very expensive, and definitely not designed for consumer data. A NAS is a good idea for just general data backup, and a RAID-1 mirror is definitely advisable when and where one can't afford to be without their data.

Like most of Apple's products, TC earns points for being simple, but it is definitely not the "best" backup solution.

[ghporter]

My post above wasn't as clear as I'd like it to be. When I said that I didn't think of NAS as being well suited for RAID configurations, I wasn't thinking about all RAID configurations. Specifically, I've seen NAS devices (the names escape me at the moment) that support either RAID 0 or RAID 1, and those are very good ideas when you're sharing more than just some common storage among a couple of computers. Exhaustive backups of many computers warrant more robust RAID solutions though, and that's what I was thinking about in reference to NAS and SANs. Sorry for the oversight.

Besson, at one point in time there were SAN applications you could run on very low powered servers, such as a Linux box based on Via's no-fan, integrated CPU motherboard systems. The server didn't need to be anything but a switchboard for networked computers to reach their appropriate storage device. But the concept of SANs evolved rather quickly, and now there are few SAN solutions that don't come with a recommendation of the biggest, baddest server available to run them. I don't know if it's marketing or application bloat, but I don't like it at all.

Finally, TC is a "very good choice" for "most users." It has a lot going for it, but a few dings (lack of any RAID capability for example) that make it not a "best choice" for anyone. But then again, I don't know of any consumer level NAS devices that could get anywhere near "best choice" for even "most users."

[besson3c]

SANs do not require a hefty server to run them. Enterprise level SANs require a fiber connection to them provided by an HBA, but you can SAN attach any machine you want, providing there is a driver available for the OS. There is no server negotiating I/O or something, SAN connectivity is purely a hardware based connection.