I may be an idiot, but what's the practical use case for the SAN idea at all, especially in a home setting? If I want my hard drives on the network, I definitely want them as a file system share. If I wanted to treat them as block devices, I'd connect them to my computer directly. I guess maybe it enables you to mount them to different computers at different times, but... still, using it as a network share would make way more sense. So, why would I want anything like this, even if it worked better?
@@kFY514 Nah, don‘t say something like that! This is an absolutely valid question. In a SoHo case i don‘t see anything unless you‘re dealing with large files and need a certain throughput, speed and I/O. Multimedia video and audio would be good examples. A SAN is typically better optimized for throughput with less overhead than IP-based encapsulation, and it can provide guaranteed I/O rates. Especially the later is crucial for anything multimedia when it comes to near-realtime processing. For example, you can set critical I/O priority and even the minimum IOPS (I/O per sec) on a SAN volume, and dedicate less resorces to another volume. With a NAS or file server, that‘s not easily possible. On the other hand, they‘re a lot easier to setup than a SAN.
Consumer focused software in the early 00's usually didn't play nicely with Windows mapped drives. I think this was an attempt to see if a different approach would work in the market, and quickly proved all the reasons it's a terrible idea 😂
I enjoy all things retro, and I am thinking of getting one of those HP micro servers, from the first gen to run Debian on. Mostly for the novelty, but I'd use it too, for things where throughput wouldn't matter much. Thank you for exposing this for the steaming pile it was, heh
Netgear and their strange technologic choices. Never was a fan... but wait, why I own Netgear router?! Maybe just to be authorized to say that the menu is horrible.
Sorry, but if that product was released on _any_ other date than April 1st, someone hopefully got fired at Netgear. I mean, there's literally nothing positive about it, if your verdict is true - which I have no doubt it is. I mean, a SAN whose disks sometimes don't re-attach after a reboot? That really makes it completely useless, even in a 100% hobby context. Oof.
Yeah, not the best product they've made, and it surprised me as well they even did a second revision, and that it survived 5 years before being pulled.
my sysadmin brain froze in horror that the mirroring of disks could have been done over 2000s era wifi.
Nice video, i remember these but never used one so its good to see it here, thanks for sharing
My pleasure!
I may be an idiot, but what's the practical use case for the SAN idea at all, especially in a home setting? If I want my hard drives on the network, I definitely want them as a file system share. If I wanted to treat them as block devices, I'd connect them to my computer directly.
I guess maybe it enables you to mount them to different computers at different times, but... still, using it as a network share would make way more sense. So, why would I want anything like this, even if it worked better?
@@kFY514 Nah, don‘t say something like that! This is an absolutely valid question.
In a SoHo case i don‘t see anything unless you‘re dealing with large files and need a certain throughput, speed and I/O.
Multimedia video and audio would be good examples.
A SAN is typically better optimized for throughput with less overhead than IP-based encapsulation, and it can provide guaranteed I/O rates.
Especially the later is crucial for anything multimedia when it comes to near-realtime processing.
For example, you can set critical I/O priority and even the minimum IOPS (I/O per sec) on a SAN volume, and dedicate less resorces to another volume.
With a NAS or file server, that‘s not easily possible.
On the other hand, they‘re a lot easier to setup than a SAN.
Consumer focused software in the early 00's usually didn't play nicely with Windows mapped drives. I think this was an attempt to see if a different approach would work in the market, and quickly proved all the reasons it's a terrible idea 😂
18:30 My first WIFI "network" were two computers on different floors using SMC 2662W-V3 11 Mbps USB adapters
yes, yes. I've got one... added sata 1Tb hd or ssd w a PATA to SATA addapter.. it worked!
They should have gone with iSCSI it would be still a useful product IMHO.
Totally agree, using a standards-compliant protocol would propably have fared much butter.
I enjoy all things retro, and I am thinking of getting one of those HP micro servers, from the first gen to run Debian on. Mostly for the novelty, but I'd use it too, for things where throughput wouldn't matter much. Thank you for exposing this for the steaming pile it was, heh
@@Ben333bacc I guess the HP micros weren‘t too bad.
Netgear and their strange technologic choices. Never was a fan... but wait, why I own Netgear router?! Maybe just to be authorized to say that the menu is horrible.
I fully agree about the UIs of Netgear products. The feel like slapped together without much thought, lest to say usability.
What an awful device, but fascinating! But the ReadyNAS weren't much better...
@@stevec00ps I never had a readyNAS, so can‘t tell :)
Sorry, but if that product was released on _any_ other date than April 1st, someone hopefully got fired at Netgear. I mean, there's literally nothing positive about it, if your verdict is true - which I have no doubt it is. I mean, a SAN whose disks sometimes don't re-attach after a reboot? That really makes it completely useless, even in a 100% hobby context. Oof.
Yeah, not the best product they've made, and it surprised me as well they even did a second revision, and that it survived 5 years before being pulled.