Snap Appliance Snap Server 1100 NAS Device

~*77*~ writes "While taking up considerably less space than a shoebox, this little device seamlessly allows users to add additional storage to any network in less than five minutes. Today we review the Snap Appliance 80GB Snap Server 1100. This compact NAS (network attached storage) device has many great features including: 5 minute installation, a compact web and ftp server, or simply a network share. Most importantly it works in a network mixed with Windows, Netware, UNIX, Linux, and Macintosh machines... "

80 GB

[wpiman]

80 GB doesn't seem like very much today.

I have a Ximeta [ximeta.com] 250GB Netdisk and it works great for me. Sure it is not NFS and requires its own drivers- but it works for me.

ooooh nice!

[Anonymous Coward]

An advertisement for a second rate hardware disguised as a Slashdot article! What a brilliant and original idea! *roofle poofle*

Getting more common

[AKnightCowboy]

This Slashvertisement brought to you by Snap Appliance, makers of fine SOHO NAS devices. When you are ready to deplot a SOHO NAS solution, Snap your fingers and head on over to one of our quality resellers for information about how you could own your very own Snap NAS Appliance. For a limited time, buy 4 NAS appliances and get the fifth one for just one penny!

Please....

[Fizzlewhiff]

Why do so many reviewers feel the need to photograph shipping boxes and packaging materials? Are you reviewing the product or the shipping department?

But why so expensive?

[conway]

Quick search [google.com] on google shows its above $500 for the 80GB version, and much more for the 120GB.
Why so much? I can get a small 80GB headless desktop from parts, and install linux to give all the filesharing / print / web / ftp server for about $200. Charging an extra $300 basically for a cute case is not my idea of a breakthrough product.

Sales sthick?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this look like a cut and paste from a sales brochure to anyone else? Any particular reason this non-revolutonary product is getting a free ad?

Re:Please....

[imidazole2]

Short answer - yes. The shipping department is sometimes almost as important as the product. It lets you know if you're likely to get the product in one piece. it lets you know if you'll end up with moving parts that... arent supposed to be moving. Apple's laptops, for example. Check out the packaging on those. My guess is the boxes and all will withstand a 20ft drop and the laptop will still arrive in pristine working appearance.

Re:Cost is my question.

[tuffy]

Even assuming you can that price for the 80, that's $320 bucks for that. Why would you do that? 80 gigs isn't much, when most dells are coming with at least 40 gigs by default now. So to any people who've used this, or will use this, can you tell me why?

You're paying for a preconfigured, RAID-capable, networked storage device that requires one switch to turn on and is fully administered from a webpage. That means convenience, low power consuption and a small footprint. For some people, those factors are more important than pure size.

$500 and no backup?

[unfortunateson]

For over $500, and $800+ for the 160GB, it seems overpriced.

For me to reach out and buy a server device like that, it's missing one thing: backup. If they included, say a DVD+/-R/RW drive, the price is still high. Is there something special about this drive? A RAID-5 hidden in that little box? Somehow, I doubt it.

SnapServers are great!

[franknagy]

I have 34 at work (2x4100s and 1 4200 plus a 2000 which has been upgraded to 240GB) plus I have bought 3 for my home (2x2000s with 240GB each plus an 1100 with a 120GB disk). They are great. Robust, reliable and easy to use from either Windows, Linux or Macintosh (either OS9 or OS X).

Re:What's the point?

[rimmon]

Maybe you're don't belong to the target group? This is great for small offices with no admin: They just connect the box to their switch and that's it.
You know, there are offices that don't have a server and don't need one. They just need a small box which is easy to setup, easy to use and does everything they need: store some files.
Can you run a multinational cooperation with thousands of user of theses things? no. A company with ca. 10 persons that is not in the IT business? sure.

Snap 80

[HancockDC]

I have used these for a few years with very few problems. A couple caveats:

• They are a single drive. If your are storing really important data, spend twice as much and get a 4 drive system configured as RAID 5.
  
• You are paying extra for ftp, httpd, netbios, etcetera. If you are just mounting it on a local computer, then get yourself and external drive such as a 160 GB Western Digital and save about 66%.
  

Backup anyone?

[tliet]

It's all fine and well, a closed box that can be tucked away to forget about it. But how about backup of these things? When it goes poof, it can take up to 250 gigabytes of data into it's grave.

I've never understood these things. Buy a FireWire or USB disk, but don't connect one of these things to the network.

Re:An Open Letter To All Future Small Time Reviewe

[JamieF]

Translation: Your story obviously sucks (even though I haven't read it); how dare you not pay more money so that I could read it (even though I've already decided that it sucks).

Re:Why not Gigabit

[Chibi Merrow]

If you're upgrading to Gigabit you'll also be buying one of the more expensive Enterprise models instead of the reviewed Workgroup model. I don't know why people keep pointing at some enterprise level requirement and saying "It won't work for that!" That's like saying "a pickup truck is worthless because I can't move as much as an eighteen wheeler." This box is meant for a small workgroup of a dozen or so people who just need some storage that everyone can use that doesn't require any administration. That's it. If you want more than that, look somewhere else.

Re:But why so expensive?

[chill]

And can you install the distro, configure Samba to authenticate off of the existing Windows Domain and have everything up and running in under 10 minutes?

I've yet to meet a sysadmin (with a job) that has enough spare time to do what you describe. Your time is worth (or should be) more than the $300.

I've installed four of these units for consulting clients and they are quite happy. Most of their happieness comes from everything being up and running in 10 minutes and they now have more storage space without major hassles.

-Charles

Re:An Open Letter To All Future Small Time Reviewe

[hanssprudel]

Given that the "bigbruin" guy submitted it himself, it is more like: "Why annoy two hundred thousand people with an advertisement/review if your site can't even handle the traffic."

The real question is about Taco: Were there no better stories then this today??? How lousy were the rejected ones?

Re:These things really are quite convenient

[Twirlip of the Mists]

My time has value to me. If I can build it myself for $1500 and a Saturday or buy it for $2000 (I made that number up), I'll probably just buy it.

I'll bet there are a lot of people like me out there. People who buy instant pancake mix and microwave burritos.

Hate.

[lemonylimey]

I have an 80GB Snap Server at work, and I dislike the thing throughly. It only picks up a random 80% sampling of our Active Directory users every time it's rebooted, which means we have to run it with no file security. Snap's helpdesk claimed this problem would be fixed by installing the new "Snap OS 4", which at the bargin price of $100 offered "Complete Windows 2003 Server ADS compatibility!" But, I protested, we were only running Windows 2000, and it says Windows 2000 compatibility on the box ...

After much cajoling, the helpdesk admitted that wasn't strictly true, but Snap OS 4 would make it so, and add a glorious weath of new features into the bargin. So we sighed, and bought it.

Needless to say, it's now picking up about 70% of our Active Directory.

The moral of the story is: Don't buy hardware from companies that charge $100 to patch something that should have worked from the get-go.

Do *not* use as webservers

[Anonymous Coward]

At the company [poweronemedia.com] I previously worked at, we had a half-dozen SNAP 4100's of sizes ranging from 120GB to 250GB.

The servers use RAID-5 IDE, and let me tell you, I have come to loath them. More correctly, I came to loath how our incompetent manager was using them.

Two of the servers held our customers graphics. Millions of graphics. These were being served out via SMB through Apache, and the bottleneck was not Apache. We had drive failures on these two servers at least three times more often than the others; roughly one drive failure every 6 to 8 weeks.

When our traffic volume for images peaked, the SNAPs would be unable to deal with the level of requests on the network, and performance would grind to a halt. My brilliant manager then decided to cut Apache out of the loop, and put our SNAPs, running an unknown webserver on an closed platform, directly onto the internet.

The first time, the server immediately crashed. After that, it only crashed at random. Even proceeding this, both SNAPs would crash every few weeks with kernel panic errors.

The SNAP 4100's, in my experience, make excellent plug-and-play storage for small to mid-sized LANs; but only the foolish would use them in a production environment.