Why use omv over Windows?

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Why use omv over Windows?

      Hi guys.
      I'm building a nas with a Pentium g4400 and 8gb of ram.
      What I want to do is simply:
      - share my hard drive in raid 1 with my other computers
      - download things with torrent
      - have a plex server
      - maybe run a small virtual machine for email server.

      I had a doubt about which is use: omv, windows 10 or windows server 2012?
      Which one would you suggest and why?
    • Apart from the reasons that tekkb already pointed out:
      OMV is based on Debian and at least from my use case I realised that this gave the the possibility to use and to try very different approaches to my tasks (using the CLI) - from my point even more than a Windows Server allowed me. I think I can compare these two microsystems, as I host an OMV-based NAS and a Windoes server at home.
    • OMV just sits there and runs without any problems.

      OMV will be updated for as long as the project is alive, whereas Windows has a defined date after which it will not be updated.

      OMV consumes very little resources.

      If you have Linux devices, you can use NFS, which is much better than SAMBA/CIFS.

      OMV has a wide array of simple, free, and robust backup tools, including a complete system restoration to new installation.

      Installing OMV to new hardware, such as new OS disk, is a breeze. Windows can take days to install all of the updates.
      OMV 4.1.14-1 (Arrakis); Shuttle XPC SH67H3; Intel Core i5-2390T; 8 GB DDR3-1333 RAM; 128GB SanDisk Z400s SSD (OS); Samsung 860 EVO 1TB (primary storage).
    • A NAS typically sits headless without a keyboard or screen. You typically access it remotely through SSH or a web interface. Windows is typically better suited for management through its native GUI, so a headless server really requires a Remote Desktop, which can be a bit of a pain. Of course, all that bloated GUI that is loaded and running all the time is wasted on a server where you only log in occasionally.

      I general, Linux is more robust. You can keep a Linux server running for months without rebooting it, even throughout system updates. Windows' update policy usually requires at least one reboot after any system update, which can occur several times a week.

      And then Linux has a whole range of open source and often web ui tools that simply don't exist on Windows. Windows itself is expensive. You can probably get pirate versions, but they generally lack support, updates, stability, which are crucial for a server.

      I won't bash Windows, because for a user-end desktop it's probably the easiest to use, but for a server that you want to run 24/7, nothing beats Linux.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Nibb31 ().