F5F Stay Refreshed Power Users Networks Seeking a comprehensive option combining router and NAS in one solution.

Seeking a comprehensive option combining router and NAS in one solution.

Seeking a comprehensive option combining router and NAS in one solution.

K
kanebrine
Member
61
10-23-2016, 03:40 AM
#1
I've converted my old gaming PC into a router with OPNSENSE. I'm curious if I can add more storage drives via SATA ports and turn it into a NAS. Are there more effective alternatives? I'd appreciate some resources to explore further.
K
kanebrine
10-23-2016, 03:40 AM #1

I've converted my old gaming PC into a router with OPNSENSE. I'm curious if I can add more storage drives via SATA ports and turn it into a NAS. Are there more effective alternatives? I'd appreciate some resources to explore further.

P
Princess599599
Junior Member
37
10-27-2016, 04:29 PM
#2
proxmox brings up thoughts about virtualization. you can set up instances of opnsense and use tools like truenas for NAS tasks. there are some limitations here, but it seems you're open to experimenting—here are some notes: truenas requires direct disk access, while proxmox offers a workaround with QEMU disks. you might consider using a HBA for your NAS setup and routing it through the VM. running a router in virtual form means a failure of the hypervisor could cut off all network connections. essentially, putting functions on one machine increases the risk of a single point of failure.
P
Princess599599
10-27-2016, 04:29 PM #2

proxmox brings up thoughts about virtualization. you can set up instances of opnsense and use tools like truenas for NAS tasks. there are some limitations here, but it seems you're open to experimenting—here are some notes: truenas requires direct disk access, while proxmox offers a workaround with QEMU disks. you might consider using a HBA for your NAS setup and routing it through the VM. running a router in virtual form means a failure of the hypervisor could cut off all network connections. essentially, putting functions on one machine increases the risk of a single point of failure.

T
tinodz
Member
218
10-29-2016, 10:05 AM
#3
He made a strong statement.
T
tinodz
10-29-2016, 10:05 AM #3

He made a strong statement.

B
BrutalKangaroo
Junior Member
7
10-30-2016, 07:59 AM
#4
Generally, any hypervisor can handle this, but it's better to keep them as separate devices. This simplifies resolving network issues that may arise.
B
BrutalKangaroo
10-30-2016, 07:59 AM #4

Generally, any hypervisor can handle this, but it's better to keep them as separate devices. This simplifies resolving network issues that may arise.

T
TOMMYCRAFT05
Member
124
11-06-2016, 09:10 AM
#5
Sharing my experience with PFSense virtualization… I wouldn’t recommend it. If you’re confident and prepared to handle work challenges on your hypervisor while your router VM is offline, then maybe it’s worth considering. However, if imagining a scenario where your router fails and your LAN goes down, relying on the hypervisor’s webUI to resolve the issue sounds confusing. It’s better not to virtualize your networking in this situation.
T
TOMMYCRAFT05
11-06-2016, 09:10 AM #5

Sharing my experience with PFSense virtualization… I wouldn’t recommend it. If you’re confident and prepared to handle work challenges on your hypervisor while your router VM is offline, then maybe it’s worth considering. However, if imagining a scenario where your router fails and your LAN goes down, relying on the hypervisor’s webUI to resolve the issue sounds confusing. It’s better not to virtualize your networking in this situation.

C
COLIN20052012
Posting Freak
857
11-08-2016, 06:42 AM
#6
Your pfSense VM going down can disrupt the whole LAN without any fallback path to the hypervisor. That suggests you might have misplaced your priorities—centralizing VLANs and routing on the box is fine, but a switch with L3 capabilities should be the main focus.
C
COLIN20052012
11-08-2016, 06:42 AM #6

Your pfSense VM going down can disrupt the whole LAN without any fallback path to the hypervisor. That suggests you might have misplaced your priorities—centralizing VLANs and routing on the box is fine, but a switch with L3 capabilities should be the main focus.

N
Nizze006
Member
118
11-10-2016, 04:27 AM
#7
I just connect straight into the hypervisor using my MacBook or PC (the distance isn’t a big issue—15 feet works). Set the IP manually and that’s it. But if someone wants to explore this idea and can’t understand it… this isn’t meant for them at all.
N
Nizze006
11-10-2016, 04:27 AM #7

I just connect straight into the hypervisor using my MacBook or PC (the distance isn’t a big issue—15 feet works). Set the IP manually and that’s it. But if someone wants to explore this idea and can’t understand it… this isn’t meant for them at all.

C
carloslego
Junior Member
46
11-17-2016, 12:55 AM
#8
That's correct, I fully understand and share your perspective.
C
carloslego
11-17-2016, 12:55 AM #8

That's correct, I fully understand and share your perspective.