Best OS upgrade path for WHS v1?

[joe_H]

So my WHS v1 box is getting a bit long in the tooth. With Windows 8 and Server 2012 Essentials just around the corner, I'm curious what everybody's thoughts were on the logical upgrade OS path should be.

WHS 2011
Windows 7
Windows 8
Windows Server 2012 Essentials
Linux

 

[Kingbee13]

It all depends on what features of WHS v1 you need/rely on.

WS2012 Essentials: the obvious choice does everything WHS v1 does and much more, including support for remoting into clients via ipad android or windows tablets. The only negatives compared to WHS are: 1 Cost over $400 2 Requires the use of domains 3 No home group support

WHS 2011: I personally upgraded to WHS2011 last year, and while I don’t really regret the upgrade, the lack of DE makes it feel like an unfinished project. The best parts of WHS2011 were rolled into WS2012 Essentials which also has Storage Spaces (the new DE). The pro here is cost it’s only $50, but don’t expect it to support backups beyond Windows 8. I’ve run into a couple of problems with WHS2011 both essentially tied to running out of space on drives that were storing backups once for clients and once for server backups.

Windows 8: Obviously no client backup/remote web access, but it does have storage spaces, and should make an adequate file server for home use.

Linux: I have no clue what Linux offers these days

Personally I haven’t decided whether or not to upgrade to WS2012 Essentials, because I’m not sure I want to manage domains on my home office network, or spend $400 for the OS, but looking back I must admit that WHS has been an incredible value and had I paid 400 for v1 I’d consider it worth it in hindsight.

 

[ControlD]

I think the question is impossible to answer without knowing a little more information first. What are you using WHS for now? Is it mainly just a place to store files or do you need the client backup functionality? How many and what size are your hard drives? Do you run any extra services that you need to keep, or is it simply a server?

Personally, I did the upgrade from WHS v1 to WHS2011. I thought WHS2011 was probably the biggest POS I have purchased from Microsoft since Windows ME. I know others like it and perhaps 2011 is just more picky when it comes to hardware but I found it to be slow, unreliable and generally a downgrade from v1 aside from 64 bit support which is a must in this day and age.

I went to unRAID instead and rely more on client side software to make critical backups and honestly I wonder what took me so long. It is better and more reliable than either version of WHS with completely flexible storage options and a large library of plug-ins.

 

[SunnyD]

Nothing says you have to run a domain with 2012.

 

[JackMDS]

Nothing says you have to run a domain with 2012.

The issue of the Domain vs Workgroup is Not simple and can not be solved with few words like Use or Do not Use.

People who or are Not familiar with it should read carefully the info available and Try to understand what this is all about.

Otherwise, few months later there will be many "popular WTF" posting and blame would be cast on the all world but themselves.

Here is a long good thread about it (read it All).

http://tinkertry.com/ws2012e-domain-removal/



😎

 

[n0x1ous]

2012 essentials. I am in the same boat with an aging whs v1 box and have already built a new box to run essentials 2012. running the RC and althought the domain add is forced when installing the client connector, you can simply switch it back to workgroup without adverse affect. home premium and lower editions are unable to join domains and still work just fine

 

[JackMDS]

There is No need to "switch back". A registry code can be use to skip the domain joining.

However, as I said before somethings will Not work if One skips the domain, so it is important to take the general picture into considerations when the decision is made.

How to skip domain joining during client deployment in a Windows Server 2012 Essentials network - http://social.technet.microsoft.com...s/thread/aa40963c-7235-40f7-85f5-8f8d030a7c13



😎

 

[n0x1ous]

There is No need to "switch back". A registry code can be use to skip the domain joining.

However, as I said before somethings will Not work if One skips the domain, so it is important to take the general picture into considerations when the decision is made.

How to skip domain joining during client deployment in a Windows Server 2012 Essentials network - http://social.technet.microsoft.com...s/thread/aa40963c-7235-40f7-85f5-8f8d030a7c13




😎

Well thats a nice new development...Would be nice to just see it as an option to tick in client connector install still, but this is better than joining/unjoining.

So if I understand correctly, this reg add just needs to be done any time before the connector install?

 

[Red Squirrel]

Linux + mdraid or perhaps look into ZFS. Not sure if it works well under Linux yet, it's more of a Sun thing but I think Solaris IS free if I'm not mistaken. Both of those solutions are very stable and high performant and unlike the MS solutions, they are also sustainable. MS keeps changing things around, discontinuing features, changing the way things work, etc... Do you really want your life's data on something that always has it's future questioned? MS is also big on implementing artificial limitations such as how many users can be connected at once, I'm not sure how they do it now, but it's something to always lookup first. Less of an issue in a home environment though.

I personally like to just make my raid arrays manually via command line, but there are distros like Freenas and Open Filer that make it easier.

 

[ViRGE]

Here's another vote for Windows Server 2012 Essentials. I don't like everything about it, but having ruled out Windows 8 (no real server functionality) and Linux (I don't otherwise use Linux, so I don't know the quirks), that leaves WS2012E and WHS2011.

Of those two it mainly comes down to deciding which is worse.😛 WHS2011 has some very big drawbacks that turn me away from it. The lack of Drive Extender functionality is self-explanatory, meanwhile the inability to backup GPT disks is going to make WHS2011 near-worthless for backing up OEM Win8 machines since OEM machines will finally be shipping UEFI/GPT. WHS2011 is otherwise fine (shares, media streaming, etc), but since my primary uses are for file storage and client backups, WHS2011 falls flat exactly where I need it. Meanwhile both of those issues are resolved by WS2012E, which gives it a major leg up in my book.

Which is not to say that WS2012E is perfect, but the remaining issues can be dealt with. The Domain issue is no longer an issue thanks to the registry workaround, so for home usage you can for all intents and purposes ignore Domains. You lose VPN and Group Policy functionality, but I for one didn't want that in the first place.

Its only other notable quirks right now are related to Storage Spaces. Despite MS's claims otherwise, Storage Spaces is always operating in some kind of RAID-like mode; either RAID-0 (stripe), RAID-1 (mirror), or RAID-5 (parity). The point being that unlike DEv1, a non-protected pool is going to be striped over multiple disks, increasing your exposure to failure. In case you really don't mind losing a file, you're going to want every pool running some kind of protection (hooray parity). The other quirk is that it can't auto-balance disk usage (such as adding a new disk), which is incredibly stupid. Thankfully the workaround for that - creating a new pool inside the existing space and moving your data to that - is easy enough. All of these are quirks I can easily handle.

The real kick in the teeth right now is the price. If it was up to me, there would be a WHS2012 with the Domain/VPN functionality stripped out, the client limit dropped to 10, with Microsoft calling that a day. But it looks like MS doesn't want to have to deal with having such a low-volume version of Windows, so that's that. All I can really do is eat the cost for now, and plan on amortizing the cost of WS2012E over the life of the OS. Since it's a server product it gets 10 years of support, so if I can go for at least several years without replacing it then I can justify the cost. This is where being so modern is a big help, since at this point I have no reason to expect WS2012E to become outdated in only a few years, unlike WHS2011.

When it comes right down to it, WS2012E is the first Windows server OS that is a proper follow-up to WHSv1. It's going to be the best choice for covering WHSv1's major use cases while also being the easiest thing for a WHSv1 owner to adapt to. If you can eat the high OS cost it will be the best replacement for WHSv1.

 

[joe_H]

I think the question is impossible to answer without knowing a little more information first. What are you using WHS for now? Is it mainly just a place to store files or do you need the client backup functionality? How many and what size are your hard drives? Do you run any extra services that you need to keep, or is it simply a server?

Personally, I did the upgrade from WHS v1 to WHS2011. I thought WHS2011 was probably the biggest POS I have purchased from Microsoft since Windows ME. I know others like it and perhaps 2011 is just more picky when it comes to hardware but I found it to be slow, unreliable and generally a downgrade from v1 aside from 64 bit support which is a must in this day and age.

I went to unRAID instead and rely more on client side software to make critical backups and honestly I wonder what took me so long. It is better and more reliable than either version of WHS with completely flexible storage options and a large library of plug-ins.

How I currently use my server:

1. Streaming of ripped movies and music via DLNA to a TV and stand alone media server.
2. File storage.
3. Streaming of PlayOn service to WD Live players all over the house.
4. Streaming of media files via PLEX to mobile devices.

I don't use it to back up my existing computers on the network, as I currently use Acronis for that function. I do enjoy accessing my files from outside the home via the homeserver web portal, and would like to keep that function if possible.

I prefer a Windows solution. I did include a Linux option as I'm sure many other people prefer that OS solution.

 

[WT]

If it ain't broke ....

I upgraded the RAM and CPU on my WHS, and its currently running so well with its 3800 X2 35w that I just don't see the need to upgrade. I did purchase WHS 2011 just in case, but my current setup works so well that its not a priority.

 

[ViRGE]

If it ain't broke ....

I upgraded the RAM and CPU on my WHS, and its currently running so well with its 3800 X2 35w that I just don't see the need to upgrade. I did purchase WHS 2011 just in case, but my current setup works so well that its not a priority.

WHS v1's big problem right now is that as a pre-Vista OS it still doesn't like large hard drives and it doesn't like Advanced Format hard drives. Once WD stops shipping 2TB Greens with an AF jumper, we're going to be kind of screwed.:|

 

[n0x1ous]

Here's another vote for Windows Server 2012 Essentials. I don't like everything about it, but having ruled out Windows 8 (no real server functionality) and Linux (I don't otherwise use Linux, so I don't know the quirks), that leaves WS2012E and WHS2011.

Of those two it mainly comes down to deciding which is worse.😛 WHS2011 has some very big drawbacks that turn me away from it. The lack of Drive Extender functionality is self-explanatory, meanwhile the inability to backup GPT disks is going to make WHS2011 near-worthless for backing up OEM Win8 machines since OEM machines will finally be shipping UEFI/GPT. WHS2011 is otherwise fine (shares, media streaming, etc), but since my primary uses are for file storage and client backups, WHS2011 falls flat exactly where I need it. Meanwhile both of those issues are resolved by WS2012E, which gives it a major leg up in my book.

Which is not to say that WS2012E is perfect, but the remaining issues can be dealt with. The Domain issue is no longer an issue thanks to the registry workaround, so for home usage you can for all intents and purposes ignore Domains. You lose VPN and Group Policy functionality, but I for one didn't want that in the first place.

Its only other notable quirks right now are related to Storage Spaces. Despite MS's claims otherwise, Storage Spaces is always operating in some kind of RAID-like mode; either RAID-0 (stripe), RAID-1 (mirror), or RAID-5 (parity). The point being that unlike DEv1, a non-protected pool is going to be striped over multiple disks, increasing your exposure to failure. In case you really don't mind losing a file, you're going to want every pool running some kind of protection (hooray parity). The other quirk is that it can't auto-balance disk usage (such as adding a new disk), which is incredibly stupid. Thankfully the workaround for that - creating a new pool inside the existing space and moving your data to that - is easy enough. All of these are quirks I can easily handle.

The real kick in the teeth right now is the price. If it was up to me, there would be a WHS2012 with the Domain/VPN functionality stripped out, the client limit dropped to 10, with Microsoft calling that a day. But it looks like MS doesn't want to have to deal with having such a low-volume version of Windows, so that's that. All I can really do is eat the cost for now, and plan on amortizing the cost of WS2012E over the life of the OS. Since it's a server product it gets 10 years of support, so if I can go for at least several years without replacing it then I can justify the cost. This is where being so modern is a big help, since at this point I have no reason to expect WS2012E to become outdated in only a few years, unlike WHS2011.

When it comes right down to it, WS2012E is the first Windows server OS that is a proper follow-up to WHSv1. It's going to be the best choice for covering WHSv1's major use cases while also being the easiest thing for a WHSv1 owner to adapt to. If you can eat the high OS cost it will be the best replacement for WHSv1.

Totally Agree :thumbsup:

 

[n0x1ous]

If it ain't broke ....

I upgraded the RAM and CPU on my WHS, and its currently running so well with its 3800 X2 35w that I just don't see the need to upgrade. I did purchase WHS 2011 just in case, but my current setup works so well that its not a priority.

No 3 TB drives and no 64 bit support is what is making me decide to move on from V1. 2012 Essentials is the best option available and should have everything needed to be sufficient for the next decade or so. Not to mention security updates end for V1 in January. :\

 

[Ferzerp]

People get far too hung up on drive extender. Far, far too hung up. I'll stick with whs2011 for the forseeable future.

 

[n0x1ous]

People get far too hung up on drive extender. Far, far too hung up. I'll stick with whs2011 for the forseeable future.

Explain why its not important for a HOME server product then? its the cornerstone of the OS and the reason it has the following it has.