*DEAD* Intel NAS Server w/ Intel Celeron 420 1.6GHz, DDR2 & eSATA - $135

[SunnyD]

If the DOM is IDE can you simply hook up an IDE notebook hard drive to install WHS on?

... yes, you can, but you'll have to "custom mount" the HDD somewhere. There's absolutely no reason you can't install WHS on the first SATA drive though. It's not nearly as difficult to make the USB install as people make it out to be - just follow the instructions provided on the web.

 

[Ronstang]

... yes, you can, but you'll have to "custom mount" the HDD somewhere. There's absolutely no reason you can't install WHS on the first SATA drive though. It's not nearly as difficult to make the USB install as people make it out to be - just follow the instructions provided on the web.

How much space does WHS take up? I know absolutely NOTHING about it. I have read on here that you can use folder duplication on different HDs in place of RAID. From my limited understanding I think this is actually superior. Can you have some folders duplicated and others not? Some of the data I plan on putting on mine will be redundant in several other places and would just waste space if redundant on my NAS.

 

[rsolomon]

If the DOM is IDE can you simply hook up an IDE notebook hard drive to install WHS on?

Not from what I could tell - unless you go into BIOS and put the system into "compatible" mode, the PATA port vanishes as soon as the OS loads drivers. I wanted to do the same thing to keep all 4 SATAs available but couldn't make it go - couldn't even install from a PATA DVD-ROM 'cuz it would be gone once the OS went into protected mode

If you *DO* choose compatible mode then you only get 2 IDE and 2 SATA drives - I didn't try very hard to circumvent that though, so maybe there's another way to recognize the other 2 SATAs once the OS comes up. It seems like the BIOS knows how to handle PATA and SATA together but the Windows drivers don't.

WHS needs a minimum of 80GB on the first drive for the installer to let it install. It uses 20GB for the system drive and the remaining capacity for data.

HTH,
Richard

 

[rsolomon]

There's absolutely no reason you can't install WHS on the first SATA drive though.

True, but the lack of protection for the boot drive is the Achilles heel of WHS in my opinion. Sure it's nice that you can do a System Reinstall and have WHS re-create (most of) the data which was stored there, but I don't want that kind of downtime and hassle. That's why I did the hybrid RAID install that I did - Disks 0 & 1 are mirrored via BIOS/Intel RAID driver while Disks 2 & 3 are just "plain" devices managed by WHS. Thus if I lose a boot disk, I *should* be able to keep running and just reboot for a disk replacement (vs re-install). In my case, I used smaller (500GB) drives for 0 & 1 and larger (2TB) for drives 2 & 3.

I spent a lot of time trying to use all 4 SATAs for WHS storage and the PATA port for the OS itself....and I never succeeded.

Richard

 

[SunnyD]

How much space does WHS take up? I know absolutely NOTHING about it. I have read on here that you can use folder duplication on different HDs in place of RAID. From my limited understanding I think this is actually superior. Can you have some folders duplicated and others not? Some of the data I plan on putting on mine will be redundant in several other places and would just waste space if redundant on my NAS.

A WHS install requires a minimum of 80GB. Note, the install itself is far less, probably about 3GB or so (It's essentially Windows Server 2003), but the requirements for the OS mandate an additional 80GB allocated to the system. It won't install without it.

You can specify which folders get replicated, yes. That's one of the reasons the WHS team doesn't support RAID configurations (though being based on Server 2003, there's nothing stopping you from using RAID and loading the appropriate driver at install - but just know that it isn't a supported configuration for WHS and may cause problems, though doubtful). They did this specifically because they wanted data recovery to be easy in the event of failure or reinstallation. Everything is simply stored on an NTFS partition which you can mount on any NTFS capable OS and retrieve the data from if need be.

True, but the lack of protection for the boot drive is the Achilles heel of WHS in my opinion. Sure it's nice that you can do a System Reinstall and have WHS re-create (most of) the data which was stored there, but I don't want that kind of downtime and hassle. That's why I did the hybrid RAID install that I did - Disks 0 & 1 are mirrored via BIOS/Intel RAID driver while Disks 2 & 3 are just "plain" devices managed by WHS. Thus if I lose a boot disk, I *should* be able to keep running and just reboot for a disk replacement (vs re-install). In my case, I used smaller (500GB) drives for 0 & 1 and larger (2TB) for drives 2 & 3.

I spent a lot of time trying to use all 4 SATAs for WHS storage and the PATA port for the OS itself....and I never succeeded.

Richard

I agree, but you have to remember where WHS is targeted too: SOHO users. Odds are most of these users won't be the ones attempting to fix the issue, let alone know what a RAID configuration is. The fact that it complicates the installation AND makes data recovery more difficult in the event of a failure is the reason why they designed WHS the way they did.

IMHO, they should allow mirroring of the OS partition to a redundant area automagically without RAID and let the recovery install use that if available. The whole issue with RAID is that it automatically increases the system requirements for the system. Not a big deal for most people, but also not as flexible.

 

[rsolomon]

The fact that it complicates the installation AND makes data recovery more difficult in the event of a failure is the reason why they designed WHS the way they did.

IMHO, they should allow mirroring of the OS partition to a redundant area automagically without RAID and let the recovery install use that if available.

Well, the installation is only complicated for "RAID" because this platform was setup to conform to WHS h/w requirements. The SOHO user isn't actually expected to *install* WHS either, so it shouldn't matter if the platform used "RAID" on the boot drive. A BIOS mirrored boot drive is MUCH easier for the end-user to repair - simply light the red light on the drive and tell him/her to install a drive at least XXX GB in size. Most "RAID" drivers I know of will automatically rebuild the mirrored set once they see a new drive. In contrast the WHS restore requires a DVD or memory stick and cooperating other computer - plus numerous hours of server downtime while the rebuild hopefully completes automatically and blindly.


I actually thought about using Acronis TrueImage or similar product to accomplish what you describe - a system disk "image" which is kept reasonably up-to-date and available on the protected storage space. That would be a *GREAT* feature of WHS, and would have probably alleviated most of my concerns - a mirrored disk would then be only slightly better.


All told, I'm surprised by how impressed I am by the WHS package - it's quite capable and with the addition of some add-ons and common windoze stuff becomes pretty friendly to the "expert" as well.

Richard

 

[Doomer]

What about creating an image with True Image and then when the boot drive crashes, restore the image to a new drive in another omputer then moving it to the server. Would that work?

 

[rsolomon]

What about creating an image with True Image and then when the boot drive crashes, restore the image to a new drive in another omputer then moving it to the server. Would that work?

The problem is that a lot of storage management "stuff" is kept on the D drive and it all changes frequently. That's part of what turned me off TrueImage - unless one could set it up to be a *true* mirror the restored image would still require a rescan/resync of all the drives to rebuild the storage system. You could image C: and probably be in decent shape as far as not having to go through the USB stick/DVD mess again, but you'd still be waiting a long time for a rebuild to complete.

Richard

 

[SunnyD]

What about creating an image with True Image and then when the boot drive crashes, restore the image to a new drive in another omputer then moving it to the server. Would that work?

Also, to add to what rsolomon said - you have to be very careful what backup solutions you use. You have to ensure that the solution is WHS-aware, even for the boot drive, otherwise you run the risk of data loss. As far as I know, not a whole hell of a lot of products are WHS-aware.

 

[Muse]

If you want WHS, your best bet is either an OEM copy from Newegg or the like, or get yourself a TechNet subscription.

Amazon also has the OEM for $100:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B001E5Q8CO/ref=ord_cart_shr?_encoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance

Free SS shipping.

 

[Dr. Mcbudstoke]

Did anyone else not receive the hdd mounting screws with their unit?

 

[Dulanic]

Did anyone else not receive the hdd mounting screws with their unit?

Got mine, but pretty sure I got a dead unit.

 

[Dr. Mcbudstoke]

Got mine, but pretty sure I got a dead unit.

think they'll notice if you rma yours without the screws? :sneaky:

 

[darkamulets]

For a WHS install does it really make a difference between the intel one at amazon or the legendmicro one?

 

[Doomer]

For a WHS install does it really make a difference between the intel one at amazon or the legendmicro one?

Nope. Once you pull the DOM out, they're the same.

 

[darkamulets]

Thanks for clarifying that. Legendmicro one it is. Last thing if I go WHS I lose Raid 5, but if I keep the EMC stuff I can do Raid 5?

 

[SunnyD]

Thanks for clarifying that. Legendmicro one it is. Last thing if I go WHS I lose Raid 5, but if I keep the EMC stuff I can do Raid 5?

You can still do RAID 5... you have to set it up in the BIOS, which is not trivial (due to the lack of a video output on the unit).

 

[CosmosRewind]

Not from what I could tell - unless you go into BIOS and put the system into "compatible" mode, the PATA port vanishes as soon as the OS loads drivers. I wanted to do the same thing to keep all 4 SATAs available but couldn't make it go - couldn't even install from a PATA DVD-ROM 'cuz it would be gone once the OS went into protected mode

If you *DO* choose compatible mode then you only get 2 IDE and 2 SATA drives - I didn't try very hard to circumvent that though, so maybe there's another way to recognize the other 2 SATAs once the OS comes up. It seems like the BIOS knows how to handle PATA and SATA together but the Windows drivers don't.

Thanks for this information. I was trying to use a little 40gb IDE laptop drive between the PS and MB (it fits great). That way all my SATA drives could go to sleep when they haven't been used in awhile (right now the boot drive never does). This explains why the Windows installer can't see the IDE drive.

Oh well, back to using Win7 on one of the SATA drives. Guess I'll just shutdown the unit or let it hibernate.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Would I be able to throw a Server 2008 R2 install on this?

Obviously use a graphics card to install it and all, then use RDC/VNC to remote into it.

 

[wieglenda]

I've had my unit for a few days and this thing is loud as hell. It seems that the fans have automatic control, however mine never turn down. Any fixes for this? I'm using the original EMC software.

 

[SunnyD]

Would I be able to throw a Server 2008 R2 install on this?

Obviously use a graphics card to install it and all, then use RDC/VNC to remote into it.

Yes, it's a standard x86 intel machine. Intel 945GZ chipset with an Celeron 420 in it. Straight plain vanilla stuff.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Yes, it's a standard x86 intel machine. Intel 945GZ chipset with an Celeron 420 in it. Straight plain vanilla stuff.

How slow would it be as a 2008 R2 server? I am planning on upgrading the memory to 1 gb (or 2 gb if it can handle that), and have thought about upgrading the CPU as well to a E2220 (what CPU's will this thing support btw?) as was done earlier in this thread.

Then the only downside would be that it can *only* hold 4 HD's. On the plus side, if it's running server 2008 the drives can be removed and thrown in a single system (this is a requirement of mine because I need to take my files with me sometimes and can only take one PC).

Thanks SunnyD!

 

[rsolomon]

Yes, it's a standard x86 intel machine. Intel 945GZ chipset with an Celeron 420 in it. Straight plain vanilla stuff.

Mostly true - there's the whole "no video card" thing as discussed here a lot, and the oddity around the PATA port we discussed above. There's also evidence that nothing above an E4700 works properly, and of course the 2GB single DIMM limit.

I'm not disagreeing with you - it *IS* a standard box, there are just a few caveats which aren't necessarily obvious at first glance. For the price, I agree it's a tremendous deal on a compact mini-storage/mini-server-oriented box.

Richard

 

[SunnyD]

How slow would it be as a 2008 R2 server? I am planning on upgrading the memory to 1 gb (or 2 gb if it can handle that), and have thought about upgrading the CPU as well to a E2220 (what CPU's will this thing support btw?) as was done earlier in this thread.

Then the only downside would be that it can *only* hold 4 HD's. On the plus side, if it's running server 2008 the drives can be removed and thrown in a single system (this is a requirement of mine because I need to take my files with me sometimes and can only take one PC).

Thanks SunnyD!

Best I could say is it'll run 2k8R2 as fast as a (in your case) E2220 with 2GB of ram will run it. I have no idea of the performance characteristic of the OS, but I think RAM will be a limiting factor. Depending on what you're planning on doing with it at least. It should run fine for a low end low user-count SOHO box, which is what it was designed for anyway.

As far as CPUs go, it supports most E1xxx, E2xxx and E4xxx series, along with S775 Pentium D's and Celerons - you can check the validation details for the 945GZ chipset on ark.intel.com.

Keep in mind that it comes with passive cooling on the CPU, it's just a ducted heatsink, so you'll need to be careful what you put in there. There isn't an additional CPU fan header on the mainboard (there's a spot for one, but no header), but there is a single standard molex on the PSU (though I wouldn't be a fan of pushing that PSU with a full load). The biggest problem is there's not a lot of room for a HSF beneath the HDD that sits over the top of the CPU. Therefore, you're either sacrificing 1 HDD, or going with a low profile HSF which will still have airflow issues (pulling heat down off the HDD, and not a lot of heatsink surface area to work with).

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Best I could say is it'll run 2k8R2 as fast as a (in your case) E2220 with 2GB of ram will run it. I have no idea of the performance characteristic of the OS, but I think RAM will be a limiting factor. Depending on what you're planning on doing with it at least. It should run fine for a low end low user-count SOHO box, which is what it was designed for anyway.

As far as CPUs go, it supports most E1xxx, E2xxx and E4xxx series, along with S775 Pentium D's and Celerons - you can check the validation details for the 945GZ chipset on ark.intel.com.

Keep in mind that it comes with passive cooling on the CPU, it's just a ducted heatsink, so you'll need to be careful what you put in there. There isn't an additional CPU fan header on the mainboard (there's a spot for one, but no header), but there is a single standard molex on the PSU (though I wouldn't be a fan of pushing that PSU with a full load). The biggest problem is there's not a lot of room for a HSF beneath the HDD that sits over the top of the CPU. Therefore, you're either sacrificing 1 HDD, or going with a low profile HSF which will still have airflow issues (pulling heat down off the HDD, and not a lot of heatsink surface area to work with).

Well, I'm debating pulling the trigger on this and using my current HTPC/server as an HTPC only.

I would have at most 10 people connected at one time (but usually would be 2-3 people accessing it at a time), and it would only be doing file server, DNS/DHCP (maybe on those), do VPN stuff for one client, maybe FTP, and some other real basic stuff. No AD, or any other server-y things. All of this would only have one or two users connected at a time.

I think I'll pick up the e2220 for $70 and put a gb (maybe 2 if I can find cheap enough sticks) of ram in. It should work fine for that use AFAIK.