Help! I want to pay for windows, but not this much windows.

[alent1234]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: Quasmo
Yes the files are on a seperate set of drives. It's a RAID 5. I can't boot to XP because it doesn't recognize files over 2.5 terabytes

So, you download another EE Trial Edition, install it somewhere, and install the RAID array......

Then you fix your server problem.

BTW...did you actually TRY "activating" the trial version? You CAN activate it with the Trial Key provided. After that, you have a total of 180 days to get a "permanent" Key.

don't think you even need to install the RAID since it's hardware most likely

just overwrrite the current windows install and it should pick up the data

might have to import a foreign disk

 

[Quasmo]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: Quasmo
anyone else find this price right?

There's something seriously wrong with that pricing. If Staples actually SHIPS that product, and it's not an NFR version, then I'd suggest buying a couple of hundred and making a killing on them. That's a $4200 product SKU.

Well my boss just ordered the software from Staples... I'll let you guys know if it actually ships and arrives.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: Quasmo
I called Microsoft
SBS is literally Server 2003 standard edition bundled with exchange server, and has a limit of 75 users. Server 2003 EE is even better than SBS and has no limit.

Windows SBS and Windows Server EE are intended for two different markets.

SBS 2003 includes an integrated, single-server suite of products to help people run their business and share information. It includes monitoring and wizards to simplify management and maintenance.

Server 2003 EE includes tools for clustering, autoenrollment of certificates, and other things that are normally only used by larger, multi-server businesses.

 

[Quasmo]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: Quasmo
I called Microsoft
SBS is literally Server 2003 standard edition bundled with exchange server, and has a limit of 75 users. Server 2003 EE is even better than SBS and has no limit.

Windows SBS and Windows Server EE are intended for two different markets.

SBS 2003 includes an integrated, single-server suite of products to help people run their business and share information. It includes monitoring and wizards to simplify management and maintenance.

Server 2003 EE includes tools for clustering, autoenrollment of certificates, and other things that are normally only used by larger, multi-server businesses.

But he already has EE setup already so it's easier to upgrade the version he has on there already.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: Quasmo
Yes the files are on a seperate set of drives. It's a RAID 5. I can't boot to XP because it doesn't recognize files over 2.5 terabytes

So, you download another EE Trial Edition, install it somewhere, and install the RAID array......

Then you fix your server problem.

BTW...did you actually TRY "activating" the trial version? You CAN activate it with the Trial Key provided. After that, you have a total of 180 days to get a "permanent" Key.

This should work, but it may be easier to boot to an Ubuntu LiveCD and transfer the files off that way.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Quasmo

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: Quasmo
anyone else find this price right?

There's something seriously wrong with that pricing. If Staples actually SHIPS that product, and it's not an NFR version, then I'd suggest buying a couple of hundred and making a killing on them. That's a $4200 product SKU.

Well my boss just ordered the software from Staples... I'll let you guys know if it actually ships and arrives.

You WILL be missing out on Exchange and a bunch of n00b-friendly wizards. As was stated already, EE doesn't have everything SBS has and then some, they have two different feature sets, of which SBS is specifically tailored to your situation.

 

[Nothinman]

Yes the files are on a seperate set of drives. It's a RAID 5. I can't boot to XP because it doesn't recognize files over 2.5 terabytes

I wasn't aware of any artificial volume size limitations in XP, if it's sofware RAID you probably just have to import it in disk manager.

 

[Quasmo]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Yes the files are on a seperate set of drives. It's a RAID 5. I can't boot to XP because it doesn't recognize files over 2.5 terabytes

I wasn't aware of any artificial volume size limitations in XP, if it's sofware RAID you probably just have to import it in disk manager.

Yep, can't handle any drive over 2TB's it truncates the drive. We're using an ARECA 8 port SATA II raid card.

 

[nweaver]

where did you get that info? I thought XP was something like 32 TB limit...

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: nweaver
where did you get that info? I thought XP was something like 32 TB limit...

You have to use a dynamic volume to get over 2TB, but then that should be true for XP or 2003

 

[Quasmo]

Originally posted by: Brazen

Originally posted by: nweaver
where did you get that info? I thought XP was something like 32 TB limit...

You have to use a dynamic volume to get over 2TB, but then that should be true for XP or 2003

You can't convert it to a dynamic disk because you have to turn it into a GPT Disk first. You can't use the normal partition table. That is what limits it to 2TB's, and only win2k3 has the ability to use the GPT table.

 

[RebateMonger]

Whoops. I didn't realize that NTFS, both XP and 2003, can't support more than a 2TB Basic disk. But it's true. Apparently Windows Server 2003 SP1 can support GPT disks, with up to 256TB.

 

[Nothinman]

You can't convert it to a dynamic disk because you have to turn it into a GPT Disk first. You can't use the normal partition table. That is what limits it to 2TB's, and only win2k3 has the ability to use the GPT table.

That's pretty funny, I guess that's a couple of more reasons to:

1) Not create such large filesystems, on any system it's best to avoid them because of long fsck/chkdsk times and the like anyway
2) Not use Windows for filesharing

Whoops. I didn't realize that NTFS, both XP and 2003, can't support more than a 2TB Basic disk

It has nothing to do with NTFS, it's purely a partition table issue.

 

[Quasmo]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

You can't convert it to a dynamic disk because you have to turn it into a GPT Disk first. You can't use the normal partition table. That is what limits it to 2TB's, and only win2k3 has the ability to use the GPT table.

That's pretty funny, I guess that's a couple of more reasons to:

1) Not create such large filesystems, on any system it's best to avoid them because of long fsck/chkdsk times and the like anyway
2) Not use Windows for filesharing

Whoops. I didn't realize that NTFS, both XP and 2003, can't support more than a 2TB Basic disk

It has nothing to do with NTFS, it's purely a partition table issue.

Wehn you have HUGE video files, sometimes it is more reasonable to use huge partitions, it's all relative.

 

[Nothinman]

Wehn you have HUGE video files, sometimes it is more reasonable to use huge partitions, it's all relative.

There are other options, for example on Linux there's LVM and I'm sure other systems have similar systems to get large volumes without any partition problems. But even with those I would be wary about going over 1TB for a single filesystem just because if there's a problem you have a ton of data to lose and backing it up is going to be a monster problem.

 

[Quasmo]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Wehn you have HUGE video files, sometimes it is more reasonable to use huge partitions, it's all relative.

There are other options, for example on Linux there's LVM and I'm sure other systems have similar systems to get large volumes without any partition problems. But even with those I would be wary about going over 1TB for a single filesystem just because if there's a problem you have a ton of data to lose and backing it up is going to be a monster problem.

Why do you think I'm running RAID 5?

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: Quasmo

Originally posted by: Nothinman
similar systems to get large volumes without any partition problems. But even with those I would be wary about going over 1TB for a single filesystem just because if there's a problem you have a ton of data to lose and backing it up is going to be a monster problem.

Why do you think I'm running RAID 5?

Not sure. What does RAID5 have to do with backups and no longer needing them?

 

[InlineFive]

Originally posted by: Quasmo

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Wehn you have HUGE video files, sometimes it is more reasonable to use huge partitions, it's all relative.

There are other options, for example on Linux there's LVM and I'm sure other systems have similar systems to get large volumes without any partition problems. But even with those I would be wary about going over 1TB for a single filesystem just because if there's a problem you have a ton of data to lose and backing it up is going to be a monster problem.

Why do you think I'm running RAID 5?

What happens if I drop a crate of bricks on your RAID-5 array?

 

[Quasmo]

Originally posted by: InlineFive

Originally posted by: Quasmo

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Wehn you have HUGE video files, sometimes it is more reasonable to use huge partitions, it's all relative.

There are other options, for example on Linux there's LVM and I'm sure other systems have similar systems to get large volumes without any partition problems. But even with those I would be wary about going over 1TB for a single filesystem just because if there's a problem you have a ton of data to lose and backing it up is going to be a monster problem.

Why do you think I'm running RAID 5?

What happens if I drop a crate of bricks on your RAID-5 array?

The data is not that important...

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Quasmo

Originally posted by: InlineFive

Originally posted by: Quasmo

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Wehn you have HUGE video files, sometimes it is more reasonable to use huge partitions, it's all relative.

There are other options, for example on Linux there's LVM and I'm sure other systems have similar systems to get large volumes without any partition problems. But even with those I would be wary about going over 1TB for a single filesystem just because if there's a problem you have a ton of data to lose and backing it up is going to be a monster problem.

Why do you think I'm running RAID 5?

What happens if I drop a crate of bricks on your RAID-5 array?

The data is not that important...

Then why are you running RAID 5?

just messin' with ya

 

[Underclocked]

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/howtobuy/pricing.mspx

top item - Staples is overcharging.

 

[nweaver]

eh...apples and oranges Underclocked. One is SBS, the other is 2k3Enterprise....

Yeah, btw, lets all say it together....

Raid is not a backup
Raid is not a backup
Raid is not a backup

 

[Quasmo]

Originally posted by: Underclocked
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/howtobuy/pricing.mspx

top item - Staples is overcharging.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtobuy/licensing/pricing.mspx

Check again... 3rd item down... that's what staples is selling for $569

 

[Nothinman]

Why do you think I'm running RAID 5?

You said you weren't even the one who set it up so how would I know what the other guy was thinking? Unless you are that "someone who worked there before me" who set this up for "this guy".

 

[SilentRunning]

Staple's manufacturer part number indicates: T72-01411

Which is this:

Windows Small Business Server 2003 R2 Standard Edition
$599 with 5 client access licenses (CALs) T72-01411

Link

Good luck arguing with Staples