storage configuration for WHS file server

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Okay. I've been researching using Windows Home Server for a file server / backup server solution for my house. In my research, there are many sources that say RAID shouldn't be used, as it is unsupported and untested by MS for WHS. It seems the best method they suggest is simply connect all hds to the system and let WHS manage everything.

I want to build a system with the idea of 25 hard drives (case limited) being the maximum. I'm going to continue reading--just wondering what people with higher storage requirements are doing with WHS.

config 1 -- 6 terabytes
[*]12 x volume arrays

config 2 -- 3 terabytes
[*]6 x 2-disk RAID 1 arrays

config 3 -- 4 terabytes
[*]4 x 3-disk RAID 5 arrays

config 4 -- 5.5 terabytes
[*]first disk: 1 x 2-disk RAID 1 array = 500gb
[*]remaining disks: 10 x volume arrays

config 5 -- 5 terabytes
[*]2 x 6-disk RAID 5 arrays

config 6 -- 4 terabytes
[*]2 x 6-disk RAID 6 arrays

config 7 -- 4.5 terabytes
[*]3 x 4-disk RAID 5 arrays

 

[stash]

There's no way to change the location of the backups.

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Originally posted by: stash
There's no way to change the location of the backups.

Okay. I am going to change my configuration then. Thanks.

 

[ViRGE]

RAID can be done, there are just certain situations where SoftRAID won't work. If you're serious about RAID with a file storage box, you probably want to use a hardware RAID card anyhow. In this case RAID will be fine, WHS will see 1 hard drive and treat the RAID array accordingly. It's not supported, but you shouldn't have any real problems AFAIK. The big cost here is that since you're using a fixed RAID array, it's not easy to expand it like you can the WHS storage pool.

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
RAID can be done, there are just certain situations where SoftRAID won't work. If you're serious about RAID with a file storage box, you probably want to use a hardware RAID card anyhow. In this case RAID will be fine, WHS will see 1 hard drive and treat the RAID array accordingly. It's not supported, but you shouldn't have any real problems AFAIK. The big cost here is that since you're using a fixed RAID array, it's not easy to expand it like you can the WHS storage pool.

I will be using Areca RAID controllers. Okay, I think this is slowly coming together. I'll create one large RAID 6 array, and then if my storage requirements increase later, I'll add another RAID 6 array of the same size and let WHS manage them from there.

 

[Homerboy]

25 HDDs? Dare I ask WHAT you need that much space for in a HOME Server?

RAIDX will certainly work in WHS as it will be seen as 1 HDD b WHS.
If you're doing RAID6 you could possibly just do away with the RAID and simply let WHS replciate whatever folders you would like onto physically diverse HDDs in the machine.

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Originally posted by: Homerboy
25 HDDs? Dare I ask WHAT you need that much space for in a HOME Server?

RAIDX will certainly work in WHS as it will be seen as 1 HDD b WHS.
If you're doing RAID6 you could possibly just do away with the RAID and simply let WHS replciate whatever folders you would like onto physically diverse HDDs in the machine.

🙂 Nothing specifically. I currently have a 2tb RAID 5 array, but I don't have room for my mini-DV video collection. So I want to download all 40-50 DV tapes and work on the data. More space is better than too llittle. At this point I'm trying to decide between doing RAID and letting the OS handle it. I'm nervous of letting go of that control though.

I'm going to start with a 12-port controller with 12 500gb hard drives, and then add another set later if I run out of space.

 

[ViRGE]

The OS is completely capable of handling the situation through replication. The cost is space & performance; it has a space cost like RAID 1, and a performance cost because replication is not real-time like RAID 1, but rather a process that copies files over to a 2nd drive after they're written and keeps the drives balanced (DEmigrator).