Thinking about buying a HP Windows Home Media server...questions...

[AndyD2k]

Hoping you guys can help answer some questions I have...

1. So WHS uses RAID 1? What happens if I have 3 drives? It will only back up one? I want max storage while still have assurances that my data is backed up. Will I get that from WHS? Or do I have to install 4 drives to use 2?

2. I'm not sure if processor upgrade is required if the device will only stream media. Am I right to assume that a celeron processor along with around 2gb ram should be more enough to handle ftp transfers and streaming over local network?

 

[RebateMonger]

WHS doesn't actually use RAID 1. It uses a unique "Drive Extender" to provide redundant data folders if you wish. You can pick which folders you want to have disk redundancy.

But, yeah, if you want redudancy of 1 TB of data, than you'll need another 1 TB of space available on one or more additional disks.

Unless the processor is busy doing a lot of other things (not "normal" on a WHS server), then a Celeron processor should be fine for delivering media files across the networking.

 

[AndyD2k]

Sounds like it is RAID 1 then if not exactly. So if I have 4 1tb drives consider 2 lost for redundancy? I want to backup all my movies to the drives and while I'll still have the discs I'm concerned about losing all that time spent backing the discs up if I lost them.

Not sure if I want RAID 5 hardware though either. Decisions decisions. Maybe I'll just take the chance and just make some important things redundant and not everything

 

[Winterpool]

If you actually own or plan to obtain four TB drives, then it does seem rather painful to give up two terabytes of storage for redundancy. RAID 5 would of course let you keep another TB.

A lot of what's appealing about WHS is in the interface, so you'll have to decide whether WHS's features are worth the 'waste' of disk space. If you're using the server for file storage / backup and aren't interested in the WHS features, you may be better off with a more conventional file server / NAS.

 

[RebateMonger]

Well, RAID 1 and WHS' folder redundancy both use 1:1 disk space for data:copies. WHS has the advantage of "infinite" expandability, no need to add two disks at a time, and the ability to limit redundancy to single folders. With hardware RAID 1 you have to RAID the entire disk.

With WHS, if you need more storage, you add a single disk. RAID 1, RAID 5, etc. are much more complex and costly to add storage space. With WHS, you can have any conceivable combination of disk sizes and types in your storage array. If you have several 1 TB disks and want to add a 2 TB disk, you just add it.

With RAID 5, you'd have to build a brand-new multi-disk RAID 5 array to take advantage of 2 TB disks. And you'd have to buy TWO 2 TB disks to create a new 2 TB RAID 1 array.

Both RAID 1 and WHS are also much less likely to lose data if disaster strikes. RAID 5 or RAID 6 are much easier to corrupt and, in general, there's much more data loss in busineses with RAID 5 arrays than with RAID 1 arrays. Data recovery from a RAID 5 arrays is definitely only for professionals. I've NEVER seen data lost on a redudundant WHS or RAID 1 array and I've seen data lost many times with RAID 5 arrays.

I don't use RAID 5 or RAID 6 arrays anymore. I quit using them in 2005. They are expensive to built, are prone to corruption, do slow writes, and are costly to upgrade. Disks are cheap while managing and repairing RAID 5/6 arrays can be complex.

WHS is the complete opposite of RAID 5. Low cost components, little risk of corruption, and easy expansion.

 

[elconejito]

1) Do you actually have 2TB worth of data?

WHS does redundancy on a FOLDER level, not a drive level. So even though you might have a 1TB drive if you only have 100GB of data on it, then WHS will keep only that 100GB on another drive.

The advantage to WHS is that you can toss in any assortment of drives you may have lying around, like 320GB, 500GB, 1TB, 2TB, etc. As opposed to RAID 1 or 5 where you should be buying identical drives.

2) For streaming files over a network a celeron or atom chip will be just fine.

 

[Blain]

Here, RAID 5 in This


"I want max storage while still have assurances that my data is backed up."

BTW, No RAID array is designed for "data backup". It's designed for redundancy against HD failure.

 

[Paperlantern]

I've never used WHS and am currently running Server 2003 on my home file server/web server/print server/database server. Will WHS be able to do all of these things effectively and be (ironically enough) as stable as Win2k3 Server? Ive been running my current setup for 4 years and the ONLY time i ever take it down is for patching, hardware upgrades, cleaning, or power failures longer than the UPS can sustain it. It is ROCK stable.

I currently run it on an extremely low powered machine, a thunderbird 850MHz with 768MB of RAM and it still screams. However I am looking at instituting a replacement within the next few months, something either dual core in the 2.66GHz range, or a 3.4GHz Hyperthreaded machine. My issue with choosing between the two was storage. The hyperthreaded machine is capable of hardware level RAID 0/1/5/10, whereas the dual core has VERY LIMITED RAID support, but does have plenty of SATA ports. The case on the HT machine is limited as far as bays, and the dual core machine's case has tons of room. So ive been more or less at an impass wishing i could combine the two machines in the worst way. If WHS can replace my existing server needs entirely, then the dual core with the desired bays will work for me, and i can even use mixed disks.

So does anyone have any experience with WHS over the longterm? Because after reading what users have posted here, if all true I would certainly recommend it for the OP in his situation.

 

[JackMDS]

There is rather Bizarre phenomenon with Computer Enthusiasts.

They are the first to discover, use, and creatively augment new computers' technology.

They tend to see their technology a sort of societal medal (which is a good thing)

, but when the time comes let go of technology that start to loose its "Shine" they get Stuck on it (which is a bad thing)

.

Given the current state of the HD technology and the fact hat every one has a network and external drives, most of the usage of RAID on home computers/networks is Not justify any more.

You are Smart people it time to let Go.

So does anyone have any experience with WHS over the longterm? Because after reading what users have posted here, if all true I would certainly recommend it for the OP in his situation.

I have few WHS computers running from day one of the Beta release, never had any problem with them.

BTW. Tomorrow Power pack 3 for WHS is suppose to be released. :biggrin:

http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/wi...hancements-for-windows-7-based-computers.aspx

.

 

[Paperlantern]

Jack, have you experienced any type of a situation where youve had to replace a disk? How does WHS handle a disk failure, does it work similar to a RAID array where in once the drive is replaced, it then RE copies all data that it needs to keep redundant to once again protect your important files?

Additionally, what if you have a mixed bag of disks and say one disk is 1TB and the other two are perhaps 160GB and 320GB and you have 700GB of data that should be redundant. Does WHS alert you to the problem, to tell you you now have more data in your xyz folder(s) than windows can keep redundant?

 

[jamesbond007]

Interesting thread. What would happen if, say, the motherboard took a dive on you or the system will no longer boot? In a hardware-RAID card situation, you can just swap out the bad card with a new one, configure it and get the data back. This is one of the main reasons I'm a bit skeptical to rely on integrated/software RAID solutions for even just semi-important data.

Does anyone know if you can 'migrate' the disks from a failed Media Server unit to a new one and access/recover the data?

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Interesting thread. What would happen if, say, the motherboard took a dive on you or the system will no longer boot? In a hardware-RAID card situation, you can just swap out the bad card with a new one, configure it and get the data back. This is one of the main reasons I'm a bit skeptical to rely on integrated/software RAID solutions for even just semi-important data.

Does anyone know if you can 'migrate' the disks from a failed Media Server unit to a new one and access/recover the data?

Yes. The data can be read on any system. So you just pull the drives and copy the data to a machine. It gets more cimplicated when you have a lot of drives, and have to do this with all your data, but nothing is lost when the system disk dies or mobo dies. If a disk dies, you do lose the data on that disk, but if it is redundant then it will be stored on another disk.

I had to do a lot of research on this when my primary system disk failed. Nothing like juggling 10TB of drives (~8TB of data) and put it all together again. Everything went fairly smoothly, and I still swear by WHS.

 

[RebateMonger]

Interesting thread. What would happen if, say, the motherboard took a dive on you or the system will no longer boot?

Death of the System disk or secondary Data disks in Windows Home Server is documented in both Microsoft and non-Microsoft literature. I've simulated both by pulling virtual disks in virtualized Windows Home Servers and the failure and repair works pretty much as documented.

Re-installation of WHS onto a new motherboard or System disk is actually easier than most XP failures, since most folks don't install significant extra applications into WHS. Doing a Repair Installation of WHS is almost fully automatic and fairly fast. You just need to read up on what you are doing before doing it.