WHS 2011 or Server 2012 R2 Essentials?

[stinger608]

First; I have both of these so I don't need to know a price comparison. I know one is $50 and the other is $400.

What I want to do is set up a good home server for storing media, backing up other systems, playing movies, listing to music, etc...

Now I know Essentials, as well as Win 8.1, both have "Storage Space" which is pretty much like the original Windows Home Server hard drive pooling ability.

Of course Home Server 2011 does not have pooling and I would have to get a third party pooling app. Not a problem if this is what I end up using.

What does everyone think would be the best of the two?

Frigging 2012 Essentials is a full featured server OS, which to be honest I really don't need a lot of the features.

I guess my biggest concern is; do I want to use my 2012 Essentials as a home server? Seems like a major overkill LOL

Pros and cons on both?

Any input is much appreciated.

 

[colorblind]

First; I have both of these so I don't need to know a price comparison. I know one is $50 and the other is $400.

What I want to do is set up a good home server for storing media, backing up other systems, playing movies, listing to music, etc...

Now I know Essentials, as well as Win 8.1, both have "Storage Space" which is pretty much like the original Windows Home Server hard drive pooling ability.

Of course Home Server 2011 does not have pooling and I would have to get a third party pooling app. Not a problem if this is what I end up using.

What does everyone think would be the best of the two?

Frigging 2012 Essentials is a full featured server OS, which to be honest I really don't need a lot of the features.

I guess my biggest concern is; do I want to use my 2012 Essentials as a home server? Seems like a major overkill LOL

Pros and cons on both?

Any input is much appreciated.

I have WHS and I highly recommend it. I even used it today to due a full restore on a computer at work. For now I am going to keep it I have a WHS at home and at work. That being said I have considered purchasing 2012 Essentials if either of my current systems fail. If you want to keep things simple then WHS will be just fine.

See the following link though about WHS and GPT formatted partitions. Initially it could not back up Windows 8 computers. If you using 7 though not an issue.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2781272

 

[gmaster456]

I would use 2012 simply because it gives you a lot of options due to the nature of it being a full featured server OS. WHS still has some limitations. It just depends on whether or not those matter to you.

 

[ViRGE]

I think at this point you've already thought through everything. Given you already have both packages I'd go Windows Server 2012 Essentials; it offers more functionality than WHS2011, especially storage spaces as you note. The only advantage to WHS2011 that I can think of is the fact that its resource requirements are a bit lower.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Personally I'd just go Linux, Windows will always have artificial limitations not to mention you don't know from one year to the next if they'll stop supporting something. Linux is more dependable in that sense. You can use mdadm raid which is very solid. NFS, iSCSI, it does it all.

That said if you really want to go the windows route, I'd go with windows 2012 as it will offer more.

 

[Ketchup]

I think us knowing what roles it would be given would help you also, and how many clients.

 

[stinger608]

As for Linux, that would take a whole new learning curve. LOL.

@Ketchup79: Really just have 2 other systems currently. The one I am on now and the one that my wife uses.
What I am doing at this time is needing to back up the wife's system daily due to her work and I usually back mine up once a week. This is all done manually to an external drive.
I want to be able to set all that up to do automatically through a home server.
I also want to be able to run things like Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc...

Then there is the occasional game.

I am not sure if Essentials can have video acceleration turned on or not. That would be a biggie on the decision.

 

[ViRGE]

I am not sure if Essentials can have video acceleration turned on or not. That would be a biggie on the decision.

What exactly do you mean? This is a server OS; I hope you're not planning on using it at an HTPC or such.

 

[Ketchup]

Well, both stand about equal when it comes to games. I did find this with some info in it:

http://www.itproportal.com/2011/08/...windows-home-server-2011-poor-mans-windows-7/

And I don't think either would have a problem streaming media.

If anything, WHS would probably give you better performance since it is based on Server 2008. I have heard that Server 2012 needs some pretty good hardware to actually run decent.

 

[stinger608]

What exactly do you mean? This is a server OS; I hope you're not planning on using it at an HTPC or such.

Basically yes. Trying to get the best of both worlds LOL

Well, both stand about equal when it comes to games. I did find this with some info in it:

http://www.itproportal.com/2011/08/...windows-home-server-2011-poor-mans-windows-7/

And I don't think either would have a problem streaming media.

If anything, WHS would probably give you better performance since it is based on Server 2008. I have heard that Server 2012 needs some pretty good hardware to actually run decent.

Hmm, your probably correct on the system requirements. I was kind of planning on utilizing a dual processor socket 940 running dual Opteron 285's and a XFX 5850.

Not sure that old of hardware would run 2012 that proficiently. I know it runs the hell out of win 7. But server 2012 is basically a hot rod win 8 system.

 

[xSauronx]

sounds you just need file sharing space, really. why not just get a 4-disk NAS and set up the shares?

i mean, if youre going to get some other server benefits [or want to experiment for learning purposes] i guess it kinda makes sense but if you just want file sharing why not just throw all of the money into the storage hardware itself? surely you were going to have 3 or 4 drives for storage anyways, right?

raid5 is pretty decent and raid 10 will be quite fast. anand has done several reviews on 4 disk units. if i had the money and needed something like that id probably do a nas instead of a server

 

[Anteaus]

Both are great; however, WHS is officially the end of its line and it can't do GPT without a patch. Whoever uses it should be aware.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

If you already spent the money on SErver Essentials or some other full-blown server OS, you might want to go with that. Even so, the Add-in software outfits who supported WHS 2011 have made those apps to run under Server 2012 etc.

Basically, when I started with the "Vail" WHS v.1, I was pleased with it but didn't fully exploit the features from which I could get the most benefit. The storage was limited to 1TB as 2x 500GB.

I moved up to WHS 2011 late into that year. The Add-ins you'd want have all been top-notch and cost some extra chump change. As I said, those apps are also compatible with the newer server OS versions.

I want some handful of features or things:
-- automatically backup up all my workstations daily in incremental backups so I can make a bare metal restore if I need to with a USB key and the server
-- duplicate all my important files on the server
-- manage the sleep and wake features on all the other machines
-- provide a server backup function that I can rely on
-- assure the security of my files and the household LAN

Eventually, if I want to build a web-server capability, I think I can do that with WHS.

If I buy a NAS -- one of the better I had seen recently featured in Maximum PC cost nearly a kilo-buck. There are more limitations to the number of drives. Some of the NAS units use an Atom or similar processor, and provide for RAID up to RAID5 -- in some cases. I'm just not ready for that, but not as a matter of "experience" or ability (which you shouldn't need too much for a NAS.)

While WHS 2011 only gets "maintenance" support from M$, it supports all my needs. If I have to move up to "Server Essentials" or "Small Bid-nis Therver," or whatever, I want to take my time, budget the money, plan a server system that will provide several years of use.

The worst hassle you might have with WHS 2011 may be the same hassle you'd find with Win 2008 R2 and later. If you choose to use old, salvage hardware, you need to be mindful of acquiring the right drivers, and trimming the configuration to just what you need. Do you need analog 5.1 surround sound for a server? No you don't. Do you need "3D video drivers?" No you don't. "PhysX?" No. Do you even need SATA-III-capable controller? No, but it's a slight advantage, and only a slight one.

Your home server doesn't need to support 1000 clients. If it "serves" on a gigabit wired LAN, that's more than enough.

As for the AF drive problem -- yes -- it's a patch provided for WHS, but it works. It was the same patch provided to Win 7. If you somehow need a more advanced controller offering greater confidence on the GPT/AF angle, you can probably find a four-port unit that does RAID 1, 0, 10 and 0+1.

If your motherboard provides an IDE controller you want to use for an optical drive, just be careful at the BIOS configuration and disable PIO mode if you can. That seems to be the mystery that's plagued me for weeks as it appears in recent thread(s). Something so simple -- really . . .

 

[stinger608]

You make some great points Bonzai!

I need more than a NAS as I want to be able to allow some games to be played. I had planned on setting it up for an entertainment system as well. Running Steam Big Picture for example.

Not sure that either will fit the bill to be honest. LOL

 

[Ketchup]

Just a thought here: two systems.

You wouldn't need anything too robust to run it, and would only need remote desktop to use it, so you could put it anywhere.

Build a nice little htpc with 7 or 8 for the rest. I mean, if the cost of 2012 is considerable for you, I think this could be worth consideration as well.

 

[gmaster456]

Your hardware will run the server OS just fine. Dual opterons file sharing needs more than adequately.

 

[stinger608]

Just a thought here: two systems.

You wouldn't need anything too robust to run it, and would only need remote desktop to use it, so you could put it anywhere.

Build a nice little htpc with 7 or 8 for the rest. I mean, if the cost of 2012 is considerable for you, I think this could be worth consideration as well.

Trouble is, I purchased 2012 already from my university. I don't currently have the extra hardware to build two different systems. Not to mention this old place probably wouldn't handle the electrical load of two more.

Your hardware will run the server OS just fine. Dual opterons file sharing needs more than adequately.

Thanks Gmaster. I did a little research and I have to agree; two socket 940 Opteron 285's should have no problem running 2012 R2 Essentials.

 

[CSMR]

What exactly do you mean? This is a server OS; I hope you're not planning on using it at an HTPC or such.

No he basically wants a desktop which he will also use as a server.
I think he wants to attach keyboard and mouse and use the Windows desktop, so not HTPC.
The best thing is to use a regular OS rather than a server OS and just share some storage with the network.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

No he basically wants a desktop which he will also use as a server.
I think he wants to attach keyboard and mouse and use the Windows desktop, so not HTPC.
The best thing is to use a regular OS rather than a server OS and just share some storage with the network.

Well, there's the money, the availability, and the flexibility. I used W2KPro as my "server" OS for maybe four years. Then a buddy who works in an IT department and works on his certificates by attending M$ training seminars gave me a promotional copy of W2K Server. That worked for a couple years, but for some reason, I recycled another old desktop system to server use, and I had put XP on it to share files. That box carried me through to maybe 2008, when I paid the mere $50 for the Vail WHS, and I doubled down in 2011 for the WHS-2011 server I built in 2012.

Since it's based on the Win 2008 R2 OS, it provides the essential features you'd want. Frankly, I think I might be able to install the evaluation copy of an ORACLE DBMS on it and set it up for multi-user access within the house. It's been a while and I'd have to go back and check -- but I had long ago discovered that the '90s versions of the DBMS would run on a desktop-OS-in-server-use and allow for what I wanted in a peer-to-peer environment.

So I don't see why you couldn't use it for an in-house game-server, though never explored that possibility.

The problem is simple, though. The OEM disks for WHS 2011 seem to have dried up. Maybe if you look for it, you might get it for a song. Otherwise -- "Server Essentials" and the empty wallet. . .

ONE MORE THING. I've posted some threads here about a problem I was having with my WHS configuration: "unbalanced core usage" with one core between 80 and 95%. I may still go back and refresh my thread with these thoughts. Was it the SATA configuration? No. The Drivers? No. The sound-card? No. The SSD connected to a controller that had some "IDE-SATA" option for AHCI? No, not that either. Was it the Axonet Lights-Out Add-in that was polling all the machines in the house? No. It was something that created a backlog of Delayed Procedure Calls and Interrupts.

Know what it was? It was the Time Synchronization between Server and workstations. So every so often, you take your cell-phone around the house to the workstations and server, and set the times with it on the machines.

 

[stinger608]

As before, good points of interest Bonzai!!! Another great point that you made was in this thread started by you:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36282252&postcount=1

To add a little bit to that thread, I found a link to enable Hyper-V in windows 8/8.1!

http://blogs.technet.com/b/canitpro...-enabling-hyper-v-for-use-on-windows-8-1.aspx

To be honest, I figured that Hyper-V was only available in Server 2012 R2 not windows 8/8.1. Of course one must have the Pro or Enterprise x64 version in order to include Hyper-V

Also noted in windows 8/8.1 is the use of Storage Spaces briefly outlined in the Maximum PC article that Bonzai links to in the thread he started.

Really if one considers the options Windows 8.1 is waaaaay cheaper than server 2012 R2 Essentials, supports Media Center, has Storage Spaces, and can be set up for automatic back ups of all systems on the network.
Kind of a no brainer in my opinion.

Of course as you pointed out Bonzai, if a person can find a copy of WHS 2011 it will most likely be pretty cheap and would be the lowest price option to work with.

The heck of it is, with any "normal" system running Windows 8 or 8.1 a person can easily have a home server/media PC with just some guidance online and a few clicks of the mouse! Who would have thought? LOLOL

 

[BonzaiDuck]

[Windows 8.. . ] can be set up for automatic back ups of all systems on the network.

Maybe I didn't read the small print in the Maximum PC article, or they didn't mention this.

I want to say "Is this True?! Is it True?!"

I have another "WHS 2011" thread running here -- just updated it today.

See? It's like this. Our lives are so full of other things, we arrange to have backups and fall-backs to backups. I was cloning the system disk of my main Flagship Workstation periodically, but it's too easy to put off, or it takes time. Since I use bootable media for cloning (and many advise so), it takes time and takes my computer out of commission temporarily.

With backups to stave off disaster, we likely don't take the time to test them. We may even imagine a hazard in testing them. And testing them takes time.

So someone in this forum was asking whether anyone had ever tested Acronis True Image to make sure it worked. Well -- maybe I did something wrong, but I had a TI image backup of my server, and I bricked it. Or maybe -- it just "didn't work" the way they said it would.

If you check that other thread I mentioned, I wrote a long horror story with a happy ending that nevertheless took time out of my day. The backups of client system-boot disks to Windows Home Server 2011 work! They restore successfully, as long as you don't get puzzled by the menus, or stumped trying to find the appropriate "target" of the backup restoration.

If Windows 8 can do that for four or five computers over a local network, that's really something. It even seems . . . hard to believe.

 

[Ketchup]

Trouble is, I purchased 2012 already from my university. I don't currently have the extra hardware to build two different systems. Not to mention this old place probably wouldn't handle the electrical load of two more.

Just remember that a server OS won't run everything that a mainstream OS will. So a mainstream OS like 8 may be a better choice this time around.

When you have the funds to put together a dedicate server, 2012 will work in quite nicely.

 

[gmaster456]

Just remember that a server OS won't run everything that a mainstream OS will. So a mainstream OS like 8 may be a better choice this time around.

When you have the funds to put together a dedicate server, 2012 will work in quite nicely.

You can find off lease or retired business servers as wall. IBM, HP and Dell all have some good ones you can get for a decent price.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

You can find off lease or retired business servers as wall. IBM, HP and Dell all have some good ones you can get for a decent price.

Just remember that a server OS won't run everything that a mainstream OS will. So a mainstream OS like 8 may be a better choice this time around.

When you have the funds to put together a dedicate server, 2012 will work in quite nicely.

Both reasonable recommendations. In my case, I inherited a "file-server-preference" from my teaching days when it was desirable to set up an experimental network at home with a database server. I also began to appreciate what a separate server box with features like WHS-2011 (or better) does for client backups. Of course, With WHS-2011, I can't really use this client-backup feature with workstations running Win 8.

With the advent of "NAS" devices, I could see Mainstreamers eager to rid themselves of "routine computer maintenance," DIY-build-your-own options and other inconvenient factors. I'm not so eager.

As to the OEM server hardware, well, it would really depend on whether there are snags for installing ANY server OS on spare desktop PC parts, and I've not encountered any. All good ideas, but for my purposes -- unnecessary at the moment.

I'm trying to reduce power consumption and balance that priority with redundancy and reasonable performance. So I can add a $90 SSD to my box, even running it with older SATA-II controller technology, increase speed somewhat, reduce power somewhat more, and make it more feasible to add more HDDs to achieve the other objectives.

 

[stinger608]

Just remember that a server OS won't run everything that a mainstream OS will. So a mainstream OS like 8 may be a better choice this time around.

When you have the funds to put together a dedicate server, 2012 will work in quite nicely.

Ya know Ketchup, I am thinking along the same lines here. With Windows 8 having the drive pooling with Storage Spaces and the ability to set it up to do automatic backups for all systems on the network, I just don't see the need to use the Server 2012.

Seems a pretty big waste of a server OS.