|
LinuxGirl87 posted:Can WHS2 have an OS disk and a diskpool separate? (Say, a small 10k RPM OS drive and a large 7200 RPM storage pool.) Yes. We finally have the option to not include the OS drive in the pool.
|
#
¿
May 5, 2010 15:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 00:43 |
|
|
kri kri posted:I doubt this is true. Its not 100% loss always but it's pretty close from my testing. Basically everything is striped across multiple drives regardless if it is duplicated or not. So if one drive dies you lose pretty much everything that was not duplicated if it spanned all drives. This is true for large files mostly (videos), smaller files are not always lost but it's a crapshot with those.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2010 14:34
|
|
|
TDD_Shizzy posted:Then there really is no point in running WHS if you setup a software/hardware raid. You might as well load a better os (server 2008 r2) and setup a raid on that. Or some ZFS system that can pool similar to WHS. Unlike WHS with duplication, raid5 can result in data lose if more than 1 drive fails from the array. I really hate when people say this. WHS does more than just drive extender. I have a few computers in my house that I keep backed up, and have restored on more than one occasion. That alone would be worth it, but also the website and free dns that you get for things like sharing pictures (if you have kids) make WHS more than just a drive pool. So yes there is a point in running WHS if you have a raid setup. Honestly WHS works wonderfully on a raid array, you get the n-1 disk space and all the extra features of WHS.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2010 22:07
|
|
|
wolrah posted:Drive extender is the only thing that makes WHS special though. As great as they are conceptually for the average user with a lot of files, I'd bet good money the vast majority of the actual users of it are fairly computer savvy and thus could easily assemble all the other functionality on a spare PC in their OS of choice. Yes you can get all the features from everything else but you have to piece a bunch of poo poo together instead of just having it in once nice package. WHS just works with all the stuff, it saves time and I don't have to try to figure what linux distro or command I need to do what function. You can backup XP and Windows 7 of any version, not just 7 Professional. And it's cheaper than 2008r2.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2010 16:14
|
|
|
TDD_Shizzy posted:Pretty sure they were just asking about duplication vs Raid5. This is true that WHS has a few nice features outside of duplication. I agree, if they were only going to use WHS for a storage pool only there are better ways to go. The great thing about WHS was everything being in one easy to use package, which would be perfect if they were not retarded and got rid of drive extender.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2010 16:19
|
|
|
"One Arm Manny" posted:I think I read something about a 2TB limit per shared folder in 2011. Does Drivepool get around this, or am I just wrong?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2011 18:23
|
|
|
"kyojin" posted:I looked at UnRaid but there is a 3 drive limit on the free version, which is no good. I am cheap.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2011 14:16
|
|
|
Tapedump posted:I have a 8tb array set with multiple shared folders on it in 2011. Works fine. [/quote] Yes my video folder is 5TB.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2011 14:55
|
|
|
devmd01 posted:Build/buy your NAS for storage/backup and get a Boxee Box, WDTV Live, or other similar media player. Wife friendly, cool, quiet, and much less hassle than an HTPC. If you got with a WDTV make sure on server 2011 you turn on netbios. If you have an all windows 7 or higher environment the WDTV won't see folder shares on the server unless that is on. Other than that I have 2 WDTV lives, 1 htpc, 2 computers, and server 2011 and they all work very well together.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2011 14:35
|
|
|
TheChipmunk posted:I'm running WHS (based on 2003) and rather often the shared shares and server become unresponsive and I have to manually restart the server. After it happens and you restart check the event logs. Check system and application to see if there was something happening.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2011 20:33
|
|
|
H2SO4 posted:To be fair, you are running a third-party storage abstraction layer on top of WHS. I was a die-hard WHSv1 zealot, and I upgraded to 2011 mainly for the remote access improvements. I have been running the same stock install for a long time and it's been remarkably stable. WHS2011 has been great for me. I have a raid card and array so I do not need the drive pooling. The backup system has been flawless for the few times I have done restores, and the OS itself has been stable considering I am running a zillion extra services on it for serving up content. I mean it is just server 2008r2 with a backup system and website on it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2012 14:55
|
|
|
COCKMOUTH.GIF posted:Yeah it sounds like some people are interested in a Hyper-V/WHS 2011 setup. I've taken my jumble of personal notes about the setup/configuration specific to my own environment and posted them here. Feel free to suggest any changes that might make life easier and make things work better. I eventually did get the WDTV working with WHS 2011. Did you try just turning on netbios? By default with server 2008 ,windows 7 netbios only turns on at first and if it doesn't detect a legacy device it turns off (which is why resetting everything probably works) which will stop file shares from showing up on the Wdtv. After I forced it to always be on my Wdtv always found my whs2011. (advanced options in IP4 settings)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2012 14:28
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Has anyone played around with Windows Server 8? With the introduction of Spaces, I'm thinking of moving from WHS v1 to that instead. Yes. In it's current state storage spaces is slow (write) and unreliable.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
kri kri posted:Yeah looks like the next thing will be using the Crashplan client and SBS 2012 or whatever. Though I can't see myself replacing my n40l 2011 server anytime soon. I don't have any of the issues I had with v1. I was also thinking of server 2012 and crash plan. Only thing I will really miss is the free DNS service. I have everything pointed at that address.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2012 23:10
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Server 2003 does not have dynamic resizing of partitions, no. You can extend the Partition using diskpart in server 2003, however I do not know if it is safe with WHSv1 since the D drive is special.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2012 20:33
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:I think there was a guide a few pages back on how to install WHS on a smaller SSD by using a hack script when installing. WHS v1 or 2011? I'm assuming 2011 since you said 160gb. That restriction is only on install and shouldn't matter for cloning. You can shrink the partition to smaller than the disk you are cloning to then just use windows built in disk backup to restore to the new drive.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2012 15:36
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Oh that's great, thanks. WHS V1 had a 65gb requirement. Acronis is usually pretty good about imaging so you should be fine.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2012 16:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 00:43 |
|
|
EC posted:I'm like 90% sure DrivePool doesn't back up the server OS or settings, which is what the server backup does. I keep meaning to add an external drive an set it up but haven't gotten around to it yet. You can use the built in windows server backup to dump the system partition onto your other drive in case it fails. I just have mine setup to dump the C to a different disk every night and it works great. Its in the control panel, not the one inside the whs console.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2012 20:10
|
|