Why WHS?

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by crarbo1

S_M_E,
I'm sure you just overlooked my last questions. Could you give your opinion on these?

I did reply:
Yesterday, 07:52 PM

[Skirge01]

Originally Posted by IVB

Is there any reason to use WHS if you:
1) have a HW RAID card, hence won't use the pooled drive thing
2) Don't have other PCs that you need to have backed up.
3) Probably won't have more than 5 simultaneous connections?

What exactly is your reasoning for considering WHS? It sounds like you have an array set up and you don't have other PCs to backup. Then again, you do have ONE PC that you may want to back up.

EDIT: In #2 you said you didn't have other PCs, but then you responded with this:

FWIW, I do have 3 other machines (2 laptops and a desktop), but the RAID arrays store all the data, these are basically client-only boxes.

So, you clearly do have more PCs that you should probably be backing up, thereby negating #2. But, that's your call, not ours.

Are you just asking if you should set up a server running WHS solely for running the Sage service? If that's the case, I'd say no. I was doing that from my main home computer (XP Pro) until I turned to WHS and it worked just fine.

but what if your mobo fails and you can't get another identical one? In that case, a HW array is transferrable to a new mobo type, any idea if WHS is?

Absolutely not a fact. As S_M_E said, it's possible that it'll work, but it's not definite. It's a complete gamble. I've had issues attempting this myself.

What I'm about to state is not a fact either, but what I believe to be true. Perhaps S_M_E or someone else knows for certain. If your WHS box's mobo fails, I believe you should be able to buy a new mobo, install WHS again and recover all your data from the drive pools. However, you would need to reinstall Sage and any other plug-ins you added to the standard WHS install.

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by Skirge01

EDIT: In #2 you said you didn't have other PCs, but then you responded with this:
So, you clearly do have more PCs that you should probably be backing up, thereby negating #2. But, that's your call, not ours.

He could be running an unsupported OS on those.

Are you just asking if you should set up a server running WHS solely for running the Sage service? If that's the case, I'd say no.

I'd say maybe. WHS still makes a good Sage server regardless. If he already had XP maybe not, if he had to buy an OS anyway, maybe.

Perhaps S_M_E or someone else knows for certain. If your WHS box's mobo fails, I believe you should be able to buy a new mobo, install WHS again and recover all your data from the drive pools. However, you would need to reinstall Sage and any other plug-ins you added to the standard WHS install.

If the mobo's are similar enough you might get the option to do a "Server Reinstall" which would work as you said. If the server reinstall option is not there, he could still take the drives out of WHS, plug them into XP/Vista/any NTFS supporting computer and the files would still be there. Either way, the only way he should lose data is if a drive failed that had unduplicated shares on it which is to be expected.

[Skirge01]

I think you pretty much said this exact thing, but it's somewhat surprising, which is why I'm basically restating it. If you don't get the server reinstall option, you wouldn't be able to recover the data through WHS? You'd need to copy the data off the drives to a different drive already in the "new" WHS pool?

I did some searching and found this article. It would seem to indicate that you SHOULD be able to replace either the system drive or the motherboard, disconnect all data drives, install WHS as NEW install, reconnect the data drives and REinstall WHS and, theoretically, be back in business. As you can see in that thread, this method didn't work for one of the people in there and did work for another person. So, YMMV.

[IVB]

Thanks for the guidance. The reason i'm contemplating WHS is that I need to do a full rebuild of my entire CQC/SageTV/SQLServerLite server box.(don't ask)

Since I need to do this anyhow, and since it sucks ass to do and i don't want to do it again for another 3 years, I figured I should look around and make the call on XP Pro vs WHS. I already own XP-Pro and all the hardware, but if there's a significant value-add I don't mind spending $100 on WHS.

My plan is (was?) to have 3 RAID arrays:

RAID1 160GB (via mobo) - for OS
RAID1 1TB (via mobo) - for pictures/email/financial/"critical" data
RAID5 3TB (via LSI HW card) for DVDs, TV. This will probably grow to 5+TB eventually.

My laptops & other PC run XPHome, which isn't listed as a supported backup option. Then again, I really don't care about backing those up as they have nothing worth backing up - all data sits on the RAID1 on the server. If they die (which they have), I can re-install XPHome and be back in business in an hour.

I'll look through that link you mentioned, thanks again.

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by Skirge01

I think you pretty much said this exact thing, but it's somewhat surprising, which is why I'm basically restating it. If you don't get the server reinstall option, you wouldn't be able to recover the data through WHS? You'd need to copy the data off the drives to a different drive already in the "new" WHS pool?

I did some searching and found this article. It would seem to indicate that you SHOULD be able to replace either the system drive or the motherboard, disconnect all data drives, install WHS as NEW install, reconnect the data drives and REinstall WHS and, theoretically, be back in business. As you can see in that thread, this method didn't work for one of the people in there and did work for another person. So, YMMV.

I'm saying if WHS were to fail that you could read the pooled drives on any machine that supports NTFS. If you get the server reinstall option there's no need to read them on another machine because WHS would rebuild without formatting the old drives and yes, if you perform a "new install" any drive you add to the pool will be formatted.

Originally Posted by IVB

My plan is (was?) to have 3 RAID arrays:

WHS doesn't officially support RAID but then again it doesn't support a lot of what I do with WHS either. I, and others, have had problems with RAID on WHS, so I'd avoid it as it's not really needed anyway. People are reporting good luck with flexraid on WHS but I'm still happy with the pool the way it is.

RAID1 160GB (via mobo) - for OS

Server reinstall is probably the best option for a system drive failure, RAID on the system drive has been problematic. There's really no need for the extra drive on the OS when it could be put to better use in the pool.

EDIT:
Also, you should consider a larger system drive. I wouldn't use less than 320G and I'd probably choose 500G because I like to resize the C partition for more room to install other things.

RAID1 1TB (via mobo) - for pictures/email/financial/"critical" data

The pool already offers duplication (basically the same as mirroring) on a per share basis so that array is not needed either.

EDIT2:
You should be aware that some files should never be ran from network shares, including Outlook .pst files and MS money databases. Some versions of financial SW, like Quickbooks are made to be ran from a network, others are not and corruption is possible. This isn't a WHS issue, it's an issue with the other SW. If you're already running your "financial" data from a network you're probably using a version that supports it. I don't know how you backup your e-mail so the outlook.pst file issue may not be an issue for you either.

RAID5 3TB (via LSI HW card) for DVDs, TV. This will probably grow to 5+TB eventually.

I run my imported/ripped videos in the pool on a duplicated share although there is an argument for parity especially for large collections. If I absolutely HAD to have parity, I'd look at flexraid not HW raid for WHS.

[Skirge01]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

I'm saying if WHS were to fail that you could read the pooled drives on any machine that supports NTFS. If you get the server reinstall option there's no need to read them on another machine because WHS would rebuild without formatting the old drives and yes, if you perform a "new install" any drive you add to the pool will be formatted.

For my own sanity, I posted a question over on that forum. I think you're right, but that thread is pretty confusing.

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by Skirge01

For my own sanity, I posted a question over on that forum. I think you're right, but that thread is pretty confusing.

As you said, the "new install" - "reinstall" method may or may not work, it's always worth a try but the key thing is if you're doing a new install with populated drives, disconnect them or they will be formatted and if worse comes to worse the data is readable with any NTFS capable computer so user error is more likely to lose data than anything else.

[Slipshod]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

I haven't found the one that talked about large processes lately but:
http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm
and
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3044&p=2

Almost none of the above is all that relevant to a headless server with a quality motherboard, and none of it is specific to WHS. It's a general 32bit OS issue: if have lots of PCIe cards w/ RAM onboard you will lose lots of memory. Big problem for gaming station w/ 768MB of video ram, minimal problem for server board w/ 32MB of video ram.

Crashing w/ processes using >2GB is pretty funny too, because the maximum default user-space memory for a process is 2GB. So yes, if your process tries to consume more than that it will choke. If it's large-address-aware and your OS is configured to, the userspace is set to 3GB max (which it robs from kernel space, reducing it to 1GB).

Doesn't matter much with most WHS installs as no single process will chew up that much RAM. If you are a heavy photo/video user you may have bumped into this, especially if you were running a 64bit OS w/ 32bit programs.

Right click the "My Computer" icon on your desktop and select Properties then see how much RAM it reports. If it can't even report the right amount of RAM, I have no confidence that it won't have issues using it. Better safe than sorry, imo.

It's reporting the amount it can actually use, not the physical ammount installed. Would you rather it lied to you?

Anyway, very few people can benefit from >3GB in WHS, and if you're not sure you're one of them, you're not. Anybody running Sage on WHS shouldn't need more than 2GB, and I'd suggest that just because it's a round number and 1GB is a little skimpy.

The RAID conversation goes along similar lines... If you don't already know why you'd want to use it over the drive pool, you should use the drive pool. RAID has a lot of advantages over the drive pool that don't matter to 99.9% of the people running WHS. And WHS's drive pool has advantages over RAID that matter to 99.9% of the people who run it.

I just really, really wish WHS had a 64-bit version available, but there's almost no chance of that for several years.

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by Slipshod

It's a general 32bit OS issue...

Crashing w/ processes using >2GB is pretty funny too, because the maximum default user-space memory for a process is 2GB.

I just really, really wish WHS had a 64-bit version available, but there's almost no chance of that for several years.

I said it wasn't WHS specific, of course it's 32bit in general, but WHS is a 32bit OS.

Exactly. As I said, I've never ran into that issue but it is a possibility when you run large amounts of RAM.

There is a rumor that WHS v2 will be based on win2k8 and there have been hints that it will be x64 only but MS will neither confirm nor deny it at this stage.

[Slipshod]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

I said it wasn't WHS specific, of course it's 32bit in general, but WHS is a 32bit OS.

No, you were specifically referring to WHS when you spoke of the limits. You didn't say they were normal 32bit OS limits:
"I use 3G RAM in my WHS, 4G can be less stable with large processes and WHS only reports it as 3G anyway."

Exactly. As I said, I've never ran into that issue but it is a possibility when you run large amounts of RAM.

No, not exactly - I don't think I was clear enough. ANY 32 bit application, on ANY 32bit OS, with ANY ammount of RAM will have issues if it tries to allocate more RAM than it's allowed. What limit I mentioned has *nothing* to do with the ammount of RAM installed in the PC. It doesn't matter if you have 512MB, 1GB, or 4GB - The only thing that will change w/ the amount of RAM is the point when you will start using swap. Each application can still use a full 2GB (or 3GB if you've tweaked the OS).

There is a rumor that WHS v2 will be based on win2k8 and there have been hints that it will be x64 only but MS will neither confirm nor deny it at this stage.

That would be awesome. I've got 3 virtual machines running, and it's getting kind of cramper. Especially cause I want to add 2 more... <sigh>

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by Slipshod

No, you were specifically referring to WHS when you spoke of the limits. You didn't say they were normal 32bit OS limits:
"I use 3G RAM in my WHS, 4G can be less stable with large processes and WHS only reports it as 3G anyway."

I never said it was WHS only and 4G CAN be less stable and it wont be reported correctly on WHS, XP, Vista, etc. It's not my fault that you didn't understand but just because we were talking about WHS (in a WHS thread), which is a 32bit OS, doesn't mean that I implied it was only WHS.

No, not exactly - I don't think I was clear enough. ANY 32 bit application, on ANY 32bit OS, with ANY ammount of RAM will have issues if it tries to allocate more RAM than it's allowed. What limit I mentioned has *nothing* to do with the ammount of RAM installed in the PC. It doesn't matter if you have 512MB, 1GB, or 4GB - The only thing that will change w/ the amount of RAM is the point when you will start using swap. Each application can still use a full 2GB (or 3GB if you've tweaked the OS).

If you only have 512M RAM, you'll never hit the 2G limit. While you can hit the limit with 3G, again, windows (not just WHS) will report how much RAM you have correctly. You seem to be confused; I'm not saying it's one issue, it's 2 separate issues, neither of which are present on 64bit systems.

That would be awesome. I've got 3 virtual machines running, and it's getting kind of cramper. Especially cause I want to add 2 more... <sigh>

We might not have to wait "several years" for it either. w7 is already in public beta and Vista isn't that old. WHS is already over a year old too. It might be a couple of years though. I wish MS wasn't so tight-lipped regarding development of v2 though...

[TorontoSage]

Originally Posted by pawn

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but Microsoft limits non-server operating systems to 5 simultaneous network connections from other computers.

Does this mean I can only connect a maximum of 5 HD200's to the server or does this only include actual computers? (sorry, newbie here)

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by TorontoSage

Does this mean I can only connect a maximum of 5 HD200's to the server or does this only include actual computers? (sorry, newbie here)

WHS *is* a server OS. While I don't have a HD200 yet, I doubt it'll be an issue. You might have issues with that if you used XP or another desktop OS.

[Slipshod]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

If you only have 512M RAM, you'll never hit the 2G limit. While you can hit the limit with 3G, again, windows (not just WHS) will report how much RAM you have correctly. You seem to be confused; I'm not saying it's one issue, it's 2 separate issues, neither of which are present on 64bit systems.

Let me restate my points a little more clearly so you won't keep getting confused:

1. Unless you have hardware issues, the stability of your PC has nothing to do with the amount of RAM in it. 512MB, 2GB, or 4GB. Doesn't matter. The 2GB of default limit to user-space is the same if you have 512MB or 3GB installed. A process on a PC w/ 512MB can still allocate more RAM than physically present via swap and run out of space in the same way.

2. When you right-click My Computer and check the ammount of RAM listed, windows is reporting the correct ammount. They are talking about usable RAM, not physical RAM; and this discrepancy doesn't affect your system stability in anyway. It only reflects the difference between what you thought the number meant, and what it really means.


I'm just trying to keep misinformation contained.

[S_M_E]

I'm also experimenting with using duplication in the pool on my Sage recording share since there have been a number of patches and now that the pool and D partition have been converted to use 64K clusters. So far I've noticed no problems but testing has been limited.

In the past I had it turned off for the recording share due to performance issues but if I can now enable duplication for all shares it'll prevent data loss in case of future drive failures. Most TV shows can be recorded agian but if duplication no longer affects performance, then we might as well use it.

[bhyman1]

SME, just to be clear on this as I build my new WHS/Sage server, your TV recording drive for Sage is part of the Storage pool? And Sage records to a share added via the WHS console?

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by bhyman1

SME, just to be clear on this as I build my new WHS/Sage server, your TV recording drive for Sage is part of the Storage pool? And Sage records to a share added via the WHS console?

Yes, typically I make that share non-duplicated but I'm experimenting with duplication again to see if there are still performance issues if duplicated. I create a share in the WHS console named "SageTV" for my recording share.

[bhyman1]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

Yes, typically I make that share non-duplicated but I'm experimenting with duplication again to see if there are still performance issues if duplicated. I create a share in the WHS console named "SageTV" for my recording share.

Cool beans. Thanks for the info. I may give this a try on my new build.

[psklenar]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

I'm also experimenting with using duplication in the pool on my Sage recording share since there have been a number of patches and now that the pool and D partition have been converted to use 64K clusters. So far I've noticed no problems but testing has been limited. ...

I'm waiting with bated breath to hear how this works! Thanks for trying it out!

pat----