Considering moving from Windows Home Server to Unbuntu

[toony]

I'm at a very frustrating point with WHS and I don't think it's for me. I used to have sage on Xp and it was wonderful. I then upgraded to a big server with Xeon quad processors and now have 9 or so terabytes of hdd's 2 hd100's and 1 hd200 and I think I hate WHS.

I don't like the mirroring, I don't like not being able to use my own form of raid. I want 64 bit, I never use the webserver. Most of the apps are not needed. I'm not sure I want to wait until vail is a reality.

Anyone out there use Unbuntu? how is it running?

Maybe I should just go back to XP. It was stable and smooth. All I need to do is add raid.

[tmiranda]

Go with what you are more familiar with. If you have Linux experience Ubuntu will work well for you, especially if you are not using the server as a client. If you are not familiar with Linux you will have a steep learning curve.

[bits]

I completely agree with tmiranda....go with what you know. If you go with linux you will need to move all of your data off each of the drives you want to install in the linux system so that you can reformat them to ext3 or ext4. And if you are bent on raiding then your task will be even harder.

[Skirge01]

Based on what you want, it does seem that you went with the wrong solution. If 64bit was critical for some reason (admittedly, not sure I understand why), then WHS is certainly out, but I'm sure you knew that going in. That should mean it wasn't a priority before.

Mirroring is what WHS uses for redundancy (aka backups). What would you prefer to use? Tape backups (big $$$)? Cloud backups (could be big $$$, depending on amount of data)? Hopefully you aren't thinking about RAID as a backup solution because it isn't.

If you want to use RAID to help with the availability (uptime) of your data, then WHS is not the correct solution for you because it doesn't inherently support it. I also have doubts whether MS will ever remedy that situation because of the target audience. Theoretically, it should be easy enough to do by changing where the additional drivers are loaded in the re/install process, but I'm not a programmer.

Personally, I use the webserver all the time for getting access to my data. Web Folders 4 WHS improves the default method ten-fold.

I suppose if I lost data or lost the OS drive, I might be cursing WHS right now, but since I'm aware of the issues I may run into, I'm sure I'll handle them better than if they were surprises. I also know what the workarounds are, so I feel quite prepared, even if I won't exactly be "happy".

[stevech]

Originally Posted by Skirge01

If you want to use RAID to help with the availability (uptime) of your data, then WHS is not the correct solution for you because it doesn't inherently support it. I also have doubts whether MS will ever remedy that situation because of the target audience.

What am I missing here? Microsoft is pushing WHS as the way to cache AND archive movies/videos, AND archive heirloom family photos. Seems to me WHS is too fragile for the non-geek to deal with a failure of the OS boot disk. This could be quite sad.

[Skirge01]

The two are mutually exclusive (geek and non-geek). MS made something for non-geeks for preserve their computers and files. In order to do that, they needed to figure out how to "dumb it down" for most folks. So, they said, "If we standardize the OS itself and make it so that nothing NEEDS to be installed on it, then the server OS can be restored to it's original state at any given time." What they did from there was ensure that the server could recover any data in the drive pool after the OS was restored to it's installed state, thereby saving the user's critical data. All that gets lost in that instance are users and permissions (maybe one or two other little things I'm forgetting at the moment). What's easier for Joe and Jane consumer to wrap their head around... RAID or duplication? I know many enthusiasts who still can't explain how the different RAID levels work.

The issue is that people like you (I assume) and I are tinkerers and like living on the edge. So, we do things that MS wasn't planning for most people to do: install services, programs, agents, etc, into the OS. Things which we don't want to lose. Remember that WHS was originally (and is currently) marketed as an OEM item, meant to be sold with an entire server built around it. We're not using it the way MS intended this version to be used. That's our fault.

That said, (I'm assuming again) MS clearly saw the adoption among enthusiasts, as well as the active add-in developer community, and decided to build in some OS safety in the next version. I actually think it's great that MS responded to the market, even if it was different from their original intentions.