Possible Windows Home Server Build

[Valo]

My motherboard on my download box failed yesterday so I'm going to be rebuilding it shortly, so I'm considering moving my download box operating system to WHS but I have a few questions before I make a decision.

Currently I have a RAID 5 array made up of 4x 500GB Disks on a Highpoint RocketRAID 2310 Raid Card which stores all my music, videos and photos. As I understand it WHS doesn’t support RAID and I would need to copy my data off the array, then rebuild it as JBOD array for WHS to utilise the disks – is that correct?

How serious are the data corruption issues currently affecting the software? When is a fix due?

I know that Powerpack 1 is due shortly which will finally deliver the x64 connecter software, when is it due for release and if I decide to go with WHS can I use the shares n WHS without having the connecter software installed on my Vista x64 PC?

 

[bledd]

i think the data corruptoin fix is coming with the powerpack

tbh tho, whs is over rated, i can't see why any ocuk members would need it, it's basically a mix of 2003/vista with file backups

just use an xp pro box (or windows 2000), and share folders on it, simple & no corruption, for backups use robocopy or synctoy

 

[Valo]

i think the data corruptoin fix is coming with the powerpack

tbh tho, whs is over rated, i can't see why any ocuk members would need it, it's basically a mix of 2003/vista with file backups

just use an xp pro box (or windows 2000), and share folders on it, simple & no corruption, for backups use robocopy or synctoy

I'm already using a stripped down XP Pro install on the box before it went pop. I was just wondering if it was worth it?

 

[Agent0range]

If you need to buy a completely new XP licence and therefore have the choice of either a new copy of Windows XP or WHS, I'd personally go for WHS. I've been using WHS since mid December and I've had no problems at all with it. The data corruption issue is a problem if you're saving files that are open on your client to a shared network location on the home server. I haven't been affected by this and to be honest, it’s an unlikely situation. I guess it is a pretty serious problem for some, and Microsoft should have really sorted it out earlier but it’s certainly not the end of the world.
bledd. is right, you can get the same functionality from Windows XP, but WHS is just much easier to setup/manage. You can have your home server up and running, hosting your files remotely over the internet and centralising your network backup and anti-virus management. I really would recommend WHS, I’ve found it very easy and straightforward to use.

If, like me you’re pretty busy then the last thing you want to do is come home from a full day of work and build a home server solution that is more complex and time-consuming to setup than it needs to be. You can manage the WHS using the Home Server Connect app that’s installed an all clients on the network, allowing you a significant amount of management and control in one easy to use window. Third party applications and plug-ins can significantly increase the functionality of your WHS box too.

An OEM version of WHS from OcUK is pretty good value in my opinion. It’s hardly more expensive than a Windows XP Pro OEM CD. Seeing as your XP box went boom, the price alone makes WHS worth considering IMO. Add in the fact that there’s a lot of functionality out of the box that’s easy to setup, and third party plug-ins that further enhance your box you can have an all singing all dancing WHS box setup in no time at all with none of the headache.

Check out We Got Served, it’s a great site for plug-ins/info about WHS.

I really would recommend this OS. Yes you can get the same functionality out of Ubuntu Home Server, or Windows XP Pro, or Server 2003 but this is just simpler. It’s unfair to slam WHS because of its user-friendliness. You don’t have to be a power user 100% of the time right?

 

[hooj]

I really would recommend this OS. Yes you can get the same functionality out of Ubuntu Home Server, or Windows XP Pro, or Server 2003 but this is just simpler. It’s unfair to slam WHS because of its user-friendliness. You don’t have to be a power user 100% of the time right?

Gotta agree with this.
WHS has been great since I started using it in December.

Don't forget it's basically SBS 2003 with the WHS bits and pieces installed on top.
You can still setup, DNS, DHCP, FTP etc in the same way you could on any other SBS 2003 server.

 

[bledd]

i was in the beta for whs, i was impressed by its features (although who uses security centre, so was annoyed by the notifications that gave all the time) -didn't check if you could turn it off

for a person who's new to networking, whs could be a god send

to the OP, i'd stick with a litexp install, that's what i use, it's about a 90-100mb iso, works flawlessly and gives me more space for files

i can acronis the c drive on that incase anything went wrong, and would take about 1-2mins to restore it, sorted

 

[Pandobear]

In relation to your question about RAID5, you can still use the array in WHS, as long as Highpoint produces Server 2003 drivers, which is likely. The confusion with raid and WHS is that WHS uses drive pooling that creates a drive pool in software, where as your raid array is a pool in hardware with redundancy. Raid 5 downside is reduction in write speed, and loss of one drive space to parity bit. WHS drive poolings downside is poor write speed, and no redundancy, other than duplication, which doubles the required storage size. My suggestion would be to purchase one addition drive to install WHS on, and then do your install, and finally add your RAID array, requireing no reinstall of your data. You may need to change file permissions, but that is all. Later you may find that you wish to use Drive Extender, but it is not compulsory. I hope that this helps