WHS questions

F

Fading Phoenix

Gawd
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
602
Well, I've currently been using my main desktop/gaming rig to act as a file server to the home theater and girlfriend's computer. I'm thinking of building a dedicated server rig for all our file/media handling. Right now I'm waiting for bulldozer to release to decide if I want to jump on that and then just trickle hardware down the line, if I don't then I'll just pick up a cheap mb/cpu for the job.

Right now I've been trying to get some kind of bearing and understanding on how I'll be working with WHS when the time comes. I've skimmed through the FAQ thread sticked on this forum, but I noticed it is for the older version and I'm not sure how useful or reliable it would be for WHS 2011.

I'm also getting long-winded in my introductions :D

My main two questions at the moment.

1. Once everything is said and done, what would be the best method for data backup? (as in backup of all the files stored on and shared by the server).

Right now I figure the OS would be installed on a spare 250gb I have, and then I have 2x2tb, 1x1.5tb, and 1x1tb all for data. I'd have to buy more drives (I already plan on this currently anyway) but my only actual plan right now is to have each drive containing data I care about running in Raid 1. Is this ideal, or would there be a better way?


2. What is the difference between WHS 2011 and Windows Server 2008 R2? Or, would Server 2008 work just as well for this task?

Cause if i understand correctly, I should be able to get Server 2008 for free from Microsoft Dreamspark.
 
1) If you want an actual backup, then you're basically looking at another file server, external hard drive, NAS, cloud/online backup, or even a bunch of blu-ray discs. Simply put, if you want a true backup, then a copy of that data has to be on a seperate medium/source/device. Otherwise, there's gonna be a high chance of data loss. Having a seperate medium/source/device for backup lower that chance of data loss but doesn't eliminate it completelty however.

RAID 1, or most forms of RAID, will simply provide uptime of your data in the event of a hard drive crash. It does not protect against accidental or malicious deletion, removal, corruption, or infection of your data. As such, by itself, RAID is not backup,

2) Not sure meself. But Server 2k8 will be fine for file serving duties.
 
Soup Nazi says WHS v1 for you.

Either buld a box or grab a prebuilt... like the HP EX490 (cheap) or the Microserver.

EX490 comes with WHS v1 and some neat utils.... Microserver you will have to buy your own copy.

Use the folder duplication in WHS v1 this will copy your important folders across two or more drives (you will have two copies of the files in the folder on seprate drive)

You can then also get say a couple of external large drives to back WHS v1 up too.

Which should then give you 3 copies of your important data..... an offsite backup as well if you take the external drive elsewhere once a backup of the WHS v1 has been performed.

As for installing WHS v1.... always install it onto your largest drive.... then work you way down is drive size as you add them.

That way when you start to run out of space... you simple replace the smallest drive with a NEW Large capacity one........

And you don't have to re install WHS v1 for a very long time.

WHs v1 is a 32bit OS, so you can go MAX 4gig ram.... which also makes it cheap to run.... no 8gig or more needed
 
Danny Bui said:
1) If you want an actual backup, then you're basically looking at another file server, external hard drive, NAS, cloud/online backup, or even a bunch of blu-ray discs. Simply put, if you want a true backup, then a copy of that data has to be on a seperate medium/source/device. Otherwise, there's gonna be a high chance of data loss. Having a seperate medium/source/device for backup lower that chance of data loss but doesn't eliminate it completelty however.

RAID 1, or most forms of RAID, will simply provide uptime of your data in the event of a hard drive crash. It does not protect against accidental or malicious deletion, removal, corruption, or infection of your data. As such, by itself, RAID is not backup,

2) Not sure meself. But Server 2k8 will be fine for file serving duties.
Click to expand...

Okay, well my goal is to get the file server up and running first; and then I'll see how much space I need for an external backup. I shouldn't need much for the files we really care about.

And that'll be great if I don't have to buy a WHS.

Thanks

Stanza33 said:
Soup Nazi says WHS v1 for you.

Either buld a box or grab a prebuilt... like the HP EX490 (cheap) or the Microserver.

EX490 comes with WHS v1 and some neat utils.... Microserver you will have to buy your own copy.

Use the folder duplication in WHS v1 this will copy your important folders across two or more drives (you will have two copies of the files in the folder on seprate drive)

You can then also get say a couple of external large drives to back WHS v1 up too.

Which should then give you 3 copies of your important data..... an offsite backup as well if you take the external drive elsewhere once a backup of the WHS v1 has been performed.

As for installing WHS v1.... always install it onto your largest drive.... then work you way down is drive size as you add them.

That way when you start to run out of space... you simple replace the smallest drive with a NEW Large capacity one........

And you don't have to re install WHS v1 for a very long time.

WHs v1 is a 32bit OS, so you can go MAX 4gig ram.... which also makes it cheap to run.... no 8gig or more needed
Click to expand...

As much as i'd love something as small and convenient as the hp you mentioned, it just won't cut it. I already have enough drives to fill that, and I plan on getting more space for the server once I actually build it. I do plan on building my own.

Right now I'm looking at 4u sized cases. It's larger than I wanted, but I think it's the most practical for me to have the room and just add drives to the system as I need them; particularly since my blu-ray collection will easily start expanding beyond the 2tb I have for it now.

Since I'm building my own, if server 2008 has the same/similar functionalities as whs then I'll be using it. Can't argue with free.
 
The main differences between 2008 and WHS2011 are the turnkey backup/streaming solutions. With WHS2011 you install the connector software on client machines which monitors their antivirus, windows update, etc. It also wakes them up for scheduled backups and allows you to access core functions via the dashboard as opposed to having to remote in. The other major difference is the web front end from which you can access your files and even stream (though there are still kinks) your media in a browser. For home use, I prefer WHS. If the server was just for myself, I'd go with 2008.

Keep in mind however that WHS2011 and Server 2008 do NOT have the drive extender features that the original WHS v1 was known for. You can't just pool any size drives together to make one big disk. There are add-ins being developed that promise to reinstate this functionality, but until then, no go.
 
cre3d said:
With WHS2011 you install the connector software on client machines which monitors their antivirus, windows update, etc. It also wakes them up for scheduled backups and allows you to access core functions via the dashboard as opposed to having to remote in. The other major difference is the web front end from which you can access your files and even stream (though there are still kinks) your media in a browser.
Click to expand...


These two features aren't available at all in 2008? I had planned on setting up the server to do backups eventually (though maybe not at first, depending on space).

I'm not sure how important the web front end matters to me. I don't care at all about streaming over the web, but it could be very nice to access my photos on the web.
 
AFAIK, server 2008 supports backups of it's own drives but doesn't do the kind of automated client backups that WHS2011 does. WHS also provides you with a rescue disk that will streamline the restore process. Of course this is all totally doable with something as simple as a copy of acronis and some scheduled tasks using robocopy to copy the image files over to the server.
 
You have me leaning toward getting WHS again just to have it all built in.
A side question since I'm very noob. Is the backup feature like a complete image, with programs and all?

And since those features aren't included, what are the benefits of 2008? I know it's designed more for businesses rather than home use, but it's hella expensive regularly.
 
The backup feature does use images. I can't speak for the benefits of 2008 as I haven't played with it yet but seeing as WHS is built on it, most of the stuff is included I'm sure.
 
Decisions, decisions.

I suppose if I go WHS route I'll have to choose between the original or 2011. I had been set on 2011 originally, and probably would still prefer it for compatibility and future support. We have three pc's running 64-bit Win 7 and one laptop running Vista 32-bit.

Drive Extender does kind of intrigue me though. I don't think I care so much about having the one large drive pool; but as I understand, it allows you to pick and choose which files get cloned. It could potentially save a lot of space rather than cloning everything through raid 1.

I suppose if I'm waiting on bulldozer I have time to think about it though.

Right now I'm looking at this case http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811219020 and trying to decide if I want to snatch it with a couple hitachi drives while it's on sale.

After that all I'll need is the OS and cpu/mb.
 
Many people , but not all , are experiencing difficulties with WHS 2011 and win 7 64 and the connector installation. I would suggest you look at wegotserved and elsewhere before you decide.
WHS 1 is on it's third powerpack , and is as stable as it can be.
 
Fading Phoenix said:
Decisions, decisions.

I suppose if I go WHS route I'll have to choose between the original or 2011. I had been set on 2011 originally, and probably would still prefer it for compatibility and future support. We have three pc's running 64-bit Win 7 and one laptop running Vista 32-bit.

Drive Extender does kind of intrigue me though. I don't think I care so much about having the one large drive pool; but as I understand, it allows you to pick and choose which files get cloned. It could potentially save a lot of space rather than cloning everything through raid 1.

I suppose if I'm waiting on bulldozer I have time to think about it though.

Right now I'm looking at this case http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811219020 and trying to decide if I want to snatch it with a couple hitachi drives while it's on sale.

After that all I'll need is the OS and cpu/mb.
Click to expand...

Ebay for the OS is where I have got my last two copies;)
 
benogil said:
Many people , but not all , are experiencing difficulties with WHS 2011 and win 7 64 and the connector installation. I would suggest you look at wegotserved and elsewhere before you decide.
WHS 1 is on it's third powerpack , and is as stable as it can be.
Click to expand...

Seemed anything I was able to find was either an issue with the computer name or some people were having issues with the antivirus solutions they were using.
 
My problems with WHS2011 are the lack of an integrated drive-extender and individual disks from a WHS drive pool can't be pulled out and directly read under another windows environment.

Those were the reasons I purchased it in the first place and they've been eliminated in V2.

WHS was always a MS step-child hatched from a programing excercise that lacked any major development money.

The newer version has moved away from the origional idea of a server for dummies. :)
 
Old Hippie said:
individual disks from a WHS drive pool can't be pulled out and directly read under another windows environment.
Click to expand...


You reminded me I had read a comment about that somewhere else.

Am I understanding you correctly that drives from a WHS v1 drive pool can't be read in another OS, and that drives formatted in v2 can? Or do I have that backwards?

I can understand for security, but part of me might prefer having the capability of taking my drives out of whs and using them in one of my win7 boxes if anything ever went wrong with the server.
 
drives from a WHS v1 drive pool can't be read in another OS, and that drives formatted in v2 can? Or do I have that backwards?
Click to expand...
Backwards.

V1 drives can be read by any MS system.

Drive security wasn't the concern for the elimination in V2.....it was one of the selling points of V1.

Lack of development money is the reason.
 
Old Hippie said:
Backwards.

V1 drives can be read by any MS system.

Drive security wasn't the concern for the elimination in V2.....it was one of the selling points of V1.

Lack of development money is the reason.
Click to expand...


Well that's something for me to think about.

I had thought without Drive Extender then adding drives to whs 2011 would just be the same process as adding drives to win 7/vista/xp.
 
I had thought without Drive Extender then adding drives to whs 2011 would just be the same process as adding drives to win 7/vista/xp.
Click to expand...
I have no experience with V2 but normally when you install a drive in an array (like server storage) the drives will default to the smallest, slowest drive in the array.

WHS V1 will default to the slowest drive but any size drive can be added to the pool without effecting the other drives' size in the pool.

Hence "drive extender".
 
Old Hippie said:
I have no experience with V2 but normally when you install a drive in an array (like server storage) the drives will default to the smallest, slowest drive in the array.

WHS V1 will default to the slowest drive but any size drive can be added to the pool without effecting the other drives' size in the pool.

Hence "drive extender".
Click to expand...

How do you mean defaults to the slowest?

Each SATA drive is on a seperate channel... assuming it's not on a RAID controller.

So each drive will negotiate it's own speeds. A SATA 1 drive will not slow a SATA 2 drive down.

If you are simply using a normal motherboard say with 4 or 6 SATA connections, bang any drive on any port and WHS v1 will pool the lot together.

Even if adding a seperate SAS/SATA controller (and not RAIDing the drives together) WHS v1 will see each and every drive as a seperate drive. Then Drive extender can do it's thing and pool the lot together for you. Still shouldn't slow anything down.

They can be a mixture of IDE / SCSI / SATA / SATA2 / SAS hell even USB and or Firewire if you like....it doesn't care.

The only limitation is maximum of 32 drives I believe? or was that 24...?

Either way, there is ways around this as well.... ie you could add pairs of drives in mirrors.... then NOT use any folder duplication (as your data is covered/protected by the mirrors)... then in effect you can physically fit double the amount of drives ;)
 
Personally, for my use, I've found WHS v1 + FlexRAID to be the ideal solution. Drive Extender makes it very easy to manage your space, and FlexRAID provides as much redundancy as you want, very economically. You an pick and choose which shares get protected by WHS's drive mirroring, and what get protected by FlexRAID.
 
Stanza33 said:
How do you mean defaults to the slowest? ... Drive extender can do it's thing and pool the lot together for you. Still shouldn't slow anything down.
Click to expand...
Agreed, I don't understand the "slowest" comment either. Each drive essentially stands alone, like JBOD, they are simply accessed by shares rather than explicit drive designations. The data that happens to land on slower drives will be slower, and the data that happens to land on faster drives will be faster). But since it will most likely all be accessed over a network by a limited number of simultaneous users, it's all moot to me anyway.
The only limitation is maximum of 32 drives I believe? or was that 24...?
Click to expand...
I've always heard 32 or 31, so I've always presumed that it means 32 if you count the D: partition, plus 31 additional drives in the pool. I've never heard 24. I hope that's not the case, because I'm already up to 20. :eek: Though whatever the limitation is, that's the limit for Drive Extender. You could still add additional drives outside of the pool, though obviously those drives wouldn't have any of the benefits (nor limitations) of drive extender.

Either way, there is ways around this as well.... ie you could add pairs of drives in mirrors.... then NOT use any folder duplication (as your data is covered/protected by the mirrors)... then in effect you can physically fit double the amount of drives ;)
Click to expand...
I'm not following you here. Drive extender is limited to (32, or whatever) volumes with a max of 2TB each. When you add drives to the pool, any previous formatting/partitioning is wiped out. You can't software mirror them, though you could hardware mirror them with RAID controllers. But you're still limited to 2TB, so I'm not sure why you'd mirror smaller drives together when you could just add a single 2TB drive. Regardless of how you do it, you're still limited to around 64TB of data in the pool, unless you apply the hack to add GPT volumes to the pool. But there are several catches to that. I'd be more inclined to just add them outside of the pool. Then you can add in mirrors, or however you want to do it.
 
Even if adding a seperate SAS/SATA controller (and not RAIDing the drives together) WHS v1 will see each and every drive as a seperate drive. Then Drive extender can do it's thing and pool the lot together for you
Click to expand...
If you add one Green drive into the mix (especially the "C" drive), the whole WHS system slows to that drives max read/write speed.

Each drive essentially stands alone, like JBOD, they are simply accessed by shares rather than explicit drive designations.
Click to expand...
WHS is not exactly JBOD. It's got a drive "pool".

Do what you want but this has been my experience.
 
Last edited:
Old Hippie said:
If you add one Green drive into the mix (especially the "C" drive), the whole WHS system slows to that drives max read/write speed.


WHS is not exactly JBOD. It's got a drive "pool".

Do what you want but this has been my experience.
Click to expand...

On your first comment, NO. The speed is based upon where the file is located. If I put in 1 RPM (for sake of argument) but the file I wanted was on a 7200 RPM drive, I would get it at 7200 RPM speeds and a subset speed of where it is located on the platter (inside vs outside). I would not get 1 RPM speeds. I think you might be suffering from illusory correlation.

You are correct that WHS is not exactly JBOD, it is a pool. It is a pool of NTFS files.
 
Old Hippie said:
If you add one Green drive into the mix (especially the "C" drive), the whole WHS system slows to that drives max read/write speed.


WHS is not exactly JBOD. It's got a drive "pool".

Do what you want but this has been my experience.
Click to expand...

That might have happened a while ago, maybe around power pack 1 or 2... as there was whats called a "landing zone"

That was, any file coppied over would LAND on the 1st drive (1st drive is usually partitioned as 20gig system... the rest for the pool) then drive balancer would kick in later and move the file to another drive.

these days with Power Pack 3 that doesn't happen.... the files can LAND on any drive.

WHS tries to keep the 1st Drive as free as possible... so will actually FILL all other drives before it starts filing the 1st Drive.

Hence the reason I always suggest putting your LARGEST drive as the 1st drive. As this will FILL last.... so it should be (depending on how much data you have) the last drive to need swapping out for a larger one...when you run out of space.;)
 
dscline said:
snip

I'm not following you here. Drive extender is limited to (32, or whatever) volumes with a max of 2TB each. When you add drives to the pool, any previous formatting/partitioning is wiped out. You can't software mirror them, though you could hardware mirror them with RAID controllers. But you're still limited to 2TB, so I'm not sure why you'd mirror smaller drives together when you could just add a single 2TB drive. Regardless of how you do it, you're still limited to around 64TB of data in the pool, unless you apply the hack to add GPT volumes to the pool. But there are several catches to that. I'd be more inclined to just add them outside of the pool. Then you can add in mirrors, or however you want to do it.
Click to expand...

Yes, so if the volume limit is say 32drives worth....

Then you could get around the 32 drive limit by

Grab a couple of Hardware Raid controllers (not software Raid) say something like a BR10i or similar that do Raid levels 0, 1 and 1E

Then in effect you could attach 64 x 2TB drives into WHS... and you have no need of the folder duplication.... as the Data is already mirrored thru the hardware.

Tho like you say, if the limit is 64TB.... then the abov would ONLY work with say 1TB drives. without the GPT partition hack
 
Old Hippie said:
If you add one Green drive into the mix (especially the "C" drive), the whole WHS system slows to that drives max read/write speed.


WHS is not exactly JBOD. It's got a drive "pool".
Click to expand...
I just said it's like JBOD, in the sense that each drive stands alone from a data perspective. The system drive only has the pointers to the actual files on the other drives. The data doesn't actually pass through the system drive, so the system drive has no effect on throughput of data residing on other drives (except, as Stanza33 noted, before SP1, writes were at the system drive performance level, as they were written to D: first, then moved). You can even view/access the data from their respective drive by going to c:\fs\<drive letter>. The data isn't actually on C, just the pointer to where it is. When you read/write data to the drives in the pool, the bandwidth is only on the drive that holds the data. You can confirm by looking at the drive-level bandwidth meter available in the WHS Disk Management add-in.
 
Stanza33 said:
Then in effect you could attach 64 x 2TB drives into WHS... and you have no need of the folder duplication.... as the Data is already mirrored thru the hardware.
Click to expand...

Yes, I suppose you could do that, but that's just adding hardware RAID controllers w/o gaining any storage space. You're just trading where the mirroring is happening (in hardware RAID, or in WHS's folder duplication). If you're going to do that, there's no need to be using WHS v1 anyway. ;)
 
On your first comment, NO. The speed is based upon where the file is located. If I put in 1 RPM (for sake of argument) but the file I wanted was on a 7200 RPM drive, I would get it at 7200 RPM speeds and a subset speed of where it is located on the platter (inside vs outside). I would not get 1 RPM speeds. I think you might be suffering from illusory correlation.
Click to expand...
Sorry but that has not been my experience with my WHS machine.

That might have happened a while ago, maybe around power pack 1 or 2... as there was whats called a "landing zone"
Click to expand...
While there's no landing zone my WHS loads all the outgoing files in a temporary folder on "C" drive.
 
Old Hippie said:
Sorry but that has not been my experience with my WHS machine.


While there's no landing zone my WHS loads all the outgoing files in a temporary folder on "C" drive.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, how are you arriving at these conclusions?
 
dscline said:
Yes, I suppose you could do that, but that's just adding hardware RAID controllers w/o gaining any storage space. You're just trading where the mirroring is happening (in hardware RAID, or in WHS's folder duplication). If you're going to do that, there's no need to be using WHS v1 anyway. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes thats true, tho some people like it's easy interface and it's little tricks... but also want safety thru hardware.

Bonus of the hardware card is Read speeds go up a bit.:D and you can have a "Hot spare" as you don't want all them hours of downloaded pron to go missing;)

.
 
cre3d said:
Out of curiosity, how are you arriving at these conclusions?
Click to expand...

You mean how much Googleing, reading WHS forums, observing, troubleshooting, reinstalling, changing drives, screwing-with this WHS box I have done in the last 1.5 yrs.....plenty. :)

PS How are you arriving at your conclusions?
 
Old Hippie said:
You mean how much Googleing, reading WHS forums, observing, troubleshooting, reinstalling, changing drives, screwing-with this WHS box I have done in the last 1.5 yrs.....plenty. :)

PS How are you arriving at your conclusions?
Click to expand...

I don't know where you are reading these things, but as far as actual experience, that shouldn't be the conclusion you are reaching. As I mentioned in a previous post, you can monitor disk activity real-time with a couple of tools, the Disk Management Add-in being one, as well as Stablebit Scanner (and I'm sure others, those are the only two I use that have this functionality built in). It is very clear by observing bandwidth that data doesn't go through a "temp" location on the C drive as you say when reading/writing to the pool. I only see bandwidth on the particular pool drive when doing large read/writes. Furthermore, my system volume is the slowest in my system. My system drive resides in an external enclosure with a hardware "SAFE33" setup to provide a hardware mirror for my system partitions. Furthermore, it is connected via a SiI 3132 PCI x1 host, which aren't known for their speed. It is the slowest in my system. If I were limited by the system drive, then the other drives wouldn't outperform it.
 
My origional WHS set-up was with PP1 and consisted of a 74GB Raptor for "C" drive and 3 large WD Black 7200 RPM drives.

I added a WD Blue drive to the pool which slowed everything down.

I changed the "C" drive to a 1 TB WD Green drive that slowed the output more.

I was constantly getting "out of space" errors on WHS's indexing service and when I wanted to download something.

I found a temp. folder on WHS that holds the indexing/outgoing files and had to move/link that folder to the unused portion of "C" and expand it.
 
As I mentioned in a previous post, you can monitor disk activity real-time with a couple of tools, the Disk Management Add-in being one,
Click to expand...
When using my WHS, Disk 0 (the "C" system drive) and the drive being accessed are used.

My conclusions aren't based on reading but experience.
 
Old Hippie said:
My origional WHS set-up was with PP1 and consisted of a 74GB Raptor for "C" drive and 3 large WD Black 7200 RPM drives.

I added a WD Blue drive to the pool which slowed everything down.

I changed the "C" drive to a 1 TB WD Green drive that slowed the output more.

I was constantly getting "out of space" errors on WHS's indexing service and when I wanted to download something.

I found a temp. folder on WHS that holds the indexing/outgoing files and had to move/link that folder to the unused portion of "C" and expand it.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me (and no offence ment here) that you were using it wrong.

You SHOULDN'T acces anything on WHS unless it's via the network, or via the //whsname/folderyouwant paths.

C drive as you call it shouldn't have anything copied to or from it. Or have it's size played with.

If you are using WHS to download things, the downloads SHOULD point to a
network share.

Else all the tombstones get borked and you end up with a mess. And probably as you have found a slow slow system.

in your 1st incarnation with ONLY a 74gig drive as the installation drive... you were on the Minimum limited size of a drive it can install too.

Anything else you added program wise was then not a good idea.

Plus the running PP1 as I said was a slowdown issue.... those items compounded naturally left you with a sour taste about WHS drive speeds etc.

When you get a free minute... try it again with one of your larger drives as the installation drive. update then update then update it some more until there is nothing left to download (update wise.)

Add a couple more drives and pool them together.

Leave it site that way for a day. then start using / copying reading from THE NETWORK SHARES.

Tell me if it slows down;)
 
Old Hippie said:
I changed the "C" drive to a 1 TB WD Green drive that slowed the output more.
I was constantly getting "out of space" errors on WHS's indexing service and when I wanted to download something.
Click to expand...
How did you make that change?
I found a temp. folder on WHS that holds the indexing/outgoing files and had to move/link that folder to the unused portion of "C" and expand it.
Click to expand...
What folder is that? By "the unused portion of C, do you mean the D partition? There's no way that files are first copied to the C partition. I've ripped all of my blu-rays to my server. The C partition is only 20GB. Blu-ray ISOs wouldn't fit in the C partition.
Old Hippie said:
When using my WHS, Disk 0 (the "C" system drive) and the drive being accessed are used.
Click to expand...
Is it being accessed, as in a quick blip to write the tombstones, or is there a steady stream of significant bandwidth to the C drive when you read/write files to the pool?
My conclusions aren't based on reading but experience.
Click to expand...
You mentioned Googleing and reading WHS forums, so I was curious if you could point to other examples of the behavior you're describing.

But I can tell you mine doesn't behave like that. I've been using it for a couple of years, and have nearly 30TB on it. I've never experienced significant traffic on the C drive while reading/writing to the pool.
 
Old Hippie said:
You mean how much Googleing, reading WHS forums, observing, troubleshooting, reinstalling, changing drives, screwing-with this WHS box I have done in the last 1.5 yrs.....plenty. :)

PS How are you arriving at your conclusions?
Click to expand...

No need to get defensive, was just curious (as I explained). I've been using WHS for over 2 years myself and have not had the same experience at any point in that time, hence the question.
 
I've never experienced significant traffic on the C drive while reading/writing to the pool.
Click to expand...
I never said anything about signifigant traffic.

You SHOULDN'T acces anything on WHS unless it's via the network, or via the //whsname/folderyouwant paths
Click to expand...
.
I don't.

Is it being accessed, as in a quick blip to write the tombstones, or is there a steady stream of significant bandwidth to the C drive when you read/write files to the pool?
Click to expand...
It's being accessed constantly...I wouldn't have mentioned a quick blip.

But I can tell you mine doesn't behave like that. I've been using it for a couple of years, and have nearly 30TB on it.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's the amount of data that makes the search say "out of space" but the amount of identifying information that accompaines the files will do it.

I have over 3TB of music files and everyone of those files has a different name. Hence the "outta space" on the WHS index.

There have been 1 or 2 of us that have had this symptom in WHS. You can search for the thread if you want.

The C partition is only 20GB. Blu-ray ISOs wouldn't fit in the C partition.
Click to expand...
The WHS install is @ 13GB...the remainder is empty.

Anything else you added program wise was then not a good idea.
Click to expand...
And where did you read I said that?

My WHS has been running just fine for @ 6 months and I'm not going to experiment with it to satisfy anyone's curiosity.

Like many others, I've had an exasperating experience with WHS and very little support from the forums.

The unit works as it should and I'm not screwing with it.

I stand by my experiences regardless of what anyone else thinks what should be going on. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top