windows home server or Server 2008

Y

Yakyb

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
474
from my MSDN subscription i can get a copy of server 2008. (x86 or x64)

but i was toying with the idea of windows home server.

it will be going onto a 3600X2 on a k9agm2 with 2 gig of ram in my sig (which you cant see!) as i retire the old fileserver and upgrade the development box.

It will need to run SQL server 2008 (low load) and a couple of asp.net websites. as well as the families Media sharing, Document sharing and backups

i like the simplicity of WHS buti'm not bothered about the configuration of server 2008 either,

i really like the idea as hard drives appearing as one pool.

question is is the simplicity wortth the £100 for WHS and can i do everything i need to on WHS
 
It is insane how much system requirements for Windows servers are now. I setup a 266mzh overclocked Nslug for a client office. They only have five users. It runs Debian like a champ. Another Nslug is handling OpenVPN at 266mhz. They only eat 5 watts each.

If Windows is only option, I would go with 2008. Windows Home servers have so many issues.
 
Yakyb said:
It will need to run SQL server 2008 (low load) and a couple of asp.net websites. as well as the families Media sharing, Document sharing and backups

i like the simplicity of WHS buti'm not bothered about the configuration of server 2008 either,

i really like the idea as hard drives appearing as one pool.

question is is the simplicity wortth the £100 for WHS and can i do everything i need to on WHS
Click to expand...

I wouldn't run SQL on a WHS box.


The automatic backup feature of WHS is awesome, makes it well worth the money.
 
I use Windows Home Server on several systems and I would never go back. For home and non business standpoint, it's just plain out awesome.

You can do everything on it as usual, it's basically 2003 server with a WHS functionality.
 
requiemnoise said:
It is insane how much system requirements for Windows servers are now. I setup a 266mzh overclocked Nslug for a client office. They only have five users. It runs Debian like a champ. Another Nslug is handling OpenVPN at 266mhz. They only eat 5 watts each.

If Windows is only option, I would go with 2008. Windows Home servers have so many issues.
Click to expand...

You are not really comparing apples to apples here. I'm all for Linux. In fact, 2/3 of my business servers use CentOS. But, to say that a 266MHz *nix box is comparable to an enterprise server running any enterprise OS (*Nix or Windows) naive. Everyone has different requirements. At the end of the day, sometimes *nix meets those requirements better, sometimes Windows meets those requirements better.

Back on topic:

I like Windows home server because I don't have to worry about it. It manages and configures everything without hassle. I spent all day fixing these problems, I want my stuff to work properly without having to dick with it. I tend to keep "Home" stuff seperated from "Work" stuff. So, I have separate dev systems. (Actually, they are virtual machines, but we're talking semantics now.)
 
Another vote for WHS.

If you want to set up a box, throw a few web sites up, and enjoy a very simple user interface with lots of available plug-ins, then go WHS. The file corruption bug has been fixed (thank god, freakin took long enough) and you can now create backups of your files for off-site backups (I use 3 of my old 320's, backup my folders, then leave them at work in my desk). WHS also has most of the windows featues to play with, as they left most of server 03 intact (MS just calls using any server 03 feature an "untested configuration"). Backup and disk management are priceless abilities.

If you want to learn more about the next big thing, and tinker around with all kinds of cool new toys, go with server08. You can download a 60-day demo, then extend it a few times (I think the max is about 240 days).

Personally, I did both. Low power WHS box with G33 mobo and Celeron 430, and a Server 08 x64 box with a 3400+.
 
MorfiusX said:
You are not really comparing apples to apples here. I'm all for Linux. In fact, 2/3 of my business servers use CentOS. But, to say that a 266MHz *nix box is comparable to an enterprise server running any enterprise OS (*Nix or Windows) naive. Everyone has different requirements. At the end of the day, sometimes *nix meets those requirements better, sometimes Windows meets those requirements better.

Back on topic:

I like Windows home server because I don't have to worry about it. It manages and configures everything without hassle. I spent all day fixing these problems, I want my stuff to work properly without having to dick with it. I tend to keep "Home" stuff seperated from "Work" stuff. So, I have separate dev systems. (Actually, they are virtual machines, but we're talking semantics now.)
Click to expand...

Yea, it isn't Apple and Oranges. However, I tried both. Some people only eat the Apple, but love to complain about the Orange. I have been managing Windows Networks for over 12 years and 8 for Linux. I know exactly what I like, but everyone has to try it for themselves before forming an opinion. Centos/RedHat is the most boring Corporate IT OS.
It has the worst package management in the world. Do you think 266mhz is too slow for anything? Yes, it is too slow for Windows. I setup a NOKIA Checkpoint firewall in the past for 100 user site. Nokia Checkpoint is only 333mhz AMD. I think Windows requires 333mhz to run a floppy drive. I only setup Windows servers when it is required. The current client has 250 virtualized Linux and only 4 2003 servers. Thank god many companies are starting slim down on Windows servers. Competition is healthy.

By the way, can you even run SQL server 2008 on WHS? hmm...
 
Check my sig...

WHS all the way. It took me 3hours to get it fully setup over a period of a week. Haven't messed with it in over 3 weeks really. And honestly....I doubt I will ever have too. It runs so well, that I might not notice if anything goes wrong. =P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top