Server 2008R2 or WHSv2?

Modred189

Can't Read the OP
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
16,308
I was able to pick up a cheap pc for $50, and I am planning on using it as a home server for data backup purposes only, probably no media, as I have a HTPC.

As a student I have access to Windows Server 2008 R2 for free, and I do not have an issue with buying WHSv2 when it comes out.
The question is, which should I use? While I would love to save $100, I have no experience with server software, so I do not know if I will need to know anything special for WS2008. Is there any way to get it to emulate the backup/restore capabilities of WHS? (Ideally for less than $100).

I used to run Comodo Backup on each of my computers to a network drive, but the new releases are awful, and the UI has become confusing, and the backups do not reliably run.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe there are any linux alternatives to WHS?
 
You can run WHSv2 in a virtual machine with Server 2008 R2's Hyper-V. It's very simple to do with Hyper-V's passthrough disks. I highly recommend this approach, as it is likely that Vail will lockdown the roles from Server 2008 R2.

Of course, if you don't plan on using any of the server features from Server 2008 R2, then it doesn't really matter :)
 
You can run WHSv2 in a virtual machine with Server 2008 R2's Hyper-V. It's very simple to do with Hyper-V's passthrough disks. I highly recommend this approach, as it is likely that Vail will lockdown the roles from Server 2008 R2.

Of course, if you don't plan on using any of the server features from Server 2008 R2, then it doesn't really matter :)

Agreed on this one. That's how I run WHS V2, and the current WHS, and a bunch of other VM's on the same system.

I would make sure that your cheap PC has CPU hardware virtualization features before embarking on this though.
 
If the cheap computer doesn't have the hardware needed for virtualization and you don't want to learn server 2008 then i'd say go with the WHSv2 because its more user friendly then server 2008. but if your planning on learning server 2008 i'd say go for server 2008
 
Not to sound to obvious here but I would just like to add that this $50 comp needs a x64 processor in it. I haven't run across to many $50 setups that do, so just saying...
 
I'm heading for the 2008 R2 + Hyper-V solution myself, I'm hoping to have everything set up by the time Vail releases.
 
I suppose the hardware information would have been a good thing to include.
It's actually an e-machines ET1810-01. It comes with a 160gb HDD inside it, and I was going to install the OS on there and have a WD greenpower 1tb drive for the backup.
CPU: Celeron 420
Ram: 2gb DDR2
Integrated nvidia 7050
Standard everything else. The only thing that makes me nervous about WHSv2 is the stated/rumored 2ghz cpu requirement. it looks like I will be getting a 430 to get up to 1.8 for ~2$, so that will help a little, but I understand that WHSv1 can run on less than the requirement, it's just slower on backups and restores... which does not bother me at all.

What is the benefit of running WHS from within WS2008? Seems redundant to me...
 
You won't be able to install WHSv2 in a virtual machine because you'll need at least 160GB of space for the WHS VM alone, plus probably another 32GB for the Server 2008 underneath. You need a bigger boot drive and more RAM if you are virtualizing. Furthermore the Celron 420 is 64-bit but has no virtualization.

The benefit of running VMs is that they are more stable and also allow you to experiment with using a single server to multitask or try out a Beta OS like the current WHS2 public release.
 
Yea, it sounds like I am better off getting the hardware together and just waiting for WHSv2 to come out and get that or a clearance v1. (Though thanks for the heads up on the HDD requirement for WHSv2, I missed that)
I just don't think I need to get that complicated: I have 2 laptops and a desktop whose backups I want to automate. I don't see any need for multitasking on the thing, and once its set up, I don't plan on touching it after that.
 
You'd asked initially if the was a linux alternative. There is one called Amahi. http://www.amahi.org/

I've never used it personally, but it looks to be WHS on linux. It does automatic backup and has some other neat features. Worth a look since it's free. Good Luck
 
Back
Top