upgrading the network stack on WHS

Could you or someone else please elaborate on the need for this? I googled "Windows Home Server" "network Stack" and came up with nothing interesting.
 
This patch may be useless to WHS, but the network stack improvements in win2k8 definitely arent. Might as well wait for vail instead of risking screwing up your home server with a hotfix.
 
I think my transfer to/from the WHS machine is disk bound for a bottleneck anyway. For anything WHS you are only looking at single disk transfer rates which are pretty much all lower than the gigabit connection can deliver.
 
That is not exactly true MaxBurn. I've setup a WHS machine with a bunch of SSDs that get over 200MB/s sequential read speeds just to see the difference between Intel and Realtek controllers. 7200rpm drives can basically all pump out 120-140MB/s for a decent portion of the disk. Realtek controllers aren't going to do 120MB/s. Remember, the outer (fast) portions are also where a lot of the data lies because you have more surface area there so you do spend a decent amount of time where a lot of single GigE links can't keep up with disk speeds.
 
That would be the exception to my pretty much statement. No one is putting in SSD or rarely even 7200rpm drives in a WHS. I have a mix of drives, some old 7200 a 5400 and a cluster of newer 5900rpm drives and I am generally always seeing 85~95MB/s transfers to/from for large files. I'm pretty happy with that and I'm pretty sure it's not the LAN holding it back here.
 
Why would you put anything but a 7200rpm drive in when you know whs is limited by single disk I/O? Drives are so cheap, and I just have them set to spin down when idle for 15min, which I would do with a 5400 as well. So the only pro I see is price, but drives are so inexpensive it's not much of a difference.
 
Biznatch said:
Why would you put anything but a 7200rpm drive in when you know whs is limited by single disk I/O? Drives are so cheap, and I just have them set to spin down when idle for 15min, which I would do with a 5400 as well. So the only pro I see is price, but drives are so inexpensive it's not much of a difference.
Click to expand...

If you only have a very small number of clients to stream data to, then 5400rpm drives are plenty fast. Another factor to take into consideration is power use; with a server that's running 24/7, a few watts per drive adds up especially if it's a full norco 20 bay build.
 
MaxBurn said:
That would be the exception to my pretty much statement. No one is putting in SSD or rarely even 7200rpm drives in a WHS. I have a mix of drives, some old 7200 a 5400 and a cluster of newer 5900rpm drives and I am generally always seeing 85~95MB/s transfers to/from for large files. I'm pretty happy with that and I'm pretty sure it's not the LAN holding it back here.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I suppose it would not make sense to use a RAID controller in WHS with 7200rpm drives then by that logic.
 
Correct the whole use case for whs is a small handful of users, easy management and flexible and expandable storage. Any RAiD is specifically called out in the whitepaper as not being appropriate for whs.

That's just what whs is meant for, some of you are just better off with some file server.
 
Actually... WHS runs just fine on a RAID array. I'm fairly certain at this point that the white paper was intimidation for people that are not too savvy from having to decide between WHS duplication and RAID redundancy. Also not in the manual is running WHS in virtual machines. Turns out, WHS runs really great in Hyper-V VM's too... but try explaining that to an *average* MediaSmart owner who thought they look cute at Best Buy and you wouldn't get far.

Honestly, all you really need to do differently to run WHS with real RAID is to:
1. Get a RAID card supporting RAID 5 and/or 6 (1 is fairly pointless with WHS)
2. Go into card BIOS or OOB management and create raid volumes
3. Install drivers at OS load
4. Turn off duplication once you are in

At that point you have everything you could want in a WHS machine with RAID.
 
pjkenned said:
Actually... WHS runs just fine on a RAID array. I'm fairly certain at this point that the white paper was intimidation for people that are not too savvy from having to decide between WHS duplication and RAID redundancy. Also not in the manual is running WHS in virtual machines. Turns out, WHS runs really great in Hyper-V VM's too... but try explaining that to an *average* MediaSmart owner who thought they look cute at Best Buy and you wouldn't get far.

Honestly, all you really need to do differently to run WHS with real RAID is to:
1. Get a RAID card supporting RAID 5 and/or 6 (1 is fairly pointless with WHS)
2. Go into card BIOS or OOB management and create raid volumes
3. Install drivers at OS load
4. Turn off duplication once you are in

At that point you have everything you could want in a WHS machine with RAID.
Click to expand...

Make sure each volume is 2TB or less or WHS will puke a bit...but otherwise your instructions are perfect.
 
You're just proving my point, you turn off the biggest features of home server you don't have WHS anymore. You have server 2003. Then yes, we are all aware you can set up some nice arrays under server 2003.

I guess sorry about the thread jack.
 
PigLover said:
Make sure each volume is 2TB or less or WHS will puke a bit...but otherwise your instructions are perfect.
Click to expand...

Excellent point! Forgot that one!

And Server 2003 for $99 is a pretty good deal IMO... especially with the great backup app, add-ins, Win7MC integration, easy remote access and etc. Don't forget, Drive Extender still works if you turn off duplication, and de-duplication seems to still work with duplication off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top