WHS vs. W2K8 - Need input

[__Miguel_]

Hi there, guys.

I have been thinking about WHS and W2K8 (R2) for some time now as a basis for a server, and I'm kind of stumped.

Here's where I come from: I currently have a WHS machine. It's nice, I like how it behaves, how easily it integrates with VMC, and I especially like the Drive Extender feature.

The thing is, my approach to duplication is (too) close to RAID1 to be able to tell the difference. A couple of things aren't duplicated, but the gross majority is. Also, unless there is a very big difference between the VMC Connector and the regular "add network shares" approach, I won't see the difference if I use either OS (I don't use VMC as a PVR, as I need a dedicated set-top-box to handle my TV signal...)

Also, I might be migrating to a solution that requires me to have a dedicated router (which I'd like to condense on the same machine as my file server, for power considerations, and not rely on ISP offerings, which are s****y to say the least), and WHS simply cannot do that (the Connector simply cripples if RRAS is activated).

So, since I can get my hands on both a WHS and W2K8 license, which one should I go to?

I mean, Drive Extender is a pain to mimic, but it's doable. Either JBOD a bunch of RAID1 arrays (though I'm not sure if W2K8 can handle JBODing RAID1 arrays created by the Disk Management MMC - I don't have RAID available on the motherboard) or mount said RAID1 arrays on NTFS folders (which could become messy to manage, in time).

Also, I've seen backup solutions very similar to WHS (DriveImage and Reflect, though do tell me about any others you know of), and since every computer I'll be putting on the network is Vista or W7-based, I could probably even go with only the integrated Backup solutions of Vista or W7.

As for shares, that would be a pain to maintain and add to VMC/W7MC, and I'd loose my online vault account (currently W2K8 is not supported), but I can't really see much more than that - a pain. Or am I oversimplifying (as usual)?

So, what do you think? WHS is the easy way out, and I'd need another router down the road (which is not that bad, but there are a couple of people that might pound me in the head if I add yet another computer to the network). But W2K8 has a couple advantages, one of them being the upgraded SMB driver, which could allow even better network performance (I can get 600Mbps write to a 1TB Samsung F1 from a 320GB dual-platter Spinpoint cousin - that is, IF Windows Media Player is not open) when I upgrade to the 500GB F3 Samsung drive I'm getting in a bit.

Thanks in advance for your input.

Cheers.

Miguel

 

[novadude]

You could look into setting up 2k8 with DFS to replicate WHS

 

[__Miguel_]

First of all, thank you for the reply.

DFS is kind of new to me.

I read a little bit about it on the respective Technet page, and if I understood correctly, it basically merges several network shares and treats them as one big share, right?

The multi-server approach is out of the picture, of course (I had one AD experience too many on my lifetime... lol), but it seems several drive array roots (to handle the automatic replication part of things) could be shared as one big network pool with several sub-shares. Is this correct? If that's the case, then Drive Extender is basically a simplified DFS with VSS duplication...

Again, thanks for the input. I'll look into it (any good places I should know of to get more information?)

Cheers.

Miguel

 

[Adidas4275]

what i dont see is your reason for 2k9.... if WHS is providing what you need why do you want to change to 2k9?

just turn off fole duplication and run a hardware raid setup under WHS, not supported but it works fine...

I am running 2 RAID 5 arrays on my WHS with a rocketraid card w/o issues

 

[__Miguel_]

Simple: WHS simply cannot handle RRAS without severely crippling the whole system.

Since I might need a dedicated router in a somewhat near future (ISP change), and I simply cannot handle the HEDIOUS ISP modem/router options they provide (like the crappy Alcatel triple-play router or the Netgear cable router my ISPs force me to use), I'd like to go back to RRAS, as I used to have in the past.

However, WHS can't handle RRAS without severely compromising the rest of the OS infrastructure, so I wouldn't be able to have a single machine for file server and router (with great QoS software, too), as well as VoIP (I keep dreaming of that one) and WSUS duties.

As for hardware RAID, I'm not following you. Folder duplication is one of the best features on WHS, which gives it GREAT flexibility and low cost. Why would I want to shell the extra cash (I don't have, btw) for high-end hardware-based RAID cards and multiple identical drives (low-end RAID cards are fakeRAID anyway, and I won't settle for anything less redundant than RAID6 if I go that route...)? Software RAID 1 will be the closest I can get to WHS using W2K8, and that is expensive enough as it stands...

Cheers.

Miguel

 

[MrGuvernment]

why not just pick up a linksys or dlink router, that solves that problem, go linksys and flash with DD-WRT and done deal.

 

[spectrumbx]

...
I mean, Drive Extender is a pain to mimic, but it's doable. Either JBOD a bunch of RAID1 arrays (though I'm not sure if W2K8 can handle JBODing RAID1 arrays created by the Disk Management MMC - I don't have RAID available on the motherboard) or mount said RAID1 arrays on NTFS folders (which could become messy to manage, in time).
...

Standard JBOD (using dynamic disks) can be very dangerous and can nullify the protection of RAID1.
I have seen more people lose data from JBOD screw ups than actual disk failures.
Further, losing two disks from the same mirror will destroy the whole JBOD array.

JBOD'ing through my FlexRAID-View software (drive extender like - but much more) is quite different and might be something you might want to look into if you want to go the W2k8 route.

Since you are doing mirroring, you can use FlexRAID-View without FlexRAID (core).
http://www.openegg.org/forums/posts/list/155.page

 

[nitrobass24]

Why not use both?

Serve2008 R2 Host and install WHS as a Guest VM on Hyper-V.
That way you can isolate your Filesharing/backups to the VM and use 2008 for AD and RRAS etc.

 

[oldpablo]

The ability to remove drives hot and add in larger ones is a pretty handy thing with WHS, not to mention it'll be far more efficient with it's space via duplicating select folders and de-duplication (you may be saving a lot of space here with multiple PC backups). It's designed to be simple and very easy to use, you may regret making it all complex down the line with adding routing and going full blown server.

 

[__Miguel_]

why not just pick up a linksys or dlink router, that solves that problem, go linksys and flash with DD-WRT and done deal.

That's an extra expense I'd like NOT to have, unless it REALLY is necessary. Besides, no router on the market comes close to the power of a full-fledged RRAS+cFosSpeed implementation. That simply won't happen in any near future...

Standard JBOD (using dynamic disks) can be very dangerous and can nullify the protection of RAID1.
I have seen more people lose data from JBOD screw ups than actual disk failures.
Further, losing two disks from the same mirror will destroy the whole JBOD array.

Really? I was under the impression only the data on those disks would be lost, not the whole array. Unless I'm missing the point.

Anyway, probably the simple RAID1 approach would be a better option in that case...

JBOD'ing through my FlexRAID-View software (drive extender like - but much more) is quite different and might be something you might want to look into if you want to go the W2k8 route.

I'll check that one. Never heard of it, but from the little I've read it seems interesting.

Why not use both?

Serve2008 R2 Host and install WHS as a Guest VM on Hyper-V.

Hmmm, I never thought of that one. It does add a layer of complexity I'd rather NOT have, but the great thing is I'd be able to migrate the whole WHS machine to ANY other, provided all the disks go along, too...

Now, does Hyper-V allow direct HDD control from the VMs? That would be sweet.

The ability to remove drives hot and add in larger ones is a pretty handy thing with WHS, not to mention it'll be far more efficient with it's space via duplicating select folders and de-duplication (you may be saving a lot of space here with multiple PC backups). It's designed to be simple and very easy to use, you may regret making it all complex down the line with adding routing and going full blown server.

That's the biggest reason why I'm so torn between WHS and W2K8. WHS simply works, and it's like nothing I've ever seen. Drop a disk, add it to the pool, be done with it. Install the connector software on the machines you want backed up, forget about it. That simple.

I just want RRAS capabilities (and possibly a site-to-site VPN too, but that's another story altogether) on my server (hey, the server will be on pretty much 24/7, so I might as well not add yet another 15W/h to the power bill from a router, right?), and RRAS is probably the best one I've worked with (though it IS temperamental, and a pain to get through the initial configuration...). If there's a way to add those to WHS without the connector software becoming crippled, that's just fine (especially if the routing module is UPnP-compatible with WHS ). But I'm guessing any non-Windows firewall approach will kill it, right?

Btw, today I migrated my current WHS to new hardware. Meaning I plugged its HDD to a new mobo. Oddly enough, it started without a glitch. It just required a re-activation (duh), and new drivers for the NIC and IGP. Sweet! Less power drawn, less noise. I wish everything was this easy...

You guys gave me much to think about. I'll check back with you when I decide anything, or discover anything interesting on the adding routing capabilities to WHS. In the meanwhile, do keep your inputs coming.

Cheers.

Miguel

 

[grendel19]

I just want RRAS capabilities (and possibly a site-to-site VPN too, but that's another story altogether) on my server (hey, the server will be on pretty much 24/7, so I might as well not add yet another 15W/h to the power bill from a router, right?), and RRAS is probably the best one I've worked with (though it IS temperamental, and a pain to get through the initial configuration...). If there's a way to add those to WHS without the connector software becoming crippled, that's just fine (especially if the routing module is UPnP-compatible with WHS ). But I'm guessing any non-Windows firewall approach will kill it, right?

When I had a WHS standalone machine, I ran RRAS on it just fine. Didn't affect the WHS connector at all or any aspect of WHS. I even set up a CA root server on WHS and was able to connect from work to home via L2TP. Didn't affect WHS one bit.

I think most 2k3 roles function just fine on WHS (except maybe AD). Fact is no typical home user is going to understand how to set those roles up, so why would MS bother disabling them.

At one point I had RRAS, DHCP, DNS, CA, IIS, Virtual Server all set up on WHS and it had no effect at all on resources and WHS functions. I think your only true limitation is being a x86 OS. So if your a heavy VM user, there might not be enough ram to go around.

 

[__Miguel_]

When I had a WHS standalone machine, I ran RRAS on it just fine. Didn't affect the WHS connector at all or any aspect of WHS.

Hold the presses! Really? REALLY?

OK, so that's what I get for reading answers on the M$ WHS forum (and reading too much into them, at the same time).

Since I now have a temporary non-used machine, I can test that theory out, and if it works correctly, I'll be flying as high as a kite! And shortly thereafter I'll bang my head into the wall a few times for 1) not testing it from the get-go and 2) for having wasted like 10 hours of browsing time trying to get around this "non-issue"... Hmpf...

I think most 2k3 roles function just fine on WHS (except maybe AD). Fact is no typical home user is going to understand how to set those roles up, so why would MS bother disabling them.

Yes, AD over DE/Connector is probably a bomb just waiting to go off... lol

And I agree with the second part. No typical home user understands how to set that stuff up, AND they get the big bright yellow "WARNING!" sign every time they RDP to the box, so they just probably back off when they see that

At one point I had RRAS, DHCP, DNS, CA, IIS, Virtual Server all set up on WHS and it had no effect at all on resources and WHS functions. I think your only true limitation is being a x86 OS. So if your a heavy VM user, there might not be enough ram to go around.

~4GB is not only enough for my usual needs (biggest transfers I've made were ~60GB in size, but the biggest file was around 8GB, and it still capped out at 600Mbps, or the maximum speed my Samsung 321KJ is able to read from the platters... ), but the limit on the motherboards I use (last one was 945G-based, the new one is G31-based but only has two memory slots, and 4GB DIMMs are just too expensive).

Also, I don't do VMs (Windows 7 might change that, I think I'll want to load up all those yucky pesky "companion" applications - iTunes, Nokia Phone Manager, Citizen's ID Card reader, etc. - on the XP VM and leave the main rig alone), so that's probably not a problem. Also, the only apps I use that could really benefit from large memory footprints are still 32-bit only, so...

Thank you very much for the input.

Cheers.

Miguel