Windows Home Server FAQ

[tgxiii]

Thanks for all of the screenshots!

Any reason that my temperatures and activity for my HDD's aren't showing with the Disk Management add-in? I can view the properties of each individual drive and see the temp, but on the main screen that lists my drives, the temp and activity are all N/A

Go to Settings, then Disk Management, then the Data Collection tab. Enable automatic disk monitoring.

 

[epimetheus]

I've got a question for you guys. I've got a share that is larger than any single drive. I want to back this share up to an external enclosure that I can take offsite. The problem is that the backup service for the server itself doesn't seem to be able to transition over to the next backup drive. It just fills up the first drive then errors out.

I've got (2) 1.5TB Seagate's in a 3ware Sidecar enclosure attached to a 3ware 9650SE-4LPME controller in my server. I've got the controller configured as JBOD. Obviously I don't want to backup to a RAID array. And please leave out any Seagate comments, I'm comfortable with the drives and frankly, don't give a damn what anybody else thinks about them.

Anybody got an ideas or can point out something I'm doing wrong?

 

[tgabe213]

Go to Settings, then Disk Management, then the Data Collection tab. Enable automatic disk monitoring.

Awesome! I don't understand why that would be off by default, but thanks!

 

[dC0m]

Sorry to bring up an old subject but:

Is the Intel Pro PT faster than the Intel Pro GT? All my desktops are running Realtek Onboard NICs and my soon-to-be file server will proabably have a PT/GT. Any noticeable differences?

 

[sphinx99]

Apologies if I've missed answers earlier, though I tried to review all posts.

I'm contemplating WHS as a long-term investment and want to see if it's appropriate for my needs. In brief, needs are very good expandability/scalability, network-accessible data storage, some "backup server / library" capability for somewhere on the order of 4 to 8TB of data.

Questions I had were,

- for integrating WHS into a home ecosystem that might have some non-Windows devices (specifically a PS3, an iPhone and possibly a Linux PC), does WHS play nice with these things? For PS3 and iPhone, would be nice to access/stream/view video. For Linux PC, simple file sharing - being able to mount volumes to copy files back and forth.

- what's the anticipated roadmap for WHS? It's based on Server 2003 I gather; are there plans for a Server 2008-based version? How well invested in this is Microsoft? Is it something they're making a very strong, concerted, high profile effort to support and evolve, or is it a side project that may get put out to pasture in 18 months in favor of something else?

- let's say I install it on some older hardware (oh maybe a P4/2GB or some such) to get it up and running and play around with it, should I plan for a complete reinstall if at some point in the near future (and I like it) I want to move it to something more robust (a la quad-core Xeon or comparable) that involves a full MB/CPU/RAM swap?

- assuming licensing is not an issue (I own a Server 2008 Std license) under what conditions should I instead choose to use Server 2008 as my OS instead of WHS? (I am aware that without WHS I give up some of the nice looking features like client backup, the heterogeneous disk management interface, etc... I'm wondering what I stand to gain in return.)

- final question! I understand that certain background operations (indexing, etc.) will be performance limited by speed of disk, CPU, etc. That said, for NAS operations, and assuming the storage subsystem is sufficiently fast (say, Areca controller with 6+ modern TB-class spindles), should I expect that performance will be limited by network connectivity across the board (NICs, switch, jumbo frames, etc.) more than CPU or RAM bandwidth?

 

[thebeephaha]

- let's say I install it on some older hardware (oh maybe a P4/2GB or some such) to get it up and running and play around with it, should I plan for a complete reinstall if at some point in the near future (and I like it) I want to move it to something more robust (a la quad-core Xeon or comparable) that involves a full MB/CPU/RAM swap?

Sorry I'm not answering your other questions but I thought I'd chime in on this one...

I made a WHS box for my work that does backups for 6 computers currently and serves tech utilities to our tech department along with serving as a media server for our store speaker system...

I built it out of really old hardware but it works fine for us.

The hardware:

ASUS P3V4X w/ VIA Apollo Pro chipset
Intel Pentium III EB Coppermine 733MHz
1GB PC133 (4x256)
1x 120GB WD Caviar (on board IDE)
2x 60GB IBM Deskstars (Promise TX100 IDE card)
2x 40GB Seagate 7200.7s (Promise TX100 IDE card)
DVD-ROM, CD-RW
GeForce Ti200 64MB
Dual Intel 10/100, one is a WOL Management Adapter
Dell Pull 350ish watt PSU, replaced fan with high CFM 80mm fan.
Antec Case, lots of high CFM 80mm fans.

Old but for what we use it for it is great.

For most people for backups this is more than enough horse power, but of course most people need more space. But you get the idea.

If you have a ~2GHz P4 or Athlon you would be set for most things.

You really only need more power if you are serving lots of larger files to many users at once.

 

[Archer75]

Questions I had were,

- for integrating WHS into a home ecosystem that might have some non-Windows devices (specifically a PS3, an iPhone and possibly a Linux PC), does WHS play nice with these things? For PS3 and iPhone, would be nice to access/stream/view video. For Linux PC, simple file sharing - being able to mount volumes to copy files back and forth.

No problem.

- what's the anticipated roadmap for WHS? It's based on Server 2003 I gather; are there plans for a Server 2008-based version? How well invested in this is Microsoft? Is it something they're making a very strong, concerted, high profile effort to support and evolve, or is it a side project that may get put out to pasture in 18 months in favor of something else?

Word is the next version will be built on Server 2008 and as such will be x64 only. Haven't heard anything beyond that.

- let's say I install it on some older hardware (oh maybe a P4/2GB or some such) to get it up and running and play around with it, should I plan for a complete reinstall if at some point in the near future (and I like it) I want to move it to something more robust (a la quad-core Xeon or comparable) that involves a full MB/CPU/RAM swap?

I use a 2.4ghz Pentium 4, 2gb of DDR1 ram and an old Asus board with a Voodoo Video card. Works great. You don't need much power here.

I recommend anyone who is changing out a motherboard do a clean install of the OS.

- final question! I understand that certain background operations (indexing, etc.) will be performance limited by speed of disk, CPU, etc. That said, for NAS operations, and assuming the storage subsystem is sufficiently fast (say, Areca controller with 6+ modern TB-class spindles), should I expect that performance will be limited by network connectivity across the board (NICs, switch, jumbo frames, etc.) more than CPU or RAM bandwidth?

Your speed limitations will be hard drives and network. I have a gigabit network so the only thing limiting my speed is the hard drives. Not an issue though. I stream HD movies to my HTPC without issue. Those don't take much bandwidth at all.

 

[sphinx99]

Thanks for the replies.

The reason I want to know about upgrade is because I may well try it with an old P4 motherboard/CPU/RAM that I know is not going to last forever - it's already four years old. So, if I lose the motherboard, CPU and RAM, and need to transplant the entire storage infrastructure (drives and controllers) to a new motherboard/CPU/RAM, I want to know if it's possible for me to reinstall WHS and somehow "re-import" my storage pools.

Similar question, in some ways, to knowing how one would recover from a raid controller failure. The impression I've gotten of WHS is that it (and the CPU it runs on) essentially act as the raid controller / storage manager.

Also, is it correct to say that the benefit of WHS is not needing an expensive raid controller to manage large numbers of spindles, and the drawback of WHS is its lack of parity raid support? (e.g. it only supports mirroring at a file/folder level so if you want everything protected, you will need more disk space than a RAID5 or RAID6 setup.) And, Server 2003/2008 would trade the convenience of the WHS interface for more flexibility with storage pool redundancy?

 

[Archer75]

Thanks for the replies.

The reason I want to know about upgrade is because I may well try it with an old P4 motherboard/CPU/RAM that I know is not going to last forever - it's already four years old. So, if I lose the motherboard, CPU and RAM, and need to transplant the entire storage infrastructure (drives and controllers) to a new motherboard/CPU/RAM, I want to know if it's possible for me to reinstall WHS and somehow "re-import" my storage pools.

Similar question, in some ways, to knowing how one would recover from a raid controller failure. The impression I've gotten of WHS is that it (and the CPU it runs on) essentially act as the raid controller / storage manager.

It's possible, yes. The beauty of WHS is that the data on the drives is readable by any OS. Unplug the drive, plug it in another computer and get your data. If a controller card dies you can still get your data.

When I did a clean install on my server what I did was tell the console to "remove" several drives in which case it transfered the data off and left those drives blank and not part of the pool. I then copied data off of the pool to those drives. Then "removed" more drives and copied more data over.

The did a clean install of WHS which will wipe the drives part of the pool.
Added some blank drives to the pool and then copied data off the "removed" drives back to the pool. As each drive emptied I added it to the pool and so on.

I could have also put the drives in my desktop temporarily and copied the data from the server to my desktop and then did a format.

I also have an external that I use to backup my most important data from the server.

Also, is it correct to say that the benefit of WHS is not needing an expensive raid controller to manage large numbers of spindles, and the drawback of WHS is its lack of parity raid support? (e.g. it only supports mirroring at a file/folder level so if you want everything protected, you will need more disk space than a RAID5 or RAID6 setup.) And, Server 2003/2008 would trade the convenience of the WHS interface for more flexibility with storage pool redundancy?

Pretty much.

I just use the onboard SATA controllers and I bought two promise controller cards. So I have the capability to add a dozen hard drives. I have 10 right now. Parity would be nice. I think mirroring is safer but parity would be nice for the space. But everything has it's pros and cons.

 

[[LYL]Homer]

If you're worried about the reliability or power consumption of older hardware I'd suggest getting a cheap mobo/cpu/ram combo. This can be done for under $130.

 

[odoe]

Ok, so I'm sold.
I grabbed the evaluation copy, installed yesterday and I'm copying over my data now.
Thanks, you guys have been a big help.

 

[sphinx99]

Thanks Archer75, that helps a great deal. I too am firing it up on my frankenPC with its mix of everything from 36GB raptors to 45GB IBM Deathstars to 300GB 15K SAS all in one old Antec Sonata case If it can handle this mix, then it can handle anything!

 

[theDreamer]

Suggestion, since I figured out a way we can add the add-ins to the FAQ easily. If people are willing to write reviews of a specific add on, include install, features, use, bugs, revision (beta?), etc. This will be great for people looking for first hand experience and what to look for in these things. Try to be deep in your review, talking about everything you can think of.

Currently I am working with:
Mymovies
Drive Balancer (not really an add on though, will explain in review)
WHS Disk management
Advance Admin Control

 

[-=Antimatter=-]

I'd like to link this thread in the FAQ, since it's helped so many people.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1376478

 

[Knuckle-Head]

I'm making a shopping list at newegg->
A basic Intel mb w/ Intel nic (Intel BOXDG43NB), 2GB ram cheap ram, 2x1TB Hitachi hds, os. I have some old 200GB sata and 320GB drives as well to add.

Question.
What cpu do I need?
Will the E1200 work or should i go with E1400s higher clock? I have a E1200 in a pfsence router and it is fine. Or should I be looking more to a single core cpu (440 Conroe-L). I will be ordering this week.

Thanks all

 

[Archer75]

CPU doesn't matter much. It's just a server. I'm using an old Pentium 4.
Get whatever is cheap. Though I would look for a 64bit processor because it's rumored the next version of WHS will be 64bit only.

 

[Knuckle-Head]

Thanks for the direction. The E1200 and E1400 are the same exact price ($49.00). I will get the E1400.
Any rumors what the x64 edition will bring? And would WHS x64 benefit from more ram, ie 2GB to 4Gb, as ram is cheap right now.

Thanks again!

 

[Archer75]

It's rumored that the next version of WHS will require 64bit because it will be built on server 2008. What will that bring? I don't know. They haven't said anything.

I use 2gb of ram in my server and even that is overkill. It doesn't take much power at all for one of these home servers.

 

[sphinx99]

My impressions so far are mixed.

Things I like,
- The speed! I was able to sustain 65-70MB/sec transfers to and from Vista x64 over gigabit ethernet, and the WHS server is an old Abit IC7-G (i875p) with a P4.
- The flexibility! I have PATA, SATA and U320 SCSI drives all in the pool right now, and it works just fine.
- The client seems reasonably robust and doesn't get in my face too much; I like that.
- The server side software seems to run happily on a P4/2.8 with 1.5GB RAM.
- That the platform is based on Server 2003 is nice from a software driver perspective... XP drivers typically work as well, so just about any controller or network card is going to find some support on this platform. This is a big deal!
- There seems to be a proven track record of people using WHS with large data sets and many spindles. It's nowhere near the track record RAID has established (software or hardware) but it's miles ahead of things like ZFS from what I can see.

Things I don't like,
- I dislike how WHS doesn't really seem able to back itself up, or protect itself. I understand I can recover the data from the actual individual drives if I move them to another system and that is a huge plus over a RAID controller. However it would be nice if WHS included a facility for backing up its own system partition.
- WHS takes a long time to install... and when watching it, one realizes that frankly it's a bit of a kludge. It's not a simple, clean, straightforward install... it installs Server 03, then a whole plethora of things via script... you really get the impression that this is "windows server 2003 plus some add-ons" rather than its own product.
- Community support seems weak. Yes, I know there are some addons, but the commercial ones seem useless and the community ones... well only 2 or 3 seem like they add significant value. It's pretty clear this is a niche platform that few people use.
- Microsoft support also seems weak. This is not the sort of thing I expect Steve Ballmer to give keynotes about, but I don't see a huge push from Microsoft to market this thing. Having dealt with large software companies directly, Microsoft included, for a couple of decades now, one develops a certain sense as to which products (politically) have a bright future within a company and which ones are on the train to nowhere. WHS hasn't made a strong case for the former. It doesn't even show up on a number of Microsoft platform roadmaps--recent ones--and there's very little information about future releases other than vague "oh it'll be 64-bit and server 08 based" statements. All this gives me cause for concern--does Microsoft really intend to keep this going? Given the fact that the SKU seems to be Server 2003 put through hasty surgery rather than a polished, integrated package, I get the sense Microsoft doesn't want to spend much $ on this right now. And with the economy where it is, I would imagine there is not a large demand for storage servers. My concern: if someone at Microsoft has a short list of 5 products to be axed if required due to revenue shortfall, I would not be surprised if WHS is on that list.

The "all-or-nothing" redundancy still bothers me. Frankly I'm starting to think that RAID--at least cheap on-board RAID--still has a place in the WHS universe. I have data for which the duplication capability is very attractive. However, I have other things (my HD-DVD collection ripped to disk since I know my laptop HD-DVD drive won't last forever) which I don't necessarily want or need to pay a 2x storage penalty to protect, but would be happy with a 3+1 or 4+1 parity arrangement. The problem is that WHS is blissfully unaware of the protected status of its disks... it has no idea what's a spindle and what's a volume off a RAID array, and there's no way for me to tell it. This is something I'd love to see in a future edition: the ability for me to educate WHS on its physical disks, so that it knows to keep my 20GB video files on that RAID5 disk when possible.

Overall, I'm still not sure whether this makes more sense than the alternatives (ZFS, Unraid, or just some RAID controllers).

 

[Archer75]

You can back up WHS. On your list of computers you can select the server and backup. But what other storage system has the ability to back itself up? You'd be doing a copy and paste of a large amount of data to another device.

It is server 2003 with some add ons. They never said it was anything more.

The community is pretty strong and there are a ton of add ons out there. Even several commercial ones depending on what your needs are. Different folks have different needs.

They do talk honestly about WHS. They do show it off at all the shows, most recently cebit. The developers post regularly on the official WHS forums. HP just released new servers with lots of new features. Several other vendors are offering WHS products. Here's the WHS blog that will have info and video of WHS, marketing and shows: http://blogs.technet.com/homeserver/

The number one complaint about WHS is it's data redundency requires 2x the drives. But it brings to much more to the table.
But they did choose their method because it was easiest for the the consumer. The average home user. Which is what this product is aimed at.

But the other methods do have their own downfalls. Unraid is more difficult to setup and maintain for the average user. Can don't as much with it as with WHS.
RAID 5 suffers from bit rot and the write hole error. ZFS and RAID-Z can fix that but are still on open solaris only. The FreeNAS .7 version that is supposed to include this is MIA. It's also said this is slower than other options.
And with all options except unraid and WHS you must use drives of equal size or you lose space. Or you have very long and convoluted setup processes to get your varying drive sizes in some kind of array that maximizes available space.

There is also flexraid and it can be used with WHS to provide parity but IMO it's still an unproven product and i'm not quite ready to trust my data to it.

Still, WHS even with my gobs of drives and data works for me. I have 2x250gb, 2x500gb, 4x750gb and 2x1gb drives. I have over 1.9tb just in movies. Everything is duplicated. I can yank out drives and add them very quickly and easily.
All my computers on my network are protected and can be restored to their last state very fast and easily. Most other options can't provide that. So i'm very happy with WHS.

 

[Drudenhaus]

Sorry to bring up an old subject but:

Is the Intel Pro PT faster than the Intel Pro GT? All my desktops are running Realtek Onboard NICs and my soon-to-be file server will proabably have a PT/GT. Any noticeable differences?

GT (82541) is PCI. PT (82572) is PCI-e.

 

[sphinx99]

You can back up WHS. On your list of computers you can select the server and backup. But what other storage system has the ability to back itself up? You'd be doing a copy and paste of a large amount of data to another device.

If I'm not mistaken, this is backup for the data partitions / disks, right? Is there anything for the system partition? That would be nice to have. As for what other systems have this--plenty. Most RAID controllers let me export the RAID configuration to a file that I can squirrel away for safekeeping. Since WHS in this case is acting as the brain, aka. my "raid controller", it would be nice to back that configuration up itself. I'm thinking of putting True Image on the system partition and backing that up to an external HD as an image. Basically, I'd like a way to preserve the drive and duplication metadata.

The community is pretty strong and there are a ton of add ons out there. Even several commercial ones depending on what your needs are. Different folks have different needs.

I guess "weak" and "strong" are relative terms. It just doesn't strike me as terribly strong. And the commercial ones seem to exist primarily for the sake of making an extra buck for some of the bigger leeches of the commercial Windows market. (Diskeeper for WHS? c'mon!). Again, I'm not saying this is a terrible product, just that it's definitely a niche one and people betting all their data on it should be aware of that. (The fact that the data ends up on NTFS volumes that can be moved elsewhere goes a LONG way toward mitigating any support concerns--if this weren't the case I would not even consider WHS.)

They do talk honestly about WHS. They do show it off at all the shows, most recently cebit. The developers post regularly on the official WHS forums. HP just released new servers with lots of new features. Several other vendors are offering WHS products.

Yes exactly! HP seems to remain the only widely known OEM to really market WHS and frankly it seems like they're putting in a lot of value separate from WHS (backup to cloud, publish to cloud, etc.) hence my concern. Hopefully there will be more users of the platform in the future.

Flexraid sounds interesting, I will have to keep an eye on that. I don't mean to be too down on WHS but I will be honest about my appraisal. I think I am going to use it because the benefits outweigh the downfalls, but that doesn't mean it's free of problems or that the above things aren't concerns for me.

I also like http://mswhs.com/ and its frequent updates.

 

[sphinx99]

GT (82541) is PCI. PT (82572) is PCI-e.

I'm not absolutely certain of this (double-check!) but I recall PT supporting jumbo frames and GT not.

 

[Archer75]

I'm thinking of putting True Image on the system partition and backing that up to an external HD as an image. Basically, I'd like a way to preserve the drive and duplication metadata.

If the system disc fails you just fire up your WHS installation disc and select "server reinstallation". All your data will be maintained and you'll be back up and running.

It won't preserve any 3rd party add ons you might have had though. And you have to recreate the user accounts. But all your data will be there in they're shares without having to re add anything.

You are right, WHS isn't perfect. I would like to see some form of parity that doesn't have the drawbacks of RAID 5 for one. And there are other things.
But it has saved my ass twice. Once when I had a boneheaded moment on my desktop and fried my vista paritition and again on my HTPC when I was testing some stuff that didn't go well. In each case I was back up and running in less than 20 minutes.

 

[Archer75]

I'm not absolutely certain of this (double-check!) but I recall PT supporting jumbo frames and GT not.

The GT does. I have it in my server.

 

[Old Hippie]

I'm thinking of putting True Image on the system partition and backing that up to an external HD as an image.

I had the same thoughts, untill I read this. I know where you're comming from and I've researched the situation and "solutions".

I haven't tried any of the Acronis server stuff but you if find something that works, let me know.

 

[Old Hippie]

The GT does. I have it in my server.

I have the PT and it also supports jumbo frames.

Mine's not enabled, but the option is there.

I have the same card in my server. Just for shits and giggles, maybe I outta turn it on.

 

[thebeephaha]

I have the PT and it also supports jumbo frames.

Mine's not enabled, but the option is there.

I have the same card in my server. Just for shits and giggles, maybe I outta turn it on.

I would turn it on if I were you, made a huge difference for my performance, we are talking from 30MB/sec to like 80MB/sec.

 

[Old Hippie]

I would turn it on if I were you, made a huge difference for my performance, we are talking from 30MB/sec to like 80MB/sec.

I've been poking around....while in the device manager on my WHS system under this PT card, there's no place to enable jumbo frames. There's no "advance" tab under properties to enable it.

Same driver (9.12.36.0) and card as my host system, but no advanced tab.

This looks like something I shouldn't be screwing with......at least for today.

Maybe this XFX GeForce 8200 MB doesn't support it?

 

[Mathemabeat]

I see that Power Pack 2 is scheduled to hit on March 24th.

http://mswhs.com/2009/03/20/exclusive-power-pack-2-tuesday-march-24-2009/


Any thoughts on it and what changes are being brought to the table with it?

 

[seltz]

I have read most of the posts in this thread and there is one thing that im unclear on. It sounds like WHS does data duplication by default, my question is can i choose not to do data duplication but still do parity? Id like to utilize as much HD space as possible but still have some level of protection against hardware failure. Can i do something like raid 5 or 6? where in a 20 drive setup I use 15 drives for storage and 5 for parity?

 

[Drudenhaus]

I have the same card in my server. Just for shits and giggles, maybe I outta turn it on.

Jumbo frames are great for network performance, but keep in mind that all components between computer A and B, including the computers, must support the same frame size.

 

[Archer75]

I have read most of the posts in this thread and there is one thing that im unclear on. It sounds like WHS does data duplication by default, my question is can i choose not to do data duplication but still do parity? Id like to utilize as much HD space as possible but still have some level of protection against hardware failure. Can i do something like raid 5 or 6? where in a 20 drive setup I use 15 drives for storage and 5 for parity?

WHS doesn't support RAID. It doesn't use parity.

You can setup some sort of RAID, but it's not supported.

 

[[LYL]Homer]

Yep, RAID is not officially supported by WHS but generally any hardware RAID setup that would work under Server 2003 will work. You'd probably be best served by setting up more than one RAID 5 or 6 array so that WHS will see multiple 'disks' so that duplication can be utilized selectively.

 

[thebeephaha]

Yep, RAID is not officially supported by WHS but generally any hardware RAID setup that would work under Server 2003 will work. You'd probably be best served by setting up more than one RAID 5 or 6 array so that WHS will see multiple 'disks' so that duplication can be utilized selectively.

I think a WHS box with multiple RAID5 arrays would be pretty sweet.

Just that extra level of protection from downtime and needing to use those backups.

 

[nitrobass24]

Power Pack 2 for Windows Home Server updates Windows Home Server with the following new features and fixes:

Windows Media Center Connector• Computers running Windows Media® Center can now view recorded TV content that is stored on your home server by using the recorded TV gallery.
• Windows Media Center music, photos, videos, and recorded TV libraries are automatically updated to include the Music, Photos, Videos, and Recorded TV shared folders on your home server.
• Media Center Extenders that are connected to a computer running Windows Media Center can now access content on your home server without using the guest account.
• You can control the shared folders on your home server that Media Center Extenders can access by using the Windows Home Server Console. To do this, on the console, click Settings, and then click Windows Media Center.
Media Sharing• Support for MP4 audio and video files is added.
• Content that is stored on your home server and that is shared via Windows Media Connect, including files with extensions .mp4, .m4v, .m4b and .m4a, now appears in the music or video library with title, artist, composer, album, and genre metadata.
Remote Access
• The Remote Access Settings page is redesigned to make it easier to use.
• A Web-hosted diagnostic service is used to more accurately test whether remote connectivity is available from outside the home network.
• There are new and improved initial configuration and repair wizards.
• There is better troubleshooting guidance for common home networking issues that can prevent Remote Access from working properly.
Home Computer Backup• When you restore files and folders from a Home Computer Backup, the process may stop when it is 79% to 81% percent complete. This update helps prevent this issue.
Home Server Backup• This update prevents you from unintentionally overwriting newer versions of the Windows Home Server Connector files. This could potentially happen if you restore files and folders from a Home Server Backup to the Software shared folder on your home server.
Server Storage and Shared Folders• It is now easier to copy large files or folders from a home computer running the Windows Vista® operating system to a shared folder on your home server. Previously, the file size was limited by the free space on the primary hard drive of your home server. With this update, the file size is limited to the free space on the target hard drives that are connected to your home server.
• The number of notification messages about files that are stored in shared folders is reduced. Previously, these notifications may have caused high CPU utilization on your home server for applications that access these files. After this update is installed, applications such as the software for the Microsoft® Zune® digital media player no longer consume excessive processor resources

 

[theDreamer]

Thanks for the update on that Nitro, will update post one tomorrow when I get some free time. Also, is this just the current reported changes, will there be more?

 

[nitrobass24]

That should be everything.
That is what the WHS team said.

I didnt notice anything else different during testing.

 

[theDreamer]

That should be everything.
That is what the WHS team said.

I didnt notice anything else different during testing.

Excellent, I have updated the first post with Power Pack 2 update features, if anyone finds anything (problem, new feature, etc.) let us know.

 

[EnderW]

how can I replace a drive that has data on it?
I'm a little worried about these seagate drives, so I'd like to replace them with WDs, but I have data on them