godamn it...why doesn't anything ever work for me
Another question: what Anti Virus are you guys running? If any? I don't want to pay for anything.
Last edited:
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Windows Home Server FAQ
- Thread starter theDreamer
- Start date
godamn it...why doesn't anything ever work for me
Another question: what Anti Virus are you guys running? If any? I don't want to pay for anything.
VERY weird indeed... It's probably the first time I see a SpeedFan main screen with so little written on it...
Mobo make and model, please? Also, are you running those apps with administrative privileges?
Are those Hitachi drives 7200rpm or 5400rpm (correction, 5600rpm... lousy Hitachi, working off the standard speeds...
)?G31+E3200 is probably one of the lowest power-hungry configuration available for a while now (G6950+H55 is probably around that, but the Celly is cheaper... lol), and I know that the CPU draws around 5W idling on my mobo (CPU+VRM, only), so probably around 35~40W idling for the mobo+CPU (including PSU losses). I don't think 1x1TB Samsung F1, 2x1.5TB Samsung Ecogreen + 1x2TB Samsung Ecogreen only draw 9~14W... At least 20W, and that's on the low side...
Great figures, either way.
I'm kind of proud of my little WHS, on many fronts.Cheers.
Miguel
I used the trial of F-PROT recently to make sure everything was OK and it worked fine. I don't have anything running in real time.
Are those Hitachi drives 7200rpm or 5400rpm (correction, 5600rpm... lousy Hitachi, working off the standard speeds...
HITACHI 0A38016 (7,200 RPM).
ClamAV, WHS Edition, here.
Still Beta, but it seems OK (Haven't had any problems). No realtime scanner, though.
Then I'm probably at least on the lower 60W range idling. Still, not too bad, given I'm actually up to four drives right now (and the 33% remaining disk space tells me I must start thinking about getting an 8-port controller (the motherboard tops out at 4 ports, and since new SATA ports are always at least 15/port, I might go all the way to 8, maxing out my internal storage without some serious modding, of course) and at least one more 2TB drive...
Cheers.
Miguel
Justintoxicated
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2002
- Messages
- 14,519
1) Try SpeedFan. If there is a sensor to be found, SpeedFan WILL find it, and read it correctly.
2) Given the way DE works, it would be best if WHS was the GUEST OS, not the HOST. A couple of posts ago it was advised to use Server 2K8 R2 with HyperV as the Host OS, with WHS as a Guest OS and with direct access to the drives, as it seems the only way of reliably not messing everything up (DE is a b****).
3) I haven't measured it, but my guess is my Celeron E3200, G31-based WHS probably draws not more than 75W tops when idling (the 4 drives don't spin down, and one of them is a 1TB Samsung F1). I really wish WHS allowed the drives to spin down, but uTorrent complains about torrent errors if drives are allowed to spin down...
Cheers.
Miguel
Will Vail allow VM's to run from within WHS? I'm still not liking the idea of having to use server 2008 with WHS as a VM.
nitrobass24
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - December 2009
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,465
Not using hyper-v but you can install virtual box or VMware.
BTW you can run VMs on WHS v1
BTW you can run VMs on WHS v1
nitrobass24
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - December 2009
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,465
As for running VMs on your WHS i would not store them on the DE pool. Use a separate disk or the C:\ partition to store your VMs
Why? Or Hyper-V Server R2? Works kinda great.
The bigger question is how will the final vail work with VirtualBox. I had some issues with the original WHS with virtualbox installed (I'm a pretty big virtualbox fan btw) but it was limited to some network settings that got shot after the installation. The only reason it would be more useful on V2 is because 64-bit host OS gives you the ability to use more memory for VMs.
I used to run VMware Server (i.e. the free version) on my WHS to host an Ubuntu installation. Performance was fairly sluggish and getting the vmware tools to install correctly in the guest was a pain. Lately I've switched to running WHS as a guest on Hyper-V alongside Ubuntu, WinXP, and a couple other things. Performance is excellent and the WHS performs just as well as when it was running on the native hardware. Hypervisors are definitely the way to go for server virtualization.
Hyper-V, especially the free version, has a long learning curve though. Most administrative tasks have to be done remotely since it doesn't have much of a GUI on its own. Most of the Windows troubleshooting habits we have all developed over the years no longer work because things like Device Manager and the various Control Panel applets are not there. You have to either install remote management tools (and occasionally search around to find out how to enable all the various permissions and policies to get them to run both on the server and the client), or find command-line tools for the task. If you install Server 2008 with the Hyper-V role, I understand it's much easier, but that's like a $700 piece of software.
Hyper-V, especially the free version, has a long learning curve though. Most administrative tasks have to be done remotely since it doesn't have much of a GUI on its own. Most of the Windows troubleshooting habits we have all developed over the years no longer work because things like Device Manager and the various Control Panel applets are not there. You have to either install remote management tools (and occasionally search around to find out how to enable all the various permissions and policies to get them to run both on the server and the client), or find command-line tools for the task. If you install Server 2008 with the Hyper-V role, I understand it's much easier, but that's like a $700 piece of software.
nitrobass24
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - December 2009
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,465
edit: i cant read
Its actually a Dell Dimension 4700 that I butchered.
5 year old hardware, I think. I also just tried running Speedfan as admin with no luck.
Another question:
Is there any reason NOT to fold on my WHS? Will it affect network performance / shared folder access times or anything like that...
And is it even worth it to fold with a pentium 4? It's going to be running 24/7.
Dangman
Ninja Editor SuperMod
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 46,056
Not really worth folding with a P4 nowadays. And yes folding will affect network performance and access times for the server. In addition to that, folding on the P4 will cause it use more power and therefore create more heat. Not exactly a good thing for a server.
What if I put a GTX 260 in the server, and heat wasn't a problem.
Could I fold using a GPU client and not see any decrease in performance anywhere else?
nitrobass24
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - December 2009
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,465
I fold on my servers, no performance issues. I run the SMP Client.
You can run the GPUs too, i just dont have them anymore.
You can run the GPUs too, i just dont have them anymore.
That actually explains A LOT. Most OEMs have custom-made BIOSes for their motherboards, even if they use one that's available on the retail chain. Or they use ultra-cheap, rather lousy, custom-made ones.
Bottom line is still the same: most non-standard features (including temperature readings, fan control, etc..) are either not available on the hardware (most of the temperature and fan-related stuff is dependent on the clock generator, and really cheap ones are utterly lacking on that department) or masked by BIOS code.
In any case, if SpeedFan can't see it, it probably can't be seen. At least that's my experience, SpeedFan was always able to at least detect any and everything I threw at it.
I had WCG running on my server for a few weeks. WCG REALLY taxes your CPU, every little bit of performance seems to get squeezed out of it.
Thing is, even with WCG defaulting to the "Idle" priority (meaning it will only use the CPU if everything else doesn't need to use it), the simple fact that just about any folding app wanting to use all the available CPU power, and requesting it, will cause added context switches from the CPU (by an order of hundreds to thousands per CPU cycle), which translates to increased lag on just about any other application, AND less memory available to cache disk writes.
This includes the GUI, the RDP server, and especially the network stack and drivers. In my experience, both the GUI and RDP connections to my WHS lagged a bit (nothing major, I'm just anal about those things), and my maximum network throughput got a 15-20MBps slash (again, nothing major, since I was running on the 80-100MBps range, but still noticeable).
What he said. I had a Pentium D 805 folding 24/7 a few years ago, and that thing was a space heater. I could feel the heat radiating from the thing to the rest of the room...
Cheers.
Miguel
Last edited:
Justintoxicated
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2002
- Messages
- 14,519
Because of this.
I simply wanted to run it as a VM because I feel my system e7300 could handle both WHS and HTPC usage. I don't feel that I should have to waste twice as much power and build a second machine even though the one I have is capable to do both. However for $700 I may as well just build the HTPC seperate. Anyone even know if server 2008 would make an ok OS to run an HTPC on. (Id be using the SageTV Client with the SageTv server installed within the WHS VM).
Basicaly I would have a server inside of a server inside of a server....
What other cool things would I be able to do with Windows Server 2008?
I think you can do things like set up domains and exchange servers. Huge overkill for most home uses, probably, unless you're training to be a sysadmin. From what I've read the next service pack is going to add enhancements called, I think, RemoteFX which is kind of like remote desktop on steroids. If I understand what they're doing, this would allow you to use the server as a virtualized HTPC, and login remotely with remote desktop and be able to view video, Aero GUI enhancements, etc. over the LAN.
Also, if you get a TechNet subscription, you can get Server 2008 (and tons of other stuff) for $350, but the license agreement prohibits you from using it for a "live" system, only for evaluation.
If $350 seems prohibitive, just wait for a good coupon code to float around and you can grab it for around $250 like I did. Having that library available to you really lets you play with all the said setups mentioned earlier, especially the 2008 R2 if you want to tinker (as much as you can "tinker" with Server 2008). And if you subscribe soon, the one year will cover the Vail launch so you can grab that as well when it comes out.
Lets see, what ports are you forwarding?
If its port 80, is your ISP blocking it?
Did you try accessing the server from the https with port 443 forwarded?
nitrobass24
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - December 2009
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,465
I have forwarding 80, 443, and 4125
Both 80 and 443 forward correctly, it seems the problem lies with 4125. I tried forwarding it to my desktop and it doesn't work here either.
I double checked that it was allowed through the firewall, and I even disabled the firewall to test, and it still didn't forward. What could be the problem?
Both 80 and 443 forward correctly, it seems the problem lies with 4125. I tried forwarding it to my desktop and it doesn't work here either.
I double checked that it was allowed through the firewall, and I even disabled the firewall to test, and it still didn't forward. What could be the problem?
nitrobass24
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - December 2009
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,465
did you test using that website?
did you test from the WHS desktop?
If that is the case then i would suspect the DNS is messed up because 4125 is for the remote access gateway and wouldnt be needed to display the page.
Take a screenshot of your remote access settings page from the WHS console and post it.
Also what router do you have?
yes I checked those 3 ports from the whs desktop from that website. They all say success except 4125 on the server. router = wrt54g. all 3 ports are forwarded using TCP
EDIT: i have remote access. I just can't connect from my university network. The university must be blocking something.... which is a shame.
Last edited:
Hello I am going to build a windows home server after reading this thread. I have noticed that at the beginning of this thread it mentions to install Windows Home Server to your largest hard drive. Is this still the way to do it. Do I need to install on the largest hard drive?
No! That is very old information. All of my WHS installations are installed to the smallest supported HDD as I don't want any storage pool data on my WHS OS drive.
[LYL]Homer
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 4,209
If you want maximum storage per SATA slot there's not any problem with using a large drive for the OS drive.
great thank you cavediver. Another question. I have read this thead and I think I understand that for file duplication I have to have 2 of each drive to duplicate the data. Am I understanding this correctly?
Also Right now my main PC houses all my data. I use Allway Sync to duplicate and sync all of that to another Backup PC for duplication. So my data is copied. In case one drive fails I have the other drive. What is the best way to go about transferring this data to WHS? Should I put all the drives in both my main PC and backup PC into the WHS PC and turn on file duplication? .Or should I put only my main PC drive into the WHS PC and do a backup and store the backups offline? the later option would be more work but safer I think.
Also Right now my main PC houses all my data. I use Allway Sync to duplicate and sync all of that to another Backup PC for duplication. So my data is copied. In case one drive fails I have the other drive. What is the best way to go about transferring this data to WHS? Should I put all the drives in both my main PC and backup PC into the WHS PC and turn on file duplication? .Or should I put only my main PC drive into the WHS PC and do a backup and store the backups offline? the later option would be more work but safer I think.
nitrobass24
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - December 2009
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,465
You should still use your largest drive for the OS and heres why.
1) your case only has so many slots
2) you are going to replace the smallest drives with newer ones when they become available/out of space.
3) reinstalling the OS is a PITA, so having the OS on the largest disk means that you will replace it last, and reinstall less.
Now if you have a case that holds 20 drives then i guess it doesnt really matter, but if you have a case that holds 6 drives or similar are you really gonna waste that on a 80gb drive?
I used to have mine on a smaller drive cause I one laying around.
That was a mistake
Because until you do a reinstall of WHS you dont realize how much of a PITA it can be......especially when it fucks up, then its really fun.
Yes you dont need a large drive for a Landing Zone.....there is no Landing Zone any longer....since PP2 actually. They supposedly fixed it in PP1 but for those that had Vista you still had Landing Zone issues until PP2.
Some say that the space is wasted because it goes directly to the storage drives and not used....but if it went to that drive then the storage drives would be unused.
Does it really matter what drive it goes to? I think not.
Its also nice to have a large OS drive because you can repartition it to have a larger OS partition and use it for WSUS, or VM's or MediaBrowser database or whatever else you can think of.
Seriously just DONT do it.
There is no advantage to using a smaller drive.....just future headaches and wasted time that could have all been avoided by using the largest drive.
1) your case only has so many slots
2) you are going to replace the smallest drives with newer ones when they become available/out of space.
3) reinstalling the OS is a PITA, so having the OS on the largest disk means that you will replace it last, and reinstall less.
Now if you have a case that holds 20 drives then i guess it doesnt really matter, but if you have a case that holds 6 drives or similar are you really gonna waste that on a 80gb drive?
I used to have mine on a smaller drive cause I one laying around.
That was a mistake
Because until you do a reinstall of WHS you dont realize how much of a PITA it can be......especially when it fucks up, then its really fun.
Yes you dont need a large drive for a Landing Zone.....there is no Landing Zone any longer....since PP2 actually. They supposedly fixed it in PP1 but for those that had Vista you still had Landing Zone issues until PP2.
Some say that the space is wasted because it goes directly to the storage drives and not used....but if it went to that drive then the storage drives would be unused.
Does it really matter what drive it goes to? I think not.
Its also nice to have a large OS drive because you can repartition it to have a larger OS partition and use it for WSUS, or VM's or MediaBrowser database or whatever else you can think of.
Seriously just DONT do it.
There is no advantage to using a smaller drive.....just future headaches and wasted time that could have all been avoided by using the largest drive.
nitrobass24
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - December 2009
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,465
Repartition the C:\ Partition to a larger size
Thanks nitrobass24. So if I under stand correctly if my largest storage drive is 1.5 TB i would need a 2TB drive for the OS. I then could partition the C drive to say 95% of the disk and the other 5% is put in the storage pool.
You mentioned media browser. I use that. on my pc. is there some special media browser for WHS? I use metabrowser for metadata on my pc. Is there a way to put that on WHS and move it off my main PC?
You mentioned media browser. I use that. on my pc. is there some special media browser for WHS? I use metabrowser for metadata on my pc. Is there a way to put that on WHS and move it off my main PC?
In WHS v1, the OS drive is partitioned during installation with a 20GB C: partition for the OS and a D: partition for the storage pool. The D: partition will be the size of whatever space is left over after the 20GB OS partition. However, with v1 & PP3, no data will be placed on the D: partition until the other storage pool drives are full or you don't have any other storage pool drives in the system. With Vail, this is different because you can remove the storage pool or D: partition from the OS drive.
nitrobass24
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - December 2009
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,465
Justintoxicated
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2002
- Messages
- 14,519
if WHS was installed as a VM on a server 2008 system, would this simplify migration to Vail in any way?
Then again since Vail is based on 2008 it probably would not make much sense to have vail running as a VM down the road?
Then again since Vail is based on 2008 it probably would not make much sense to have vail running as a VM down the road?
If you have enough HDD space, I believe it would make it a much easier migration. You could have both VMs running in parallel and simply migrate contents from one VM to another, adding and removing HDDs from the storage pool almost "on-the-fly". To do that with a regular WHS machine, you would need insane amounts of HDD shuffling, or at least two physical machines (I'm actually dreading the day I upgrade to Vail, and I'm still on a sub-10TB, 4-HDD WHS... It WON'T be pretty).
Virtualizing a machine is all about ease of use, not making sense. If you have a VM, you can port it to just about ANY hardware without a hitch, complete server reinstall, migration or "let's hope this new hardware I am transferring the main OS drive for my WHS doesn't cause issues with the installation" headaches. And WHS is only an example, it applies to just about any machine you need/want to virtualize.
nitrobass24
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - December 2009
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,465
All data will be duplicated
Just to clarify that, yes, all data will be duplicated as soon as the "demigrator" service runs. This service works by checking which folders have duplication on, and making sure every file (well, more each data block, since AFAIK recurring duplicated data blocks will only get one common duplicated copy - unless I'm confusing DE with the backup service -, but whatever, the end result is still the same, you get your files copied to one more drive) inside those folders gets a duplicate file somewhere else, as well as a correctly-configured tombstone. That way, if something bad happens, you can get it back.
But, as nitro said, everything will get duplicated, not only those added after duplication is enabled.