A friend asked me about setting up a WHS for him.

I see advertised
Microsoft Windows Home Server 2011 64BIT OEM DVD usually for about $50 to $60.

Then I see a 32 Bit version of Windows Home server for $110


I thought WHS 2011 was 64 bit only?

Is the 32 Bit an older version of WHS or what's the difference and why the big price difference.

Thanks in advance.

I see 32 bit WHS but it's out of stock and it's not 2011. I also see references to WHS 2011 being 64bit only. Any 32 bit versions for sale must be old stock.

FWIW, I would only use 64bit versions of Windows unless there is a good reason not to. That would be 32 bit hardware or mission critical software that won't run on 64bit.

WHS (code named Vail)
WHS 2011 (code-named Quattro)

Windows Home Server 2011 was released on 6 April 2011.[1] It follows the release of Power Pack 3 for the aging Windows Home Server (equivalent to client edition service packs) which added support for Windows 7 to Windows Home Server. Windows Home Server 2011 is considered a "major release".[3] Windows Home Server 2011 only supports x86-64 hardware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Home_Server_2011

Can't say why the big price difference but they say in that link there are no new features.

WHS (code named Vail)
WHS 2011 (code-named Quattro)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Home_Server_2011

Can't say why the big price difference but they say in that link there are no new features.

A couple corrections. WHS 2011 (aka WHS v2) is code named Vail. Quattro was the original WHS v1.

WHS 2011 is only available as a 64bit OS, but it does provide 32bit client connector software. The 64bit only part means that your computer that will act as a server needs to be a 64bit machine.

So why would anyone pay twice as much for 32 bit version? 64 bit processor have been with us for quite a few years.

2 words: Drive Extender. Microsoft's removal (didn't implement it) of this technology in WHS 2011 caused interest in the product line to completely dry up. Basically, no one wanted it anymore after that announcement causing the pricing on it to plummet and everyone to stick with the original.

Yeah, I'm quite familiar with the removal of Drive Extender. So essentially, the massive price difference is simply to encourage sales of the WHS 2011?

I would guess that the removal of Drive Extender make devices like Drobo, with similar functionality, more appealing. Prices are falling for small NAS devices so that makes WHS systems even less appealing.

Personally, I agree with MS. I don't see the appeal of using older drives in a NAS. I've been down the route of using many smaller drives in a NAS and it just doesn't make sense. It does not provide much storage for the cost and effort and it wastes a lot of energy. The reliability of those older drives can also be an issue. It appears that most consumers do not agree. The automatic mirroring and redundancy feature is useful but RAID0, mirroring software or automated backup software can accomplish the same thing for less money.

@ScaryBob

I personally use 4 1.5TB drives in software RAID5 for my NAS and plan on making it the backup to a much larger 3TB drive-based hardware RAID6 array but even at the corporate level I can guarentee that any unRAID or SAN user would disagree with you. And I can't say I can really disagree with them either considering my growing supply of "outdated" 320GB, 500GB, and 750GB drives. Sometimes I have to remind myself to not just think of the up-front cost savings involved in sticking them all in a drive pool instead of buying new drives and putting the old ones in the closet.

Just to clarify. Under Windows Home Server, you can still use hard drives of different sizes, they just aren't pooled. Am I correct?

Yes, and you would have several logical drives instead of one. Unless you have hardware RAID which is what Microsoft recommends with WHS 2011 (and really, almost every motherboard controller has at least in some limited regard) in which case JBOD should work with varying sized drives but offers no redundancy or speed increase.

I can't say I can really disagree with them either considering my growing supply of "outdated" 320GB, 500GB, and 750GB drives.
Case 1:
A RAID5 array of 4x320GB drives. Capacity 960GB (nominal.) Energy use about 40 watts or $40+ a year to operate. Noise level, high. It also required a third party RAID controller at a cost of $150.

That was replaced with a single 1TB "green" hard drive. Capacity, 1000GB. Energy use about 5 watts or $5+ a year to operate. Noise level, low. The third party RAID controller was reused at a saving of $150. The 320GB drives were sold for $15 each. It could be argued that this was just as reliable as the RAID5 array but with numerous other benefits.

Case 2:
I also had a server with 11x500GB drives. It was big, noisy, heavy and used lots of power. Maintenance was constant and it had multiple points of failure in the way of SATA cards and the high number of drives. Capacity was 5TB.

That was replaced with a NAS containing 6x2TB drives and a motherboard with 6 SATA connectors. It's small, quiet, uses very little power and maintenance is very low. It's faster and capacity is 10TB. It also has far fewer points of possible failure.

Thus ends my argument against using software like WHS that allows the use of legacy drives. They are just not worth it in operating cost, size, noise or reliability. There are lots of people who want those older, smaller drives. Several older drives can often be sold for close to the price of a new, energy efficient, quiet, more reliable, high(er) capacity drive. Plus, you don't have to pay for or maintain extra hardware and software like WHS.

Thus ends my argument against using software like WHS that allows the use of legacy drives.

Did anyone ask?

Both MS and Nineball raised the issue.