For those that may want to dabble. Is it possible for an average Jake to download a beta or RC version? I didn't see anything obvious in the links supplied. Just talk of the RTM.

You have to register to be part of Windows Connect and go here (https://connect.microsoft.com/WindowsHomeServer?wa=wsignin1.0) to register. Since it is RTM, I am not sure if you can get the beta/RC1 any longer.

I believe you needed to sign up for the WHS Beta program and/or be a part of MSDN to get a copy of WHS. Also, MS Partner's also have access to it.

GQUEUE, interesting article on drive reliability. I will still take my chances on RAID5 plus a backup. The conclusion is most interesting, "these results validate the Google File System’s central redundancy concept: forget RAID, just replicate the data three times." I guess this invalidates RAID5, RAID1, RAID10 and WHS philosophies. :confused: I doubt most people will consider Google's approach. I do have multiple backups of some data though, probably more than 3 for a few items. Then there is the stuff that isn't backed up yet. :eek:

..I will still take my chances on RAID5 plus a backup. as would I. I don't think it discounts the redundancy within RAID, but rather changes our perspective in terms of risk. Previously, it was thought to be a virtual impossibility to have 2 drives in a RAID go down simultaneously. But I've seen this in the field a bit too often to be simply coincidence, so the research backs up what I've seen. It also goes to validate more recent backup schemes such as disk-to-disk-to-tape for large storage arrays since it encourages multiple copies of the data.

Let us not forget that RAIDs are also about performance as well as data security.

Rather than 2 drives going down simultaneously, what's more likely to have happened is that one drive went down, but nobody noticed. Then a 2nd drive went down, causing data inaccessibility. THEN somebody noticed :)

All in All ... we always seem to forget who this is targeted at ...

In a "business" environment, all data is backed up to redundent hard drives or tape. So, if you have a two drive failure and your entire 5TB of data is wiped out, restore from tha backups after replacing the drives.

In a home environment, there are usually no backups. Who can afford redundent 5TB array? Who can afford tape drives and tapes to do backups. Remember J6P is running the show here! This applies whether you are running WHS, Server 2003, XP Pro, Linux, etc. Raid-5 without proper backups is a bad idea in that a 2 drive failure risks your entire dataset!

Replication is the only way to go for max data protection when no backup are being done.

In WHS, the OS insures that all files that are to be replicated are stored on separate hard drives. If one drive goes down, no data loss, simples replicates the data as required ... without down time.

With a two drive failure, only thoes files where the primary and secondary copies are on each Hd will be loss. Let's say in a 6 x 500gb array, the chances of that happening are very low. At least the entire dataset is not loss.

With RAID-5, if the controller dies, Computer dies, etc etc fails, you could still loss the entire array. Again without backups, you are kinda f.... you know want I mean.

With WHS replication, all the drive a normal NTFS formatted hard drives. So if a hardware failure such as MB dying etc, I simply get a new machine, Install WHS, then all the drives one by one and copy the data over before adding to the storage pool. Nothing is lost!

With RAID-5, if the controller dies, Computer dies, etc etc fails, you could still loss the entire array. Again without backups, you are kinda f.... you know want I mean.

BHoward is right. J6P is not going to be at all interested in having to learn anything beyond where is the power button and who do I call when the green light turns red.

Also, as I read through his post, I had flashbacks to the first networking and server admin classes from back in 1993/94. The primary thing that was referenced was the fact that with proprietary disk formats(Those that are laid sown by striping based RAID) , the only TRUE redundant setup is one that also has two separate controllers. So, basically for RAID 5, you would have to go to RAID 5+1/1+5.

Please lets try and keep on topic which is Windows HOME server.


Anyone heard pricing on software since Microsoft seems to have said they would sell it separately for do-it-yourselfers?

Hugh

I am not sure what you want to discuss about WHS in this thread??

Any way, WD is going to release energy-efficient hard drive soon ... read about it here (http://www.westerndigital.com/en/company/releases/PressRelease.asp?release={B8B1AE34-48A4-481B-89A9-837DD374C8D6})

Pricing is rumoured to be around $120 to $150 for OEM. You must buy hardware (ie MB/HD/VIDEO) to qualify.

Most companies are working on turn-key solution as well

I am not sure what you want to discuss about WHS in this thread??

product features, pricing, feedback from beta testers, availability, how it works, remote access, firewall implementation, hardware requirements, optimal hardware configuration etc.

optimal hardware configuration etc.

See, that is funny!!!

That is pretty much what was being discussed already!!! What happened was that we all started to focus on the drive subsystem so much that it turned into a RAID debate.

and you yourself said "Off topic on RAID..."

Teeheehee... :p

I totally forgot about that comment...

Well then, to wrap up RAID and drives, I say if you are building new, get a board with RAID 1 (Hard to avoid) and use that with two large drives x2 (Most boards that have RAID 1 lately, have 4 SATAs on the RAID). That way you have simple RAID 1 (Which does not use an exotic disk format) and you let the replication of WHS do what effectively works out to a RAID 0 stripe of your RAID 1 pairs. For the average home user, nesting RAID level is not fun so this would be as simple as it gets.

Beyond storage, the hardware requirements are so scant, one could build a box using as simple of a setup as a VIA EPIA series board. With that, there is not a whole lot else to discuss. Perhaps what network card is better than another for setups where there is a lot of traffic on and off the WHS box.

That way you have simple RAID 1 (Which does not use an exotic disk format) and you let the replication of WHS do what effectively works out to a RAID 0 stripe of your RAID 1 pairs. For the average home user, nesting RAID level is not fun so this would be as simple as it gets.


WHS does not work like that at all. That would be bad advice for anyone using WHS Drive Extender system.

MS recommends against any raid system being using (raid 0,1,5 or 10). The extended system needs to know about each individual drive so that it can perform it's replication and drive balancing function properly.

Here is my setup if I was building new

CPU ........... Intel Dual Core E2140 ($103)
MB .............Asus P5B Deluxe ($199)
Case ...........Antec SLK3000B ($57)
PSU ............Seasonic M12 Series 500W Modular ($145)
Video ..........ASUS EN7100 GS512/TD/128M ($48)
RAM ...........Corsair 2x1GB PC2-5300 ValueSelect DDR2 ($102)
Hard Drives .. 4 x 500gb WD (new low power ones would be nice) ($448)
DVD Drive .... Any

Total ......... $1130 ..... Not too bad for hardware for a 2TB system

Use any Keyboard/Mouse/Monitor for setup and then Disconnect

Would also get a 550w UPS and WHS to set the final price at around $1500.

Easy to add another TB if required.

Bhoward,

So to try and summarize:


WHS does NOT use RAID and does not recommend a RAID system of any type;
WHS replicates the files that you designate across multiple physical drives.


This means that you need a minimum of two physical drives if you wish to replicate your files.

It seems to me that:


If you use your WHS solely as a back-up for one or more standalone computers then you may not want to replicate since you'll have a copy of the file on the computer and WHS;

If you use your WHS as a network file server then you would want to replicate;

If you use your WHS as a combination network file server and back-up device then you would want to, replicate the files are that are on the network file server portion, but not replicate those files that are simply backups from a standalone PC;

If you WHS as a network file server then you will want to back-up the WHS system which means more hardware;


Make sense?

In response

- Raid is BAD
- Exactly

And then

- this is true ... as backups are managed by WHS.
- This is true for any files you want saved. In my case, my movies are not replicated because I can re-create them
- This is true. Most people copy personal files from their PC to the server for backups. This is no longer necessary. You can do one of two things

Let the backup automatically take copies of your files
Store you files on a replicated share. This could easily be done by re-mapping your local directories to the WHS shares.

- This is not true. If you replacate your data, then chances of a dual drive failure are small. Remember, this product is intended for home use where there would be no backup of the server. The WHS design team have studied the probablities and replication was the most straight forward solution.

I was thinking more about catastrophe (home burns down, basement flooded etc.) for wanting to back-up the WHS.

Interesting discussion here. How different is this M Home Server to the HP Media Vault?