LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI'm just glad that my v1 does all I need it to do, I wasn't planning on an upgrade anyway. I think killing off DE will kill off WHS, being able to upgrade disks by just buying new ones was the main reason I have WHS, no fuss.
I'm just glad that my v1 does all I need it to do, I wasn't planning on an upgrade anyway. I think killing off DE will kill off WHS, being able to upgrade disks by just buying new ones was the main reason I have WHS, no fuss.
□ΞVΞ□
Everyone here seems technically minded, so where is the problem with maintaining the RAID array?
You all moan that iPhone is locked by Apple and want more freedom so you go Android, fair enough.
This is where I'm stuck in understanding why you all went for WHS in the first place?
What's the point of WHS IF you have to double the storage to have your data redundant?
My backup box runs 5x1.5TB in RAID5 and sorry I'm not changing that over to WHS and buying extra FIVE drives to have my data redundant.
Simply, I cannot justify the overhead. Like I said earlier if I wanted RAID1, I would create RAID1 array without WHS being involve BUT there is no point if you have few TBs of data, too much wasted space.
I don't have a problem in maintaining my array, decent RAID card will offer online migration/expansion options and the performance is far superior to what WHS can offer [assumption], if WHS can saturate two aggregated (802.3ad) 1Gbps links then I take this point back.
DE is probably a good thing, for my mate who hasn't got a clue what RAID is - hence me recommending him to go for Drobo, similar concept but not as 'thick' in utilizing the available space.
My Blog => http://adriank.org
The point is flexibility.Originally Posted by spoon_
- You don't have to have the whole thing mirrored, like on RAID,
you choose on a folder by folder basis.- Throw another drive in there to add storage.
- Pull a drive out at any time and read the data in a usb caddy.
Without all that - what USP does WHS have left ? Still has the network drive imaging
- so any PC on the network is backed up automatically (with nice single instance deduplication),
-files can be restored as normal, but you can also do a bare metal restore via a CD
its still worth having on the network just for that.
I think its an astonishingly bad move by microsoft though - but WHS has taken sales from Server2008 /SBS
despite what snooty might think about my flippant comment of WHS been RAID for those who are too ignorant or too lazy (there is NOTHING wrong with been lazy so long as you don't loose functionality) I'm a WHS user
The point is DE is not about performance, has no specific hardware costs involved. You can span drives across anything, with ease without having to lock up the machine.
Rather than replication been based on the volume you are using, its based on the file. So rather than physical location its more the role of the share. This is better and more natural to most peoples requirements.
Also its not as if you can't turn it off if you don't want it, if you've got a RAID5 hardware controller say.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Another failure isn't that unlikely when you're beating the disks to a pulp whilst making them rebuild.
And how on earth can file and folder duplication fail to tolerate one disk failure?
As for backup, as you point out that's a moot point.
Fair enough, thought you were swanning around calling us all a bunch of idiotsdespite what snooty might think about my flippant comment of WHS been RAID for those who are too ignorant or too lazy (there is NOTHING wrong with been lazy so long as you don't loose functionality) I'm a WHS user
Who here wants to spend more time managing a server at home? The point of WHS and DE is simple replicated storage, on multiple types of storage devices. Expanding live RAID arrays does have inherent risks.
The move to drop DE in Vail is a) aimed at cosying up to OEMs that want to sell more expensive RAID systems; b) dropping the 'headache' of future-proofing DE since they obviously hit some tricky technical issues that would have taken more time and $$$ to solve - and they want to get the product out the door now; and c) limiting WHS poaching Server 2008 SBS and Storage Server sales from Small Businesses.
WHS v1 with DE = more time I can spend with my family.
WHS v2 Vail = Fail.
I'm not against RAID, I use RAID 1 for my home PC's storage LUN (Win7 ultimate). WHS is effectively my backup of my RAID 1 array, my Squeezebox Server, and my remote access gateway when away from home. Simple, low cost, and next to zero management.
Aha!despite what snooty might think about my flippant comment of WHS been RAID for those who are too ignorant or too lazy (there is NOTHING wrong with been lazy so long as you don't loose functionality) I'm a WHS user
....
Another secret WHS user outed.
Nobody is suggesting that WHS suits all users or all situations. Not everybody has several TBs of data, and not everybody wants to lash out on good (and typically, therefore, expensive) RAID 5 controllers.
What's the core point of RAID 5? It's not inherently about data redundancy but about system resilience, and user uptime. And, for instance, anyone that has a need for user uptime to the point of RAID 5 is an idiot if they rely on RAID for backup. So they should have, and I'd assume you do have, a backup strategy in place.
WHS and DE is aimed at a different situation. For a start, it's aimed at a situation, be it home or small business, where that degree of resilience isn't necessary. It's aimed at be in easy to use, easy to install, and easy to grow, and grow organically at that. In part, it is the backup strategy, because it'll back up connected clients .... and doesn't need DE for that. But in part, it's about data duplication by keeping copies of files on a separate HD.
Is that a belt-and-braces backup strategy? No. But is it enough for many users? Yup. Any backup strategy has it's vulnerabilities and it's always about a balance between cost and effort on one side, and the value and irreplaceability of the data the other.
It's about the right tool for the right job, and the nature of the tool varies with the nature of the job.
You don't, necessarily. Not everything on a WHS box has to be duplicated. That's part of the "nature of the job" .... and part of the appeal. That, and growing organically simply by adding an extra drive when you need extra space.
WHS was not intended to be an industrial strength solution, but a tool for a specific type of job. And without DE, it won't do the job that many adherents use it for.
So it isn't the right solution for your needs. That'll be why you aren't using it, then. Fair enough. But it is the right tool for lots of us, and a RAID 5 array is, often, simply not.
Having only just looked at the Product Overviews for Windows SBS '7' and 'Aurora', I'm assuming some implementation will still be implemented in these products?
Having not read in-depth about these yet, I'm not sure how similar the technologies will be though?
If that's the case, it almost seems strange to take DE away from a Home Server offering, where RAID is even more likely to be shunned, yet keep this in an SMB solution?
The whole point is that I don't want to manage a RAID array, because life is too short do that sort of crap if no-one is paying me for it.
What I want to do is be able to set up a bunch of folders and tag some of them as being Important (make sure they are duplicated) and leave the rest (stuff I can easily re-rip, re-download, or don't really care about).
Then I just use the thing, and every now and then it moans about needing another drive, and I plug in another terabyte or two using SATA, IDE, eSATA or USB3. All the stuff I care about is duplicated to separate drives, all the rest is just shoved in wherever there is a bit of free space.
Every now and then snapshot the duplicated (Important) folders to an external drive and leave it in my drawer at work for a bit of offsite backup, and the job is done.
The great thing about DE is that it is (was) content-focused rather than being obsessed with cards and ports and drives and whatnot, which is unnecessary for a consumer environment.
Oh please, you people talk as if running RAID is rocket science. It's really not. Even software RAID is simple, and that's the most complex of the lot.
It's not rocket science, but it adds a layer of effort that for many situations where WHS/DE is a good solution, it simply isn't necessary, cost-effective or even desirable.
What effort? If a disk dies, you replace it, walk away, and the array automatically rebuilds, job done. What happens when the primary disk dies on a DE volume? The system is dead. That means bringing it into PC world if you're the audience you describe, a complete system reinstall if you're not, add-on software reinstalled, users and shares to reset up, and the files will have to be reduplicated as well. And that doesn't even begin to address the underlying complexity of such a messy layer.
I'm about to drop a 500GB drive into my server because I've got one kicking around and I'm a little bit short of space.
That's impossible with RAID.
oh and pull it out once you've got that larger 1tb drive handy..... don't forget that.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
