Time to replace my storage

[neonplanet40]

I wouldnt mind actually building my own but the thecus is far too slow for my liking to be honest.

Mark

[Saracen]

..... Which implies that it is a RAID system (although as it is aimed at the home non-tekkie market it doesn't use the word raid, but just says that teh data is 'shared across multiple drives' (which sounds like raid to me) However I think it is a bit more versatile as I think you can set up raid partitions, so you don't have to raid entire discs (unless you want to) You can add e-sata discs for backup too.

No, it isn't RAID, though it mirrors (excuse the pun) a lot of the functionality .... but in a rather different way.

It's designed to give a lot of the functionality of RAID, but to be a lot less obscure in use.

As I understand it, if you have one drive, WHS configures it as a 20GB OS partition, and the rest as "data".

If you add multiple drives, it treats them ALL as an extension to the data partition. It doesn't strictly mirror, or stripe, as RAID does, but you can configure folders to be automatically replicated (if you have multiple drives), in which case it keeps the contents on those folders on multiple physically separate drives.

So, as I understand it, you can configure a WHS server to have areas that are "mirrored" by the duplication, but also areas that aren't. In my case, for instance, I have a "library" of technical documents. I want them available anywhere on my network, but I have master copies on DVD. So if I have a single copy on the server and the HD dies, I bolt in another HD, and copy them back from DVD.

But my contact manager files, accounting data, email folders, etc, I want replicated.

So you have the versatility and configurability inherent in that,, but don't have the strict mirroring benefits of hardware RAID. There's at least an element of pro and con about it.

And another benefit is that the WHS version allows you to add hard drives either internally, or via USB2 OR e-Sata. USB1.1 works, but is strongly advised against on performance grounds, and for USB2, one physical drive per USB controller is suggested, simply to avoid a bottleneck in the controller.

But, other than that, whether the drives are internal, USB or firewire is transparent - they still appear as part of one big data drive. Drives can be added or removed simply, don't need to be the same size or technology, and as part of the Wizard that removes drives, data on them will be transferred to another drive and any 'duplicated' folders will be moved to another drive preserving the duplication, subject only to there being enough space on another physically separate drive to do it.

In other words, it APPEARS to be a very friendly, easy to use system designed to aid actual use, and to obscure the technical aspects of doing it.

This is ALL the subject of quite a lot of reading, and not personal experience as I don't have a WHS system ..... yet.

Oh, and the technology used to do it is MS's "Drive Extender" technology There's a fairly useful Technical Brief (which, clearly, is also a marketing document) on the MS website if you're interested.

Though the technology is different, in many (though not all) ways, it's better than RAID. It does depend, though, on exactly what you're after.

Also, MS firmly recommend that you do NOT try to implement WHS on top of a hardware RAID subsystem, precisely because of the way Drive Extender works.

[peterb]

Thanks for that Saracen - I think it actually uses a variant of Dynamic Drives to achieve it - but brilliant explanation! (Perhaps I should have said 'RAID-like')

[neonplanet40]

So guys if i wanted to build a server mainly for data storage and backup what hardware should i look at getting? Also what os (windows home server? can get it off my dad from work) Do you's know of any cases which have 7or more 3.5 inch drive bays but doesnt cost the earth?

Thanks for your help guys its very educational to say the least and im learning alot so this will be my first server and as i am a newb you will have to excuse my newbie questions

Thanks

Mark

[Saracen]

Well, there's a couple of ways of looking at that.

Traditionally, servers often have pretty heavyweight specs, multiple processors, ECC RAM, etc, but that's for a very different environment. If you've got loads of users and a heavy simultaneous demand, you throw a high spec at it.

But for something like WHS, it's really aimed at low user numbers (10 or less, IIRC), so it doesn't need to have that kind of kick. But, if it's going to be used properly, it's really intended to be available all the time, so there's no point (IMHO) in throwing a heavy spec at it because all you do is increasing power consumption, running costs, heat generation and therefore fan noise.

So it's a balance. You don't want it underpowered so that it's slow when doing backups or file transfer, but you don't want four Xeons either.

Take a look at Tranquilpc. That's a UK company building pre-built WHS servers. The spec is pretty nominal .... but it's small, quiet low-power cases.

So, on the one hand, you could use something like that of the modest-spec Semprons of the HP box ..... or you could just use an old-ish PC you happen to have laying around.

Also, do you really need seven 3.5" drive bays? I mean, if it had four, and you used 7509GB or 1TB drives, you've got 2TB to 4TB. And you can always add USB2 or e-Sata drives if needed.

And, if you can get away with 2 or 3 drives, you'll keep noise (from fans) down too. That's one of the reasons I like the look of WHS - easy expandability.

And if you do need lots of drives, Scan (for instance) do a variety of Sata cages, where you'll get four to six 3.5" bays into two or three 5.25" bays. So anything with several 5.25" bays could be used. Much depends if you want the "re-use what you've already got" philosophy, or the neatness of the HP or especially Tranquil options.

[peterb]

Well I'm not a windows fanboy but home server (if you can get it for nowt) looks OK if you are familiar with that environment. However if you buy something like the HP, the whole thing is pretty much plug and play - and it looks pretty good too - and its small. As Saracen says, do you really need more than 4 bays? With 1 Tbyte disks becoming more widely available that gives you up to 4TB online (depending on how you configure it. Personally, I would (and do) use a Linux distro for my server using RAID 1 and backing up to tape, but my online storage needs are fairly modest - mainly MP3 and JPG so I get away with about 350GB online. If you are using the server to stream video, then the storage requirements will be that much higher. (Sorry - statement of the blindingly obvious)

[Saracen]

peterb (indirectly) raises a point I should have mentioned - some of the features of WHS are ONLY available to client PCs running Windows (XP and Vista, IIRC).

Basic filesharing etc is available to all OS clients, but the smart auto-backup isn't .... at least, not as default. I don't know if it can beset up manually, but I have my doubts. It's really aimed at home or pretty small business users with a handful of Windows PCs.

[neonplanet40]

Ok guys im going to buy hardware today and make my own Windows Home Server. I have found a few guides on microsofts website so i will give it a go and hope for the best

Im not quite sure what hardware spec i should be looking at. I know i will have 5x 500gb HDD's (i already have 2 and they are the best bang for buck at the minute). I also want to run Raid 5 on them if at all possibble in case a drive would die in the future. 1TB disks are jsut too expensive and my budget is £500. Will manly be for file Transfer/backup and media steaming (i want it to hold all my music/video files etc (about 1.5TB) and transfer them to my computer or ps3 etc.

Any last minute advice?

Saracen and peterb thanks very much for your help. I was going to buy a prebuilt system but want to try it myself and learn as i go along.

[dave87]

If you are going the Windows Home Server route they recommend you don't install it on a RAID setup. Best to do it with single disks and then let WHS configure your drives.

When installing WHS it will wipe any disk you add to its storage system, so use the new drives and then add in your other drives after copying the data across.

(the above two are from limited personal experience with the Beta)

[neonplanet40]

Thanks very much for that info dave87

[Saracen]

As dave87 said, RAID and WHS don't mix well. Take a good look at post #18 above. I know it's a bit long, but I've tried to explain why there's a lot of overlap between WHS and RAID in terms of functionality (though WHS does a LOT that RAID doesn't even try to). But they go about it in different ways. If you set WHS and Drive Extender up properly, you're pretty much covered against data loss through drive failure, but they aren't quite the same and you'd be well-advised to decide or either/or before buying, as everything I've seen suggests that they do not play at all well together.

[neonplanet40]

Sorry Saracen i had to read the post a few times for it to sink in. I understand now what you meant. It seems to be very good and alot easier than raid which is great!

Could you help me in terms of what hardware i should be looking at? I know i dont need top end kit and a simple grapghics card with a dvi or vga slot. Maybe 1gig of ram and a possible low end dual core pentium? I will also prob need a sata card if i wish to install more HDD's than the motherboard supports.

Thank you

Mark