Tranquil PC

[Stringent]

Are they any good? Been looking for a low power, quiet server replacement for home.

[Saracen]

I don't know, but I'll be watching any opinions offered with great interest. I'm looking at them myself, and maybe the HP one. Or I'll just give in a build a WHS on existing kit.

[Funkstar]

These have cropped up a few times as SlimServer/SqueezeCenter servers.

Have a search on Slim Devices : Community : Forums

[Stringent]

The HP one does seem quite good, although I am not totally sold on WHS. I like the idea of it being fanless and silent. Also I think the tranquil uses less power than the HP, but the HP comes with more 'gimmicks' bolted onto WHS. Think the HP was £450 for the 1TB version.

TBH, I'd probably load my copy of Win2003 SBE on it. I'd prefer RAID 0 as well for the moment, and before anyone suggests a NAS box, if I use a proper RAID on a PC I can recover it should a drive fail. Most NAS boxes have t obe sent away then they loose your data, or so I have been led to believe ...

[Funkstar]

It all depends if they use a constom RAID setup.

The Thecus devices for example, are standard Linux boxes using standard RAID configurations. I've heard of guys pulling all 5 drives out of their N5200s and recovering data using bootable linux CD's etc.

WHS has a nasty file coruption bug right now that MS aren't fixing until June.

[Saracen]

As I understand it, that nasty bug involves running files direct from the WHS box using certain applications. I agree it's nasty, and shocking, but that isn't how I'd be using it so I'm not that bothered about it.

I'm not totally convinced about WHS either. It has a lot going for it and appears to suit my needs, but ...... erm .....

Most of the HP bolt-ons don't interest me either. And yes, the Tranquil machines seem to be quiet (not a factor as it'll be in it's own server room), and lower power (which appeals to me). But they're not as expandable.

[peterb]

<<< snip>>>

I'd prefer RAID 0 as well for the moment, and before anyone suggests a NAS box, if I use a proper RAID on a PC I can recover it should a drive fail.

<<<<<<snip>>>>>>

RAID 0 doesn't give any resliance if a drive fails. For that you need RAID 1 (or higher).

[shaithis]

Not only that but it significantly increases your chances of data loss.

Either drive fails and you lose the contents of both.

[Stringent]

Hang on I get confuzzled. Which ever is mirrored, I mean that one! Ahh it is RAID 1. Always get the two mixed up. Its like the 34th and 35th rules of acquisition.

[Funkstar]

data protection:

RAID-0 = Nada, nothing, zero
RAID-1 = A bit
RAID-5 = A bit more
RAID-6 = Even More

You get the idea

[Stringent]

RAID-10 = W00T!

[Funkstar]

Nah

RAID 5+1: mirror striped set with distributed parity (some manufacturers label this as RAID 53)

RAID - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia