Can I Run Windows Home Server Using This?

[Twitch22]

Hello all.

Title pretty much says it all. I'm looking to run Windows Home Server in a media/file server box that'll be up and running 24/7. It'll be sitting in my garage, patched directly into my Leviton Home Network junction box.

My only question is, can I run this box using the following hardware:

- AMD Athlon XP 2600
- 2 Gigs of DDR-400 RAM
- Soyo Dragon 2 v2.0 Motherboard (Via KT-880 chipset)
- Asus GeForce 4 Ti-4400 AGP card
- Raidmax 400-watt PSU
- Lite-On 48x CD-ROM Burner

Just have to pick out a case and a Socket-A heatsink. I was thinking of building my wife a box for her office using this stuff (she only does the web/e-mail/MS Office stuff), but I'm itching to try and build an Atom-based box, so going to try one out for her.

Thanks for any opinions or suggestions!

Hope y'all are having a safe, joyous Holiday Season!

Twitch

 

[BD2003]

Yep, thatll be more than enough to run it.

Ive had issues with WHS though, the HDD scheme they use is a bit wacky at times, and its not exactly built for performance. If you dont plan on using it for backup or web access, I'd recommend plain ol' XP or Vista unless you forsee yourself adding lots and lots of storage over time.

 

[RebateMonger]

You'll need to install a DVD drive (reader) for the install process. You can remove it later if you want.

I have no idea what kind of drivers are available for that motherboard in Server 2003. Frankly, though, you could probably run with whatever generic drivers WHS comes up with. It probably won't make any difference in perceptible performance. WHS also asks for a minimum of a 1 GHz P4 processor. I don't kow what that is in the AMD world.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
You'll need to install a DVD drive (reader) for the install process. You can remove it later if you want.

I have no idea what kind of drivers are available for that motherboard in Server 2003. Frankly, though, you could probably run with whatever generic drivers WHS comes up with. It probably won't make any difference in perceptible performance. WHS also asks for a minimum of a 1 GHz P4 processor. I don't kow what that is in the AMD world.

If that's Willamette cycles, a slot A Athlon at 600MHz is more than enough! :laugh:

Seriously the CPU is fine. I would check the motherboard capacitors around the CPU socket, however. If any of the electrolytics have bulges WATCH OUT!

 

[BD2003]

Yep, CPU makes precious little difference in WHS if it's just being used as a file server.

I highly recommend gigabit ethernet though.

 

[degibson]

Originally posted by: Twitch22
I'm itching to try and build an Atom-based box, so going to try one out for her.

Friendly advice: Don't stick your wife with an Atom.

HW looks fine for a file server to me, BTW. You won't need the burner of course, nor the video card (I'd remove the card to keep the heat down and the pressure off the PSU).

BD2003 is absolutely right about gigE.

 

[BD2003]

The atom in its current state is pretty silly - its a super efficient chip mated to an inefficient chipset. Wait for the next gen thats dual core with a proper chipset. Theres no reason to use an atom in anything but a nettop right now.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: BD2003
Yep, CPU makes precious little difference in WHS if it's just being used as a file server.
I highly recommend gigabit ethernet though.

I disagree, it becomes natural to want to install transcode360 and a few other media servers ON WHS once all your media is there...

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: BD2003
Yep, CPU makes precious little difference in WHS if it's just being used as a file server.
I highly recommend gigabit ethernet though.

I disagree, it becomes natural to want to install transcode360 and a few other media servers ON WHS once all your media is there...

He should still be fine with that cpu or even an atom, I had tversity, orb and playon running on my whs box with an underclocked athlon xp 3000+ , now running on a single core atom box, no problem transcoding/streaming to my 360 on either. I guess what matters most is how many clients you have and what they're doing...I only have a couple clients and the 360 and it's rare more than more than one is doing anything intensive off the WHS box.

 

[dbcooper1]

I built a WHS box with the Intel board with the Atom 330 because unlike the 230, it has GB Ethernet and it seems to do fine. Only has 1 RAM slot but I put a 2GB stick in there and OS on a 120GB drive and two 1TB for data. Just 1 PCI slot and I didn't even use it. Put it in a closet with no monitor or keyboard and it just chugs away; the case doesn't even get warm and it's quite neat as it only has power and Ethernet cables going to it.

 

[RebateMonger]

CPU and related choices are going to depend on what you are going to do with the server. The HP EX470 box, with an anemic CPU and 500 MB of memory, works fine as a file server and backup server for as many accounts as WHS can host (ten). I have these deployed at a couple of sites and they are great.

If you are concerned about energy costs and heat generated, I find the Atom a good deal. I build one recently (actually an MSI Wind box with single-core CPU included) and it's been fine. 30 Watts power consumption.

If you are intending to do CPU-intensive stuff, then a faster CPU and more memory would be a reasonable choice, although they'll burn more power. Personally, I only use WHS for backups and some minor file storage. I wouldn't install file- or CPU-intensive software on my own WHS because I'm still concerned about the durability of the Drive Extender technology and the integrity of my backups is more important than anothing else that WHS does for me. MS spent a lot of time going over the Drive Extender and, hopefully, it's solid now. I don't want to be the one to find out that it's not.

 

[Twitch22]

Hey Guys!

Great advice from everyone! Thanks so much!

My plan for this project is just as a stand-alone box for media storage and back-ups. Most CPU intensive tasks will be done on the client rigs, then the finished files stored on the server for archiving and streaming. Looks like I will have about 7 clients: My LAN Box, gaming rig, (2) DVR/HT PCS, wife's PC, Xbox 360 & HT receiver.

Looks like I'll be able to squeeze more life outta' this hardware! Thanks, again, everyone!

Twitch

 

[Raduque]

I run my WHS on a celeron 2.53ghz and that AMD cpu kicks this Celeron's ass.

The Drive Extender Migrator would be happier with the fastest CPU you can give it, but it'll still work fine on slower ones.

 

[JesseKnows]

Originally posted by: dbcooper1
I built a WHS box with the Intel board with the Atom 330 because unlike the 230, it has GB Ethernet and it seems to do fine. Only has 1 RAM slot but I put a 2GB stick in there and OS on a 120GB drive and two 1TB for data. Just 1 PCI slot and I didn't even use it. Put it in a closet with no monitor or keyboard and it just chugs away; the case doesn't even get warm and it's quite neat as it only has power and Ethernet cables going to it.

I had had bad experience with WHS booting from a smaller drive and other drives containing much space. I believe the boot drive is used to stage data out to the rest of the drive system. If your 120GB drive fills up, the transfer of data to the other drives may not be efficient and you could get "out of space" with a lot of space left.

See e.g. here, I just Googled for whs out of space.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: JesseKnows

Originally posted by: dbcooper1
I built a WHS box with the Intel board with the Atom 330 because unlike the 230, it has GB Ethernet and it seems to do fine. Only has 1 RAM slot but I put a 2GB stick in there and OS on a 120GB drive and two 1TB for data. Just 1 PCI slot and I didn't even use it. Put it in a closet with no monitor or keyboard and it just chugs away; the case doesn't even get warm and it's quite neat as it only has power and Ethernet cables going to it.

I had had bad experience with WHS booting from a smaller drive and other drives containing much space. I believe the boot drive is used to stage data out to the rest of the drive system. If your 120GB drive fills up, the transfer of data to the other drives may not be efficient and you could get "out of space" with a lot of space left.

See e.g. here, I just Googled for whs out of space.

Yep, your limited by the size of your second partition (the d drive) on the whs server boot volume. Files must fit there first before they are 'moved' to their real storage. There was some issues with this and there was a recent patch from MS to help manage this better.

 

[boomhower]

It is not intuitive but you will want to use one of the terabyte drives to install the OS on. WHS does not use RAID so matching up the terabyte drives is not neccassary. WHS will store the data on the 1TB drive and then move it to either the other 1TB drive or the 120GB drive. Just let it do its thing.