WHS 2011 questions

[jaydee]

I've got an HP Proliant N40L, with two 1TB HDD's (Samsung F3). Originally I was going to have this setup with Ubuntu 11.10 Server, which a good friend helped me setup (he did most of the work). Something broke though, my log-in credentials are bad, and not everything is even setup the way I wanted it yet, but I was just thinking, should I just lay down $50 for WHS 2011 and configure it myself and not be reliant on someone else?

Hardware specs:
CPU: AMD Turion II Neo N40L 1.5GHz 2-Core
RAM: 2GB DDR3
HDD: for the OS, my choice of 32GB SSD (OCZ Onyx), or use a partition of the (2) 1TB HDD's I intend on running in RAID 1

Here's what I want to do:
- Host pictures, video, documents, be able to access them via WinXP, Win7, Win8, iPad, Android phone (Android is the least important, could possibly do without)
- Auto backup two Windows computers (one is currently dual-booting XP with Win8 RP, likely ditching XP when Win8 Pro is released)
- Connect a printer that Windows 7/8 and iPad can access.
- Serve video streams to Windows and iPad (specifically want to record OTA TV on Win8, compress to *.mp4, watch via iPad)
- Run two 1TB HDD's in RAID 1 for all pics, vids, docs
- This network is currently not connected to the internet, but it probably will within a year or so, when that happens, I'd like it to serve as a firewall, provide parental controls for the whole house

So my questions are:
1. Is there any reason I should go with another OS for my needs (for under $100)?
2. Can I do all the above with WHS 2011 / is anything above fairly difficult? I've never configured a server before.
3. Will it be a problem to not have it actively connected to the internet (to recieve updates and such)?
4. I'm on the very bottom end of the "minimum system requirements", is that going to slow anything down?
5. Which HDD should I use? Is it any benefit to have the OS installed on a small SSD rather than mechanical?

Thanks!
jaydee

 

[almer]

WHS 2011 is a good system for what you need. Not having it connected to the internet will cause it not to monitor if your computers are ap to date, which may not be a great problem for you. Configuring it is not difficult at all. You can always add more memory, which is not pricey and quite easy to install. I have exactly this system (with 8GB memory though) running in my home and so far it is great. I did not want to invest in an SSD drive. WHS 2011 is not HD intence OS, but you can decide on your own.

 

[thestrangebrew1]

I did the same thing initially back in Jan. Built a new server to stream media have access to files from various devices throughout the house as well as over the internet when I'm out of town. I started with Ubuntu and set up shares and learned a thing or two. Then, after about 3 wks of use, the shares stopped working. I spent a week trying to figure out and did several installs and try to setup the shares again etc but for the life of me couldn't figure it out. It was as is I completely forgot what I had just done.

My wife was pretty pissed off about how much time I was spending on the server, so I broke down and bought WHS2011. I configured everything I needed to within 1-2 hrs and I was done. I haven't had any problems with it since and I loved how easy it was to setup.

I have the OS installed on a 1tb HDD, it created a 60gb partition I believe. I'd say the only benefit of having it on an ssd is if you'll constantly be rebooting. I leave my server on 24/7 so I didn't feel the need. That's totally up to you. The OS doesn't have drive extender but there are server apps that you can install or purchase to have that functionality. I've only got about 2tbs of storage in my server right now so it's not an issue, but with all the video I shoot of the kids the issue is def. around the corner for me.

 

[mechBgon]

- This network is currently not connected to the internet, but it probably will within a year or so, when that happens, I'd like it to serve as a firewall, provide parental controls for the whole house

I don't think WHS can do that one, someone tell me if I'm wrong and it's secretly an ISA Server as well.

4. I'm on the very bottom end of the "minimum system requirements", is that going to slow anything down?

As I understand it, when one of your client systems streams video from your WHS box, the WHS box has to do the grunt work of encoding it on-the-fly. One stream, maybe not an issue. Three or four at once...? Might be time to run to MicroCenter for one of those $40 Phenom II X4s.

 

[ViRGE]

p.
I have the OS installed on a 1tb HDD, it created a 60gb partition I believe. I'd say the only benefit of having it on an ssd is if you'll constantly be rebooting.

My only opposition to installing the OS on such a large drive is that the only reason you do so is if you intend to also use that drive for file sharing. This certainly works, but it really slows the OS down if it's trying to read and write to the drive to perform OS operations while at the same time that drive is being accessed for file serving purposes.

 

[jaydee]

As I understand it, when one of your client systems streams video from your WHS box, the WHS box has to do the grunt work of encoding it on-the-fly. One stream, maybe not an issue. Three or four at once...? Might be time to run to MicroCenter for one of those $40 Phenom II X4s.

Well, I doubt I'd be streaming videos to multiple devices at the same time. Perhaps video to one device, and music or photos to another, but I don't think that should be a problem. It would be a major investment to go to a Phenom II x4, aside from the CPU, I would need a new mobo, psu, probably RAM and case.

My only opposition to installing the OS on such a large drive is that the only reason you do so is if you intend to also use that drive for file sharing. This certainly works, but it really slows the OS down if it's trying to read and write to the drive to perform OS operations while at the same time that drive is being accessed for file serving purposes.

I've got a spare 32GB SSD, a spare 250GB HDD (that came with the server), and the two 1 TB HDD's, all available for the OS. Maybe I should just go with the 250GB HDD, for the space and keep things off the data drives.

 

[thestrangebrew1]

I'd use the spare 250HDD just in case. If I had a spare smaller 1, I would've used that but I already had the 2 1TBs in hand so I just installed the OS on that. I've got an extra 60gb ssd that isn't doing much. It just has bf3 installed on it, and I don't play it anymore so I may siwtch it out. Just haven't had a lot of time lately.

 

[TheKub]

As I understand it, when one of your client systems streams video from your WHS box, the WHS box has to do the grunt work of encoding it on-the-fly.

Depends on how you are using the word "streams". In most instances other computers will simply be opening the file over the network which is an insignificant load on the server. Other clients like XBoxes, IPads, cheapy media extenders typically need media transcoded on the fly to be viewed. In these cases yes that load will be put on the server.

For the IPad I give two major thumbs up to AirVideo best $4 I ever spent.

 

[Binky]

WHS2011 will do everything you ask except for maybe the firewall part.

The N40L can be modified to hold up to 6 or 7 hard drives. You will need to modify the bios but it is VERY easy to do. I put the 250GB in the top bay and installed WHS2011 on that drive. The four bottom bays are all open for data drives. You can also put two 2.5 HD's in the top bay, and sandwich a third under that bay. I would not suggest installing the OS on a data drive.

WHS2011 is compatible with ESET NOD32 if you need virus protection, and it also works with Acronis True Image Home 2011.

 

[Ferzerp]

It won't install on anything less than a 160GB drive because it assumes all the shares will go there.

 

[jaydee]

Thanks for the replies all, I'm going to go ahead and purchase WHS 2011, looks like it can handle everything I'm asking from it. I'll go ahead and install it on the 250GB mechanical drive for now, not a big deal.

It comes with 2GB of ECC DDR3 RAM, should I upgrade to 4GB? Is ECC really necessary?

 

[Chiefcrowe]

ECC can't hurt for a server, I think it's not bad to have it. If I were you I'd upgrade to 4GB ram.

 

[jaydee]

ECC can't hurt for a server, I think it's not bad to have it. If I were you I'd upgrade to 4GB ram.

I have an extra 4GB (2x2GB) set of DDR3 1333 RAM, but it's not ECC. Am I better served with 2GB ECC or 4GB of non-ECC?

 

[thestrangebrew1]

One thing I found weird on my server was streaming over the internet. Say I wanted to stream a movie from the server to my phone using 4g, task mgr would show max CPU usage. I use Plex MS on my phone. Any HD content would stutter like mad over 4g. I think at the time, I had a g620 or 630 something like that. I switched to an i5 2400 and it streams a little better, but I still get stuttering playback. Over wifi it works pretty flawlessly without much cpu usage, still via plex. I'm not sure what the difference would be.

 

[Ferzerp]

One thing I found weird on my server was streaming over the internet. Say I wanted to stream a movie from the server to my phone using 4g, task mgr would show max CPU usage. I use Plex MS on my phone. Any HD content would stutter like mad over 4g. I think at the time, I had a g620 or 630 something like that. I switched to an i5 2400 and it streams a little better, but I still get stuttering playback. Over wifi it works pretty flawlessly without much cpu usage, still via plex. I'm not sure what the difference would be.

WHS will do transcoding to match the bitrate your device is capable of receiving. Ovbiously, if you don't have enough processing power to do that in real time, you will have a bad experience. Also, transcoding can only do so much, so even if it *can* keep up, if you don't have the bandwidth, it will never be good.

BTW, I've smoothly streamed top gear episodes to my laptop on a southwest flight before. The bit rate was heavily reduced, and the quality was pretty poor, but it was smooth.

 

[Slimline]

Just a shameless plug, but I had been running WHS V1 for years, and when the news hit MS would no longer support it i Decided to upgrade to whs 2011. So far I am very happy i did. I bought the stablebit drive pool add-in and my server has been up and running without a hitch for a couple months with zero issues. Have not once had a connectivity issue, or had to scratch my head about anything. WHS 2011 does not have user share folders anymore, so I just manually made the shares, Remote Desktop into the server and manually assigned permissions to those folders. About 2 minutes worth of effort and its identical to V1 in that sense.

I recommend WHS2011, for 50 bucks I cannot see how you could go wrong.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Interesting thread -- this. I'd read some cus-reviews at the Egg which suggested the new 2011 version to be a piece of crap. Nobody here is saying that. One of those other sources seemed to think that MS staff resources had been pulled off the WHS 2011 development to work on some other area . . . mobile devices or something.

But a lot of people here are saying it's a good deal or does the sort of things I'd want it to.

I have the 32-bit WHS that had been released around 2008 based on the Server 2003 software.

I'll try asking my question here, before starting another thread. Was it ever possible to run the 32-bit version on a 32-bit processor like a Northwood 3.4 Ghz Pentium? Or did that version of WHS require at least a dual-core system? I'm thinking such would be more trouble than it's worth, since I'd have to arrange for "reactivation," and I might not get it.

I've got this P4 as described, and trying to think of a use for it. Obviously, it wouldn't run the WHS 2011, but I could rebuild my existing server with the latter.

 

[ViRGE]

Interesting thread -- this. I'd read some cus-reviews at the Egg which suggested the new 2011 version to be a piece of crap. Nobody here is saying that. One of those other sources seemed to think that MS staff resources had been pulled off the WHS 2011 development to work on some other area . . . mobile devices or something.

But a lot of people here are saying it's a good deal or does the sort of things I'd want it to.

I have the 32-bit WHS that had been released around 2008 based on the Server 2003 software.

I'll try asking my question here, before starting another thread. Was it ever possible to run the 32-bit version on a 32-bit processor like a Northwood 3.4 Ghz Pentium? Or did that version of WHS require at least a dual-core system? I'm thinking such would be more trouble than it's worth, since I'd have to arrange for "reactivation," and I might not get it.

I've got this P4 as described, and trying to think of a use for it. Obviously, it wouldn't run the WHS 2011, but I could rebuild my existing server with the latter.

If I'm understanding your question correctly, WHS v1 would run just fine on a Northwood Pentium. WHS v1 runs on Atoms, so it's not particularly resource-demanding.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

If I'm understanding your question correctly, WHS v1 would run just fine on a Northwood Pentium. WHS v1 runs on Atoms, so it's not particularly resource-demanding.

Well, that's good to know. Somehow, I thought it required "dual-core," but I can't imagine why. When I built the server, the only box I had left for such purpose was a C2D. Now, I have this P4 Northwood coming back to me, in tip-top shape. I suppose I could always attempt to re-activate the WHS v.1 if I upgrade the C2D to the 64-bit 2011 version . . .

 

[dbcooper1]

I've been running one of the HP 485x or whatever it is and it came with WHS v1 and 1 or 2 GB RAM and a single core conroe and a low end one at that- I think it's a 430 at around 2Ghz and it does fine. Bandwidth is more often a problem if you have more than a couple users hitting it at once and doing any significant data transfers.

Just checked, and it's a 440@2.0 and 2GB RAM with the original 750GB drive and 3 added 2TB for data. Been running like that since the beginning 2-3 years ago.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Somehow, from the incomplete information I've seen here and elsewhere, I get the idea that you want a small drive for the OS. That Compaq server comes with a 250GB.

How much of the total space would be wasted if I use a 320GB?

I've got a couple Samsung F3's, which I suppose I could mirror in RAID1 -- 1TB drives.

I'll probably order another pair of 1TBs, but this time WD Blue "EZEX" ( ? ) drives. I suppose I could put three drives on the mobo's (nVidia) controller for a RAID5. I'm just not completely sure which is the more efficient way to proceed.

I've seen people express misgivings over using the onboard controller as opposed to a PCI-E hardware controller. I had a good experience with my last and only RAID 5 on a 3Ware. But right now, I don't want to buy one, and I might be concerned about how the system would behave transitioning to/from sleep states.

I have shares on my WHS v.1 box, with duplication across two 500GB Cav Blacks (SATA-II). Three workstations probably account for 500GB total of system-drive filespace, but I haven't been using the server to do such comprehensive backups. Instead, I use hot-swap bays and drives for either cloning system disks, or "Make this a WHS backup disk." But the WHS v.1 has that drive extender feature. I was starting to get comfortable with it.

Suggestions? Comments? So far, the old WHS v.1 has been restricted to "serious application" files, archives and documents -- plus a sharing of a music library. Maybe I'd want to set the WHS 2011 up to add media/video streaming. If I did that, would I need configure the WHS for my SiliconDust tuner and PCI-E tuner card?

Right now, I just want to set up the new WHS 2011 so to easily manage storage, backup and reliability. The old server will continue to run indefinitely until I feel comfortable with the new one.