Why use server software like WHS instead of Win7 or other OS?

[RobsTV]

With a Technet account, I can get all this software, so it is free for my evaluation usage.

But why run special server software with home or small business?

Have 4 PC's running all the time at home with Windows 7.
Using Acronis for regular backups.
Also 2 hard drives in RAID 1 configuration.
Using one HTPC as the main server for storing data, including downloads and external HD's.
All works well.

What advantages are there to move from normal OS software in a PC as a server to specialized server software?

Currently using MSE on each PC. Can not use that with WHS, but can still use it on clients.

Have a similar setup at the office, with 5 PC's + dedicated PC as a server, all running WinXP and networked version of Peachtree Constuction version, as well as Symantec Client Security Corporate Edition. Again, all seems to be running great!

What am I missing out on?

 

[MStele]

WHS provides a hands off storage solution with full data redundancy without having to resort to raid. You can create a central share that all of your machines can use, which means if any of your desktops crash you don't have to worry about if you can recover the data stored on it locally. WHS supports disc imaging, and can store drive images of all of your machines. Bottom line, a server is just a tool. If your happy with your current setup, the by all means stay with it. You seem to be doing most of what WHS would do for you through other means, so if it gets you to the same place then good for you.

In my opinion, the single greatest thing that WHS can do that no other solution can match is drive extender. With raid 1, your limited by the hardware you can connect to the controller, which means 1-4 drives for most consumer level stuff. You must also buy matching drives, which is expensive. And then there is the inconvenience of multiple arrays if you have alot of data to backup. Drive extender can operate with as little as two drives, but expansion is only limited by the number of drives you can physically attach to the system (can mix sata, usb, 1394, etc), and offers full redudancy on top of it. Whether you have 2 drives or 10 drives, they are all under one array and you have control over what is mirrored at the file system level and not at the hardware level, which is all raid gives you. This means a much more efficient use of storage space. My .02

 

[RobsTV]

Thanks for the reply.

After doing a lot of reading, I am finding that there is a risk of losing data with the method used in WHS. Depending on hard drive failure scenario, you could lose all or part of your data. With Raid, that is not the case. Also, Raid drives do not need to match, and do not even need to be the same size. If a Raid drive fails, you simply swap out the failed drive for a good one, and it will rebuild new drive by itself. Simple and safe. Down time is minutes. Even MS tech support mentions that WHS can not recover an OS failure and you should use something like Acronis if that protection is desired.

WHS drive extender is a nice feature.. However, I can simply plug in another eSATA drive when desired, and use my Acronis for additional backup and storage locations.

For additional protection, besides Raid on office PC that is used as a server, I use Acronis for backup to local HD partition, as well as to a networked PC.


more info from ms faq on whs drive failure:
http://social.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/whsfaq/thread/828b438f-5770-4f4b-bf82-b5d2f12e3887

.

 

[JackMDS]

If you use two drive on WHS and configure the redundancy to keep it on the two Drives.

If one Drive fails, the copy is on the other and it is in a regular format, so within minutes it can be copied elsewhere with no special methods.

If every thing works well as is you do not have to change, but if you ask, try to learn objectively. Computing is technology, and Not Religious experiences.

BTW. I use Acronis True image and I store the tib files on WHS.

When I need to do full restore I put True Image CD in the computer and fetch the tib from the WHS to the computer that need to be restored. I find it the safest and fasted way to do it.

WHS even just as a NAS is reliable and stable more than any other sub $1000 NAS.

 

[MStele]

Thanks for the reply.

After doing a lot of reading, I am finding that there is a risk of losing data with the method used in WHS. Depending on hard drive failure scenario, you could lose all or part of your data. With Raid, that is not the case. Also, Raid drives do not need to match, and do not even need to be the same size. If a Raid drive fails, you simply swap out the failed drive for a good one, and it will rebuild new drive by itself. Simple and safe. Down time is minutes. Even MS tech support mentions that WHS can not recover an OS failure and you should use something like Acronis if that protection is desired.

WHS drive extender is a nice feature.. However, I can simply plug in another eSATA drive when desired, and use my Acronis for additional backup and storage locations.

For additional protection, besides Raid on office PC that is used as a server, I use Acronis for backup to local HD partition, as well as to a networked PC.


more info from ms faq on whs drive failure:
http://social.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/whsfaq/thread/828b438f-5770-4f4b-bf82-b5d2f12e3887

.

"After doing a lot of reading, I am finding that there is a risk of losing data with the method used in WHS. Depending on hard drive failure scenario, you could lose all or part of your data. "

There was a risk in the early builds due to a corruption bug, but that was fixed in later versions. I won't say that data loss is impossible, but its unlikely because every file is on at least two drives, same with raid 1. The extra copy is made inactive and a tombstone marker is placed, but you can take any drive, remove it, connect it to another machine, and all the files can be read with no problem.

"Also, Raid drives do not need to match, and do not even need to be the same size. "

The size of the array can only be as large as the smallest drive. In order to not waste space, they have to be the same size. This means that if you want to upgrade your raid 1, you need to either replace the drives you have with larger drives, or add another array, which adds alot to the price if you have to add a raid card. This limitation does not exist with Drive Extender. You don't have to stop using your old drives when you add space. If you buy a tower case and an additional sata card (<$100), you can expand to 8-10 hard drives with little effort. Raid can't compete with that sort of affordability.

"Even MS tech support mentions that WHS can not recover an OS failure and you should use something like Acronis if that protection is desired."

Same with any OS. You should still image the WHS system drive (or any other OS) and store it somewhere else.

I'm not trying to sell WHS. You asked why people use it and here are some of the reasons. You obviously have a pretty good setup, but you don't have to justify yourself to me. With the exception of large profession server setups, I would go for WHS over raid every time. I have over 2 TB of data backup that I maintain with full redudancy which means 4TB just for that. In order to maintain that in raid 1 with room to grow becomes prohibitively expensive. Raid 5 is an option, but then you have to buy Raid certified drives (consumer level drives fail early due to wear and tear) as well as a decent raid card (I lol all who trust software raid for parity). Its all about the right tool for the job.

 

[RebateMonger]

All conventional redundant RAID systems require identical-size disks. If you don't use same-size disks, the extra space is not included in the RAID array. If you want to increase the size of a RAID 1 array, you'll have to buy two new disks.

The MS Forum thread you link is describing WHS without Folder Redundancy enabled. WHS offers one-click Shared Folder Redundancy. If you enable this on a shared data folder, ALL files in that folder are duplicated on a different disk. If redundancy is enabled, you'd have to lose more than one disk to lose ANY files in that folder.

The other "lost files" mentioned are configuration data from the System disk. It's a pretty minor deal to reconfigure WHS remote access and user accounts if the System disk is lost. A lost or corrupted System disk will require a "re-installation" of the WHS server. This is done via a system recovery option in the WHS installation menu.

If Folder Redundancy is disabled, then WHS is like any other file server without disk redundancy enabled: You can lose data if a disk fails.

Since you have Acronis licenses for all your PCs and are willing to use RAID 1 on your file server, then you do have many of the features offered by WHS. Some differences include:

1) Addition of new PCs requires the purchase of additional Acronis licenses. WHS includes licenses for ten PCs.

2) WHS sets up backups automatically with the installation of a small client connector. Installation and configuration of Acronis is more complex

3) WHS warns everyone in the office if any PC is missing current AV software, is missing a firewall, if backups are failing on a PC, or if there's a problem with the server. With Acronis, you have to rely on the individual PC user to do something about failing backups.

4) As noted, any number of disks of any size and any type can be added transparently to the WHS shared folders. If you add additional disks to a conventional file server, they will normally end up as another drive letter.

5) WHS allows menu-based remote access to any client PC if the client is a business version of Windows. Without that feature, you'll need to program port forwarding for every PC and change the Remote Desktop ports on each. Or you'll need to install third-party software for remote access.

6) WHS includes built-in password-protected web sites for remote access to file shares. With desktop-based file servers, you'll need to install and configure web server software or FTP software.

7) WHS backups de-duplicate common files on all PCs in the network. If all PCs are running the same version of Windows or MS office, for instance, only one copy of Windows and Office will be backed up. This minimizes the size of the backups. Acronis will back up every file on every PC, making the total backups larger.

8) WHS automatically manages backup history for all PCs. Older backups versions are removed on a schedule selected by you. This means that total backup sizes usually don't grow significantly after a few months, but you still have backups stretching back several months, with an emphasis on more recent backups. I haven't used Acronis lately, so I don't know how it manages backup size or automated removal of older backups.

9) WHS keeps a copy of all current and previous drivers for all client PCs in a single place. If you have uncommon disk controllers or NICs, this can come in handy both for a full restore and for replacing a single driver.

 

[RobsTV]

I'm not trying to sell WHS. You asked why people use it and here are some of the reasons. You obviously have a pretty good setup, but you don't have to justify yourself to me. With the exception of large profession server setups, I would go for WHS over raid every time. I have over 2 TB of data backup that I maintain with full redudancy which means 4TB just for that. In order to maintain that in raid 1 with room to grow becomes prohibitively expensive. Raid 5 is an option, but then you have to buy Raid certified drives (consumer level drives fail early due to wear and tear) as well as a decent raid card (I lol all who trust software raid for parity). Its all about the right tool for the job.

Thanks for the informative post.

Not trying to justify what I have. As first stated, I just got a Technet account and am looking at things to try. WHS looked good, but after checking into it, I asked myself "why?" Then I thought that since many use servers, even for simple home use, there has to be better reasons than what I am seeing. That was reason for the post.

 

[RobsTV]

. Some differences include:
.

O.K., looks like some of my concerns about WHS are invalid.

I will install it and test it out. Thanks.

 

[RebateMonger]

O.K., looks like some of my concerns about WHS are invalid.

I will install it and test it out. Thanks.

Best of luck. It's hard to fully understand how WHS works without a trial installation.

WHS is NOT perfect. But the low cost, ease of installation and configuration, the unique features of its backups, and its backup management and disk management make it, in my opinion, something that's worth taking a look at.

 

[Fjodor2001]

BTW. I use Acronis True image and I store the tib files on WHS.

When I need to do full restore I put True Image CD in the computer and fetch the tib from the WHS to the computer that need to be restored. I find it the safest and fasted way to do it.

Just wondering - how come you use Arconis True Image as backup software if you have WHS which already includes a backup solution? I think the backup solution in WHS seems quite good actually, or?

 

[JackMDS]

Just wondering - how come you use Arconis True Image as backup software if you have WHS which already includes a backup solution? I think the backup solution in WHS seems quite good actually, or?

Because I have Echo installations of Acronis for years with a lot of tib images and it was comfortable to continue with a method that I am already used too.

My Moto in general is: "Functionality overrides Fashion, and Fan Boyism".

When I set WHS for someone else that just is just starting (or have already few small backups). I set WHS and use its backup capacity and dual Drive Redundancy, because it is currently the best solution when there is No large previous "luggage".

I have WHS installation that currently has 1xTB and 1x1.5TB that are in the WHS Pool, and an additional 1TB that is Not in the pool.

As I mentioned above, even as a simple NAS, WHS is better than any of the Sub $1000 stand alone Devices.

.

 

[Fjodor2001]

Since you seem to have extensive experience with both backup solutions, how would you say they compare feature and stability wise? What are the major differences (if any)?

 

[Modelworks]

FreeNas is free , higher performance on lower end hardware, and extremely stable.
http://freenas.org/freenas

 

[imagoon]

FreeNas is free , higher performance on lower end hardware, and extremely stable.
http://freenas.org/freenas

But doesn't have all the features mentioned above.

Would it work? Sure. Would it do everything WHS does out of the box? No.

Right tool for the right job.

The reverse is true also. FreeNAS does a ton of things WHS does not.

Windows Home Server was designed for home users that wanted a basic and easy to install and maintain media center, backup and redundant file sharing.

 

[Modelworks]

But doesn't have all the features mentioned above.

Would it work? Sure. Would it do everything WHS does out of the box? No.

Right tool for the right job.

The reverse is true also. FreeNAS does a ton of things WHS does not.

Windows Home Server was designed for home users that wanted a basic and easy to install and maintain media center, backup and redundant file sharing.

It uses very low resources , can run great on hardware WHS can not.
Supports the most file formats and systems as well as network applications like bit torrent .
Is immune to virus and malware
Has a full web interface for all task needed to manage or install.
Streams media to any Upnp compliant device with transcoding if needed.
Backup/restore from a windows pc to freenas works great
Software Raid support for drives mean you get redundancy without special hardware needed.


The only benefit I see to WHS is it is easier to install, but not by much.

 

[MStele]

It uses very low resources , can run great on hardware WHS can not.
Supports the most file formats and systems as well as network applications like bit torrent .
Is immune to virus and malware
Has a full web interface for all task needed to manage or install.
Streams media to any Upnp compliant device with transcoding if needed.
Backup/restore from a windows pc to freenas works great
Software Raid support for drives mean you get redundancy without special hardware needed.


The only benefit I see to WHS is it is easier to install, but not by much.

"Is immune to virus and malware"

Nothing is immune. That's a naive statement. Just because something is less likely to get hacked doesn't mean it is less suceptable.

"Software Raid support for drives mean you get redundancy without special hardware needed."

Software raid is not an equal alternative to hardware raid. It's great if your broke, but for many people its a gimic. It relies on drivers to do its work, whereas a hardware solution is self contained and doesn't rely on OS stability. It has its uses for people who want a cheap raid 0 or 1 solution on a desktop, but I wouldn't use it for widescale file storage, but thats me.

 

[joutlaw]

I couldn't live without my WHS now. Central storage is a big plus for me. Automatic backups and the ease of connectivity between my Xbox, Win7, and Vista boxes is flawless. I also installed magicjack as a service and it's working great.

 

[Modelworks]

"Is immune to virus and malware"

Nothing is immune. That's a naive statement. Just because something is less likely to get hacked doesn't mean it is less suceptable.

Do you understand the odds that a BSD system would have its security circumvented to the point that a virus or malware could even be installed ?
Now add to that the odds that the virus or malware is targeting the BSD system and kernel in use. The odds of that happening is next to zero.

Software raid is not an equal alternative to hardware raid. It's great if your broke, but for many people its a gimic. It relies on drivers to do its work, whereas a hardware solution is self contained and doesn't rely on OS stability. It has its uses for people who want a cheap raid 0 or 1 solution on a desktop, but I wouldn't use it for widescale file storage, but thats me.

It is no gimmick. Depending on the hardware budget it can be faster than a hardware raid card and support more features and options. You have to spend about $500 to get the kind of raid card than can outperform a linux software Raid 10 setup. Getting redundancy support on a desktop for free and still great performance is something to not overlook.

 

[imagoon]

Do you understand the odds that a BSD system would have its security circumvented to the point that a virus or malware could even be installed ?

There is a reason why they are used to run the botnets while the windows machines are the mindless minions.

 

[imagoon]

It uses very low resources , can run great on hardware WHS can not.

WHS can run fine on atoms and the like. If your comparing say a 486 DX4 100mhz I would give you that.

Supports the most file formats and systems as well as network applications like bit torrent.

So does WHS.

Is immune to virus and malware

I don't believe that for even a nano second.

Has a full web interface for all task needed to manage or install.
Streams media to any Upnp compliant device with transcoding if needed.

WHS does that also

Backup/restore from a windows pc to freenas works great

It should, it acts like any SMB host. WHS uses a client to preconfigure the windows box for you and uses SIS to reduce the volume of duplicated files. My nightly WHS backup is typically in the megabytes. Running full backups to a NAS would consume the NAS's disk space faster since you need to run full backups periodically otherwise your incrementals become useless. Each full backup on the WHS system will be SIS'd in to almost nothing while the NAS would get a multi-gig backup file pushed to it.

Software Raid support for drives mean you get redundancy without special hardware needed.

WHS does not utilize RAID. It is not recommended to force it either.

The only benefit I see to WHS is it is easier to install, but not by much.

You should download the trial. You seem like you are comparing a product you use to one you have never installed or even tried to use.

 

[Modelworks]

I don't believe that for even a nano second.

Put the list of BSD virus and malware beside the list for windows. I agree immune is the wrong word, but the odds are monumentally against it happening.

WHS uses a client to preconfigure the windows box for you and uses SIS to reduce the volume of duplicated files. My nightly WHS backup is typically in the megabytes. Running full backups to a NAS would consume the NAS's disk space faster since you need to run full backups periodically otherwise your incrementals become useless. Each full backup on the WHS system will be SIS'd in to almost nothing while the NAS would get a multi-gig backup file pushed to it.

There is no need to do full backups every day. You can backup to any NAS the same way you can with WHS only sending the changes. There is nothing special WHS is doing that can't be done without it.

You should download the trial. You seem like you are comparing a product you use to one you have never installed or even tried to use.

Already did . It used too many resources and other than its integration with windows I saw no reason to use it.

 

[imagoon]

Put the list of BSD virus and malware beside the list for windows. I agree immune is the wrong word, but the odds are monumentally against it happening.

Irrelevant.

Place the market penetration of BSD next to Windows and tell me which one you would target as a script kiddie / hacker looking to steal information. Also compare the number of these machines with people in front of them actively downloading anything they can click their mouse on.

There is no need to do full backups every day. You can backup to any NAS the same way you can with WHS only sending the changes. There is nothing special WHS is doing that can't be done without it.

A) I Didn't say I full back up everyday.
B) I don't see SIS on the openNAS list.

Already did . It used too many resources and other than its integration with windows I saw no reason to use it.

You fail to define resources. I have one here running with a total of 39 watts of power draw (at the plug with meter) and it performs better than most of the home "nas" solutions I tested on.

I am not sure why you are arguing this hard for this product. It works for you but the OP asked what he was missing out if he wasn't using WHS compared to what he had. He wasn't looking for open source solutions.

Again, right tool for the right job. FreeNAS does fine hosting iSCSI for my test environment.

 

[RobsTV]

The reply posts do help, as they go into some of the finer aspects as to why choices are being made, plus bring up info that I (and others?) were not aware of.

 

[Modelworks]

Irrelevant.

Place the market penetration of BSD next to Windows and tell me which one you would target as a script kiddie / hacker looking to steal information. Also compare the number of these machines with people in front of them actively downloading anything they can click their mouse on.

That proves my point. Windows is much more likely to be a target for virus or malware.

B) I don't see SIS on the openNAS list.

That is because it is called rsync.

You fail to define resources. I have one here running with a total of 39 watts of power draw (at the plug with meter) and it performs better than most of the home "nas" solutions I tested on.

Resources as in ram, cpu . p3-933 with 256Mb ram.

I am not sure why you are arguing this hard for this product. It works for you but the OP asked what he was missing out if he wasn't using WHS compared to what he had. He wasn't looking for open source solutions.

Again, right tool for the right job. FreeNAS does fine hosting iSCSI for my test environment.

I could care less if anyone has a backup or how they backup. What I do care about is when people make claims about something that is untrue like saying that WHS implements software that nothing else can do.

 

[BTA]

I've ran FreeNAS and WHS for extended periods.

I use WHS because it does what my FreeNAS did but also lets me easily add storage capacity, as well as run a number of other services that FreeNAS does not do.

Plus WHS makes better use of my storage space since I only have to duplicate the files I want to. And I don't have to screw around with RAID mirrors.

I gotta say the WHS box has been more stable than FreeNAS was as well. I'm sure the tards will flip out about that statement now...