Windows Home Server options.

[RUMBLERIDER2]

Looking for a windows home server based NAS, like the Acer Easystore, but cant find the right hard drive configuration, really want either two 1.5 or two 2tb drives to start with, to do a mirror, then add two more later.

Any ideas please, willing to look at one without drives, but otherwise complete.

Budget around &450, less would be better.

 

[equk]

Personally I wouldn't buy a windows server license for a NAS (£80 for license + 10CALS?)

I would use something like FreeNAS as you can just use the web interface. Also it's free, it's a lot faster than windows server & you don't need a high spec to run it.

Also it has nice features like iSCSI

For <£450 I would think you could have 2tb on RAID5

 

[tinytomlogan]

Better off building a PC chucking windows 7 on it and setting up sharing. Doesnt limit upgrades then dude.

 

[Diablo]

Are you a student by any chance, or know someone who is?

 

[Ralm]

Better off building a PC chucking windows 7 on it and setting up sharing. Doesnt limit upgrades then dude.

Honestly Ive set up a server on Windows 7 Ultimate, Windows Server 2008 R2 and both suck a lot for server for web, files or what ever. Im using Ubuntu at the momment and you can use the Desktop version because is basically the same as the server one, but with some stuff that you dont need and normal desktop view ( but if you do console easily at Ubuntu, so use server version, is console only)

I have a server monted ( L2JServer), basically is a Lineage 2 server ( a game to who dont know) and is something that can consume a lot of resorces. In server where you have 2000 players online, they are using intel xeon 2 x 4 cores 2.8Ghz and 16 GB Ram and 15kRpm Sas HDD to run it XD But my point is other. This game server at windows server took 115 seconds to start, at ubuntu 90 sec. To shutdown ( where he have to save a lot of data) in window between 5/20min some times, at ubuntu 30 seconds, but most of the times less.

IF you like more CentOS you can use as well, is good as well. They consume less resorces than windows. After start and log on the ubuntu is using 350/400MB Ram ( with no Swap memory, I have it off for more performance) at windows 800/900Mb base.

Take your choise XD

About hard drives, it depends on what you need.

 

[Rastalovich]

Better off building a PC chucking windows 7 on it and setting up sharing. Doesnt limit upgrades then dude.

I'm with Tom on this one.

I've got a 12tb or so storage selection (which I've chosen not to raid), running off an old mobo, a simple c2d and a bunch of sata cards.

I planned it, tried out the FreeNas, OpenFiler, MacOSX (which I would love to have stuck with), WHS & Vail, Server2k8r2, and ended up reverting to just a Windows 7 install.

MacOSX Server was lovely - absolutely, but I wanted some education and experience of Server2k8. It was nice until it started b1tching at me about needing "this" and "that" to just do service things, and ofc it can be a pita if you want to run cheap utils at the same time, user levels required and services etc.

Pumped in Windows 7 - no problems.

One thing I will mention about WHS, is that your expectation of raiding drives and so-forth can immediately go out the window. It does it's own method of striping and introducing drives to the system. On failure, you have one hell of a task on your hands trying to recover your system.

 

[Ralm]

XD the problem is that in windows you have all the work done! So in Linux, if you dont know to congif it or install the stuff you need, is be much harder at the beguining.

But File Server?? OMG Ubuntu ( Linux) gives a rape on windows so hard. The File management is crazy! I gona tell you what happend to me in the other day:

Extract a .zip file ( 19000 files, in 20Mb in .zip) to get 19000 files in 55Mb. In windows took me 15min to do it. In ubuntu 5 seconds, and Im not joking. I can record it if you want.

Ubunutu file managemente is much much faster and better.

All this just to inform

 

[hmmblah]

XD the problem is that in windows you have all the work done! So in Linux, if you dont know to congif it or install the stuff you need, is be much harder at the beguining.

But File Server?? OMG Ubuntu ( Linux) gives a rape on windows so hard. The File management is crazy! I gona tell you what happend to me in the other day:

Extract a .zip file ( 19000 files, in 20Mb in .zip) to get 19000 files in 55Mb. In windows took me 15min to do it. In ubuntu 5 seconds, and Im not joking. I can record it if you want.

Ubunutu file managemente is much much faster and better.

All this just to inform

There's something wrong with that Windows install then. That should not take 15 mins to do.

 

[Ralm]

No its not LOOOL. Is a Dual-core Laptop ( 2 x 1.86 Ghz) So I dont expect huge performance!

And dont say its a bad windows install, becuase its not. I can make old computers run very smooth and responsive. My main at the momment is a P4 (3.GHz) with 2.5GB Ram ( 1Gb x2, 256Mb x2) and a XfX Geforce 6600 GT 128MB DDR3. And Im runing Windows 7 on it, games, and many aplications with no problem.

And you can ask other people that make server ( professional servers) what is the best Linux or windows, For hosting a server. Then you will got an answer.

 

[hmmblah]

No its not LOOOL. Is a Dual-core Laptop ( 2 x 1.86 Ghz) So I dont expect huge performance!

And dont say its a bad windows install, becuase its not. I can make old computers run very smooth and responsive. My main at the momment is a P4 (3.GHz) with 2.5GB Ram ( 1Gb x2, 256Mb x2) and a XfX Geforce 6600 GT 128MB DDR3. And Im runing Windows 7 on it, games, and many aplications with no problem.

Very smooth and responsive is relative. To some, 1024x768 on medium settings and 30 fps is smooth and responive. Myself, I like high res with tons of eye candy at 60 fps+. I don't care what you do to old hardware or how much you tweak an OS, it still doesn't hold a candle to new stuff. This is why servers and PCs in the workplace need to be constantly upgraded.

And you can ask other people that make server ( professional servers) what is the best Linux or windows, For hosting a server. Then you will got an answer.

/looks in the mirror

Oh, that's me! Guess what I do for a living

. Anyone who tells you a specific OS is the best for everything is an idiot. Each OS has its place. The environment I run is a mix of Linux and Windows Servers. I prefer Linux servers so I use Linux when and where I can. Unfortunately, there are a lot of applications out there that only run on Windows. Performance between the two is roughly the same. Running Ubuntu on the same set of hardware as a Windows 7 install isn't going to magically give you tons more performance. CPU speed is going to roughly be the same. Sure there are specific apps where one OS consistently takes the lead, but those apps are highly optimized for the platform they are on.

I prefer managing and running Linux servers for some simple reasons. When updating Linux it doesn't need to reboot. My Windows servers need to reboot on average every 2-3 weeks because of Windows updates. I also prefer the command line over a GUI. The CLI forces you to actually know what you are doing instead of clicking around aimlessly trying to limp along.

My mail server, for example, runs a Zimbra mail server on RHEL 5. It has an uptime of over a year now.

I run Linux because of stability and uptime. Not because it compresses or decompresses files 1000000% faster (because it doesn't).