Comments Locked

87 Comments

Back to Article

  • shin0bi272 - Thursday, December 10, 2009 - link

    that looks pretty sweet. I sort of did something similar when I recently upgraded to an I7 cpu. I took my core2duo guts out of my game box and put them in a oneof case that I modded as a tribute to 9/11 (Im from NY so it hit me pretty hard personally). For years I had nothing to put in the box but considered doing a file server out of it because it was this huge micron tower from the mid 90's (seriously its like 3ft tall wtf?) that used to have a dual p133 mobo in it. I put a raid5 card in it with an enclosure similar to yours only mine holds 5 disks not 2. Im currently running 3x1tb wd ent. drives in it and have 2tb of usable storage with redundancy (and an LTO2 tape drive in another computer that I can back up that server remotely with) and the capability to add another drive.

    The one thing I am concerned about though will be upgrading to 2 or 4tb drives later but that will be a while Im only half full now.
  • larsv - Saturday, December 5, 2009 - link

    Correction to the article text - the 4-bay Chenbro case ES34069 is same physical size as the case used in the article.

    To make room for the two extra bays the ES34069 case uses an external PSU. My setup runs an Atom 330 MB, four WD Green drives, and a separate 2.5" boot drive. Power draw at wall socket at idle (drives spun down) is 35W, fully active 46W.

    Re WHS: Part of the attraction of WHS, for me, is that my data isn't dependent on specific hardware. If my processor burns to a crisp I can still take each drive and pull the data I need off it using any computer fluent in NTFS. As a contrast, when my ReadyNAS packed up I had to get a new ReadyNAS just to get the data off it. Never will I be that dependent on proprietary hardware again.
  • Inglix - Sunday, December 6, 2009 - link

    I run a very similar build with:
    200w Chenbro 4 bay case (the "psu" isn't as efficient as I'd like)
    Intel DQ45EK mITX (more efficient than the G45 mITX board, and has management tools)
    e8400 (cheapest VT wolfdale at the time, an e3200 would do now)
    2x2gb 1.8v (I wish these were still $15 after rebate)
    60gb Vertex 2k8 r2 boot drive (hey, it was $126 after rebates)
    4 WD20EADS pass through for WHS hyper-v
    Antec 200mm fan (mounted on the side for extra cooling)
    e-sata to sata adapter for the 5th port

    I like having a smallish domain server with plenty of space to store WHS & Acronis backups. For cost reasons though I'd still recommend a HP WHS system over a Chenbro build, unless you need alternate OS support.
  • Zurichtx - Wednesday, December 9, 2009 - link

    Inglix
    I like the idea of the SSD drive as an os drive. That extra 2.5 bay in the 4 drive chenbro case it seems like the perfect spot. How has the setup worked out for you? I am considering a simliar rig.
  • Glaucus - Friday, December 4, 2009 - link

    Any word on what the total power consumption is on such a rig? I'm trying to put together a system that will use as little power as possible and looking for ideas.
  • beady - Friday, December 4, 2009 - link

    though 2TB isn't the best price point atm, 1.5TB is, or the 2TB greens, but if you manage to fill 4TBs of data you really should look at RAID 5/6 unless you have backups, but not many have backups of backups, but normal failure is only 2%/year or so.
    but its a good beginner article anyways, not as tech savy as most of anandtech people are but most people don't see the benefits of a nas, its mostly for convenience sake, but setting it up is inconvenient and takes a long time, there are too many options and you have to look all over the web for the different hardware/software configurations and guides almost always from 10-20+ different websites for setting up everything. Simply because there are 100's of different ways to set up home networks for all different things.

    here's a link to my HTPC resource;far from complete
    http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtfZAEbM0x...">http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=...CUVBDejE...

    anyways, everyones needs are different, NAS's are generally expensive and not easy to set up and takes awhile regardless of what or how. IMO if you don't have TB's to share then don't bother, its easier to run Tversity on a normal PC or something.
  • yacoub - Friday, December 4, 2009 - link

    At first I thought "The Case House" was some new e-tailer website that specialized in computer cases. Then he started naming family members and I figured it out. ;P
  • valnar - Friday, December 4, 2009 - link

    So after all that, what is the power consumption?
  • rrinker - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    I too built my own, using a low power dual-core Athlon CPU and an integrated video motherboard with 6 SATA ports. I used a small but still ATX case so I'd have enough drive bays, so while my system isn't tiny, it's not a monster, either. It sits under my desk and hums away storing my files, videos, music, and photos, while also backing up my two desktops, one of which runs Win7 64bit. Right now it has 3x 750GB drives (which were the sweet spot in price when I built it - 1TB was 2x the cost for that extra 250GB), and 2x 1TB drives I bought when the prices on those dropped. I don't think my total system cost was as much as this build - AMD has it all over Intel when it comes to low cost low power system - and I have over 4TB of space.
    WHS is better than most NAS boxes or using RAID for the average home user, it's not overkill. Drobo uses a similar disk data protection scheme - but a Drobo loaded with drives with the ethernet adapter actually cost more thanmy system, and it doesn't do the backup.
    As for the HP extras - Twonky is pointless if you stream to a media pc or, in my case, a Popcorn Hour that actually handles pretty much any format you can throw at it. Other media player devices seem very limited especially in terms of what formats they support, requiring an add-on like Twonky or tVersity to convert formats on the fly.
  • nafhan - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    To all the people complaining about prices of build it yourself vs. buying a prebuilt system: remember to be flexible! You can save a lot of money by:

    1. Reusing parts you already have (like Loyd did).
    2. Being flexible on which components you use (you could save $40 - $80 on the case if you don't need hotswappable bays).
    3. Waiting for deals, sales come up all time (I bought a 640GB WD drive for $38 a few months ago).

    Loyd's price list is a good reference/starting point, but straight retail prices should be viewed as the most you would pay for any of those things. DIY is great for those who are willing to do research to find the best components at the best prices, and not so well for those who aren't.
  • loydcase - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    Thanks to everyone for some great comments. I think the Anandtech community is terrific.

    Some additional comments:

    1. I've already updated to Power Pack 3.

    2. As noted, this is something of an experimental platform for me, allowing me a WHS playground. So the fact that it doesn't have a lot of pre-installed add-ons (eg, HP's software that supports Time Machine) is fine. Besides, I don't have any Macs anyway ;-)

    3. In the postmortem, I also mentioned that the configuration could be tuned for different users. The motherboard is too limited for my liking, but it's what I had on hand. Similarly, the hard drives are pricey, but since they were just sitting on a shelf...

    4. I've used both straight up Linux and FreeNAS in the past. Even on old, supported hardware, FreeNAS never quite installed correctly. Linux required too much hands-on for my taste. Both are great solutions in the right environment -- just not something I want to fool with.

    5. Unlike the system building articles I've written in the past, whenever I write one here, there will be a postmortem, as with this article, talking about how it could be different or improved -- or whether it was even successful. Too many DIY articles I've read make things seem perfect at the end -- it's always about tradeoffs, and sometimes, stuff just doesn't work.

    Again, thanks. I'm looking forward to writing more stuff for Anand.
  • mjfink - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    I built a server for the house about 6 months ago using an MSI Wind NetTop. 150 bucks for the server, another 50 for the RAM, and 100 for a 1TB HDD. Running Windows 2003 server; works great, allows me to create a domain for the house/run local DNS/etc. And, of course, I can run all apps you can dream up on it (it currently runs PRTG, uTorrent w/RSS feeds, DNS, AD, No-IP Dynamic Update Client, iDrive, and a few other things I can't remember off the top of my head). It's infinitely more flexible then a pre-built, and much less expensive as well. No RAID? Who cares, get a MyBook Mirror edition if you need RAID; storage should be external to these things anyway.
  • dtgoodwin - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    I started out with Windows 2008 x64 serving up my files. Very easy to use for an experienced user and worked just fine. I ended up using Hyper-V to host my WHS (I'm using Hyper-V to host other virtual machines as well). I didn't want to add any more hardware, and reallocated my storage disks to be used as pass-through disks for WHS. Throughput is about 90% of what it was under 2K8 - pretty impressive considering it's virtualized. The reason I chose to move to WHS - on top of Server 2008 is the flexibility in storage. I am no longer limited by the size of a partition. I have a large movie collection as well as family photos. Now, I just add a drive if I need more. I'm not restricted to any volume size for any shared folder as long as I have available space. Yes, I could buy an expensive RAID controller that supports adding drives to a redundant array, but that's way out of my price range. Compared to merging volumes in 2K8 which would be my only choice to expand volumes seamlessly, I only lose the data on a single drive in WHS if I was ever to lose one. I do have full backups on external drives. The backup features often aren't discussed in great detail. It only backs up ONE copy of each unique file so if you back up two machines with the same OS, the total backup size is pretty small. I keep most files on my server. My backups (6 months of monthly, 4 weeks of weekly, 7 days of daily) only occupy 130 GB and that's across 3 different OS', and 7 different machines. It can do file by file restores, or whole system recovery. It wakes my machines to back them up, and then they go back to sleep (S3). It enables easy remote access to your files for those that don't know how to set it up as well as serves as an RDP gateway for all the machines that are attached to it and capable. I would never go back to 2K8 for file serving at my home.
  • curaven - Tuesday, December 8, 2009 - link

    Hey Thanks
    This is lovely to hear.
    I've searched far and wide for exactly this comparison and now I'm going to purchase WHS for my own home server instead of using Server 2008.

    For the record, has anyone an idea when WHS will get a kernel update? (server 2003 vs server 2008)
  • flipmode - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    $970 would have been better spend on some drywall, paint, and studs to cover up that rugged-arse wall you desk is pushed up against.
  • strikeback03 - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    Who said anything about it being a finished basement?
  • pcfxer - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    Free, omg, go GRAB IT NOW! It costs nothing and can be installed on a hard disk, CD-ROM or flashed and run as an "embedded" device. More flexible control over hardware like enabling power level settings for SMART, automatic e-mail, OpenPF firewall, torrenting, etc. AND above all else, ZFS support. Let's see windows home server do that and with less powerful hardware and for LESS MONEY!

    http://www.freenas.org/">http://www.freenas.org/
  • Devzero - Friday, December 4, 2009 - link

    Considering that I wouldn't need any of that functionality (firewall, torrenting or ZFS) on a NAS server, I don't really see what it matters?

    What would matter if getting it up and running with backup/sync, connected to my existing windows network, usable by any windows user, within half an hour. It needs to be stable, fast, self updating and with remote admin.
  • strikeback03 - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    Do any of the WHS users here know how to set it to automatically copy the contents of a certain folder to one of the shared folders on the server? We have a WHS set up in our lab, and I currently use SyncToy to copy the photos we take with our microscope to the appropriate shared folder on the server, but it would be nice if this could be automatic.
  • webdawg77 - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    The table on the last page lists the RAM twice so the total cost would be about $41 less.
  • webdawg77 - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    "so tossed a pair of 1GB Kingston Value RAM modules into the mix" for 2 GB total (table lists 2 GB of RAM twice). Unless, you indeed meant 2 x 2GB sticks (but different from the quote on the third page).
  • Jaguar36 - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    I'd love to see some power measurements on this setup. I'm looking for something similar so I don't have to leave my power sucking desktop on all the time.
  • piasabird - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    I like the idea of a networked applicance to store files you dont want to lose but many people may not have the funds for this kind of system. Seems like all a lot of people need is an extra PC like a cheap Dell Zion or $495 Dell Intel PC with a Celeron processor and a Drive or two (Depending how many files you actually use). I would find something on that order useful whether it is documents you need to store like Geneological (Family History) documents or Family photos. I cant imagine only having One computer and storing all my photos one one hard drive that could die any minute.

    I was just thinking of an alternative to this NAS concept. It would be an interesting idea to have a kind of family storage system that could store essential documents on multiple computers instead of having one central location to be used as a server. Then every time a computer would sign on to the network or once a day, each computer could sync up and copy the files back and forth. That way if you had say 2 computers they could share the shared files folders on both computers.
  • hnzw rui - Thursday, December 10, 2009 - link

    You mean something like Dropbox?
  • Devzero - Friday, December 4, 2009 - link

    There is actually a lot of software on the marked that accomplishes this task. In my opinion they are dived into two categories.

    First of you have the sync tools that range from rsync command line like to allway sync GUI appz. These can keep your folders in sync between multiple machines more or less in real time. I've installed openVPN on my laptops so I even get syncing when I'm away from home.

    The second tier of tools are more backup like tools like crashplan that you can set upp on multiple machines, and do backup between them. The pro of these kind of appz is that they can keep a backup all changes to a file, so if you should suffer a brain fart and do ctrl + a, del, ctrl + s, alt + f4 in your 2000 pages word document, you can always go back to the previous version.

    The best combination of functionality and security in my opinion is to combine the two apps, use allway sync to sync your files between computers, then set up crashplan on one central, always on machine that does online backup.
  • HotFoot - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    If all you're really wanting is back-up on the cheap, but could care less about all the convenience features, then probably the most sensible (but not very sexy) solution is an external HDD that you plug into once every month or two and update. Less than $100 will buy you a great deal of backup space for anything precious or irreplaceable.

    I do like your concept of taking advantage of multiple computers on the home network to backup important files. That still comes down to added security against a drive failure, and isn't exploiting other potential benefits or features something more sophisticated could offer.

    For myself, home servers or even network storage are as yet a solution without a problem. I do a mix of keeping important family photos and documents on a backup external drive and having duplication over a couple computers on my network. But then, I only have one HTPC. I could see wanting a server-based media storage solution if there was more than one entertainment centre where I'd want access to everything. For now, splitting front-end and back-end hasn't yet made sense for me. Of my friends looking at sophisticated home network storage/media server solutions, it almost seems like they are more looking to tinker than actually needing something. It's like their main desktop/gaming rig is as good as it's going to get and they want something new to play with.
  • mjfink - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    I agree with your first statement, external USB HDD (mirrored, if you really need that) are a great way to do backup. I also send my backups across the Internet for an offsite copy.

    However, I disagree with your 2nd statement. I'd be very upset if my server was removed tomorrow, and there's nothing that would easily replace it. I love not having to leave my main PC on for torrents, and having the reliability of a server to send out all the files/data that I keep on the network.

    Most of all it's the networking flexiblity. Full private DNS, DFS for share virtualization (which I use all the time, I want to present a consolidated share with all my shows/movies/etc in it, rather than shares from 3 different computers), an AD domain (which makes life so much easier when accessing data between computers)... It's not that the server solves a problem that didn't exist; it's that most people either don't have these problems (don't have enough computers), or, more likely, don't know that a server would fix these problems for them.

    Now, my quad core processor in my desktop rig? That's a solution for a problem that didn't exist. I can't choke that thing doing anything remotely productive; the newest processors are so fast that there's simply no application (besides games) that actually can take advantage of them!
  • kalster - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    For someone on a budget an Atom based system works well too. I built my system using the D945gclf2 (atom 330) and it works well. I haven't used it for any sort of media transcoding but for basic storage and streaming (without transcoding) the atom is a fine chip.
  • Devzero - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    My experience with NAS boxes is that they are horrible performers, especial for simple transfers of big files (ie movies). I would love to know how a WHS server like this performs compared to a modern home NAS solution in terms of raw power.
  • blaster5k - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    WHS can transfer files pretty much as fast as the hard drives on the machines involved in the transfer can handle. I've moved some big files at close to 100 MB/second. With a RAID/SSD configuration, you might saturate a gigabit connection.
  • rrinker - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    I have no problem transferring 8-12GB HD movie files from my desktop to the WHS box over gig ethernet. It's as fast as any other network I've worked with (ie, clients' datacenters and so forth). I have no issues streaming HD movies through my Popcorn Hour,a dn that only connects at 100Mb.
    When the next version of WHS comes out, hopefully it will be based on 2008, so with Vista and Win7 clients you can use SMB2 whichw ill be ever faster. And if you absolutely must, you can install NFS on WHS and use NFS instead of SMB.
  • Bigaxe - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    The author only spent $184 for his home server, if I read correctly. Just the cost of the case and CPU. Everything else he already had, including the Enterprise Drives. Sure with a quick login to Technet for a copy of WHS, less then $200 in with taxes is a pretty good deal.

    Like us all we build what works for us, our own needs. Great to read each article and compare for ourselves.
  • bob4432 - Saturday, December 5, 2009 - link

    just take a class at a community college and get server2k8 for free....
  • darkslyde - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    haha i guess someone beat me to it. i was gonna mention the same thing that loyd had parts lying around.

    honestly, if it wasnt for HP's add-ins for the WHS, i wouldnt even touch it. the atom based ones are limited with drives and runs HOT. the other ones are blah compared to the horsepower you can achieve from one that's made from scratch, but then again, the HP add-ins are too indispensable.

    i'm actually revamping my htpc to just piggy back from a whs. WHS = media monster. lets see an all-in-one distro do that.
    custom back-up of all media (sync, contribute, etc), my movies + anydvd/clonedvd, on-the-fly encoding for xbox/ps3/extenders, video encoding, tv-recording, squeezebox server, remote jukebox, etc.

    maybe i'll skip out on gift giving this holiday season and just use all that money for setup...bah, humbug!
  • Minion4Hire - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    Wouldn't the four 500GBs in the ReadyNAS come to less than 1.4TBs total and not 1.6TBs? Only 1.36TBs should be available for actual bulk storage considering one drive's worth of data is needed for parity information, which would leave 1.5 trillion bytes before you factor in the whole binary-decimal debacle, and then you still have to account for the overhead of your file system.

    Not to get picky or anything....... =P
  • pjkenned - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    That is darn expensive for a WHS like that! Spent a bit too much for 2TB drives I think. I'm actually running a 15 drive WHS (1.5TB Raid 6 + horspare with Raid 1 OS drive) off of an Adaptec 31605. I really do like WHS, especially with the add-ins. MyMovies + WHS + Win 7 Media Center is great!

    All that said, unless you are going for a lot of physical drive space (where the loss from WHS duplication becomes sub-optimal), the HP MediaSmart boxes really are a step above the rest.
  • mcnabney - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    I actually did the math before my build. The 1.5TB Seagate are cheap enough that it is actually cheaper to just buy more drives to get the same capacity as an array and skip buying the expensive RAID controller.
    It sounds like you have only 12 drives in your main array - so you only get about 15TB total storage. You could do the same thing with five extra drives (at a cost under $500), but would not require the $950 Adaptec controller. That would save almost $500 and allow you to keep your backed-up data at another location (which is far safer) and only leave ten drives powered in your case (less power and take up less room). That, and running a RAID means ALL of the drives spin everytime data is needed. WHS normally just spins the drive that is in use. Just FYI. My 18TB cost under $1400.
  • MadMan007 - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    Yeah he pretty well shafted himself by buying (perhaps on impulse?) a 2-drive ITX case. ITX is fine but the case cost more than a mATX tower+quality PSU. It's the limitation to two HDs that screwed him, he was stuck getting 2TB drives which are terribly overpriced in $/GB and on top of that he will need a new case or an external eSATA expander to add more drives.

    Nice article in general but the details of the build just made me frown.
  • MadMan007 - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    Well, maybe it's just the 7200RPM WD 2TB drives which are overpriced. In any case being able to expand a WHS box easily is one of the major advantages but starting out with full drive bays negates that advantage.
  • TheBeagle - Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - link

    Your total cost was approximately $100.00 TOO MUCH - for substantially less. However, for about $870.00, you could have bought (from Newegg @ $600.00 - no sales tax, free shipping) a brand new HP ex495 Windows Home Server (which comes with a 1.5 TB drive), and also added 3 more 1.5 TB drives (Seagate 7200.11 @ $90.00 each), and had a WHS (with a warranty), including the latest HP 3.0 software (which is fabulous), that has a total storage capacity of 6 TB. Now THAT HP unit is a bargain and a damn good WHS - but your WHS pales by comparison!
  • tyski - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    For better or worse, he used enterprise-class hard drives that do indeed cost ~$300 for 2TB (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8..., not the cheaper consumer-class hard drives that most of us use in our home PC builds. For work-related server builds, I prefer WD's enterprise-grade drives. But for a home server that is just going to hold a crap load of movies/music, I have to agree with the other posters, consumer-grade hard drives should be more than adequate, especially if you have good backup system in place.
  • strikeback03 - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    My understanding of the article was that he already had these HDDs around, which is why he used them and quoted their cost. Not that anyone looking to replicate this system should necessarily buy this exact hardware.

    Though I don't see the point of the hot-swappable trays in this system, or of that case (esp if it is hidden in the basement). I might well turn my current desktop (E6600/P965) into a WHS once I build a new desktop.
  • strikeback03 - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    My understanding of the article was that he already had these HDDs around, which is why he used them and quoted their cost. Not that anyone looking to replicate this system should necessarily buy this exact hardware.

    Though I don't see the point of the hot-swappable trays in this system, or of that case (esp if it is hidden in the basement). I might well turn my current desktop (E6600/P965) into a WHS once I build a new desktop.
  • MrDiSante - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    Strongly agreed. On top of that I think the choice of case and HDDs is abysmal. You could easily have gotten 3x1.5TB for under $300 and gotten a mid-tower already with a power supply for under $60. That would've made your build actually palatable for the features that you get, although I'd still have gone with the HP's - their value added is worth it.
  • nilepez - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    Didn't he say he had the drives sitting around already? They seem like overkill, but if he already owns the drives, why buy more drives?
  • Plifzig - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    I've almost pulled the trigger on one of those in the past. Any chance that could serve my high-end stereo setup with lossless audio?

    I've also been considering the Logitech Squeezebox or Transporter route.
  • MadMan007 - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    Squeezecenter (the softwre for Squeezeboxes) runs perfectly well on WHS. Other network devices that just need to be pointed to a shared folder can stream media as well.
  • thirdspaced - Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - link

    I build all my PCs, but I chose the HP Mediasmart for several reasons.

    1. Extras
    2. More Energy efficient then most home builds
    3. Small compact size
    4. Cost (well under $500 on places like Amazon)

    The main criticism here is cost. Loyd could have saved money by getting 1.5 TB drives ($98 this last weekend )
  • mckirkus - Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - link

    As our 'puters get fast enough to run cat brain simulators it behooves Anand to focus more on this sort of thing. Home automation, Media Center tech, explanations of technologies like Mkv, DTS vs. AC3, remote consolidation, home servers.

    Emerging consumer standards and trends in other words. That's tech too right?
  • jigglywiggly - Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - link

    Why'd you buy a server chasis? They are overpriced for the most part, and are small, just get a large mid tower case, or full size tower, for cheap, and if you want HD bays on the front, you can buy drive bays for that.
  • Plifzig - Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - link

    Your daughters appear momentarily when you're ignored. That's a cool trick!
  • Plifzig - Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - link

    And maybe I read that second sentence of the article while enjoying a quasi-autistic brain fart, I don't know.

    That aside, good to see you land here from ET and later HH. I have enjoyed several of your pieces in the past.
  • Pottervilla - Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - link

    I like your writing style, Loyd--many of us geeks can commiserate with the "if it's not broke, add more features" syndrome you describe. :-)

    I'm assuming an editor will catch the broken link on page 3, but I thought I'd mention it. (I think it's missing quotes around the URL?)

    A NAS would be great fun--I've always wanted one--but for $900, the extra drives can continue to live in my comp. I think I want a $1000 Newegg gift certificate for Christmas. :-)
  • Pottervilla - Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - link

    Whups, that was page 4.
  • jigglywiggly - Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - link

    Bleh, I don't like this, why a matx board? There is no expandability for something like a RAID card? ALso it should be a large case for expandability in hard drives, not something so small.

    Windows Home Server is a joke as well, why even bother something, that is just a home edition. Just run some nice FreeBSD on it, you get:

    A: Huge security benefits, and a "fake" active directory configuration, if you know what you are doing with samba. (This translates into most *nix systems)

    B: No GUI, why would you want a GUI on a server?

    C: Stabability, yes it is more stable.

    D: 8.00 Just came out a few days ago, so it's fresh.


    If you are running real Windows Server, that's fine, but I frown upon most Windows Server users, because they almost know nothing about the innerness of software, not that it's a requirement, but it means something.

    One thing Windows you might want to use Windows for is: Intel RAID, the stupid intel ichXr does not have a storage manager, so the *nixs see each hd as seperate, this is bad, you have to do disgusting software RAID. I am confused why Intel contributes so much to the Linux kernel if they don't have something like this.

    Bottom line: I don't like this: No expandability, meh choice of operating system.
  • realitycheck - Sunday, December 6, 2009 - link

    You seem to completely miss the point of the whole home server idea. Home servers aren't meant for people with IT degrees or network engineering backgrounds, thus putting BSD and CLI usage far far out of reach for the intended target user of home servers.

    Secondly WHS isn't "just a home edition" of a server. if you take a look under the hood, say by looking at msinfo32 you'd see that WHS is really SBS 2003 in home server clothing "OS Name Microsoft(R) Windows(R) Server 2003 for Small Business Server". its just reconfigured for home server usage. but all the functionality of SBS is still there, or can be added back in, which means you have the power of server 2003, the fastest and most stable OS microsoft has written to date, and the feature set of SBS 2003 for your home and all for a small fee. WHS is a great and very powerful product if youre not afraid to tinker with its interworkings a bit.
  • nilepez - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    Why a gui? Because it's for home users. Some day, *nix will get enough non-CLI fan boys to make a dent in the home market, but so long as attitudes like yours prevail, *nix will remain a irrelevant niche in the home market.

    As it is, whs is probably too hard to use for most people, but it's better than *nix or Server 2003/2008. More options are not what most people want or need at this time.

    MS spends tons of money on usability studies, and you can bet that some of that money goes into WHS.

    FYI, I work on unix all day long, and I wish there was a gui on it sometimes. And I've never thought, "this system would be better if it didn't offer a GUI."
  • jigglywiggly - Friday, December 4, 2009 - link

    You have the option to install one from ports if you are using FreeBSD.
  • nilepez - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    Why a gui? Because it's for home users. Some day, *nix will get enough non-CLI fan boys to make a dent in the home market, but so long as attitudes like yours prevail, *nix will remain a irrelevant niche in the home market.

    As it is, whs is probably too hard to use for most people, but it's better than *nix or Server 2003/2008. More options are not what most people want or need at this time.

    MS spends tons of money on usability studies, and you can bet that some of that money goes into WHS.

    FYI, I work on unix all day long, and I wish there was a gui on it sometimes. And I've never thought, "this system would be better if it didn't offer a GUI."
  • Exelius - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    Agreed on some points; but windows home server has a lot of nice features for home users (media streaming, homegroups, etc.) You can probably get those with FreeBSD, but you'd have to set it up. It's more work than buying a server off the shelf with support.

    And after having adminned FreeBSD, Linux and Windows boxes for the last few years, the *nix boxes get compromised a lot more than the Windows boxes. Mostly because *nix servers have a reputation for being "secure" so nobody every updates them, and some new Bind exploit comes along and suddenly the box is loaded with proxies and spam relays.

    Probably not ideal for a server you want to stick in the basement and forget about it. *nix is not more secure, the security issues are just different. You don't need a root exploit to seriously compromise a system.
  • nubie - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    It is an ITX board, not a Micro-ATX board.

    Small thermal, power and physical footprint come to mind as reasons.

    I am just sad that it doesn't have a PCI-E connector, which would allow for RAID add-in cards.
  • mindless1 - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    An ITX board uses no less power than a full sized counterpart with the same chipsets, or rather if there is a difference it's from trivial things kinda useful in a server like an additional chip for more drive ports.

    An ITX board has worse thermals due to using same amount of power but having less heatsinking area, and often fewer stages in the VRM circuit. Note 65W TDP max, it's literally running near max capacity with many modern CPUs at full load.

    However, a E5200 /etc is quite overkill for a file server. Even a Pentium III 1GHz is, unless you're doing software raid other than level 1, but there's the other issue of PIII era systems not having other desirable features like SATA, GbE not sitting on the PCI bus.

    Lack of PCI-E 4X or better and limited # of hard drive support is definitely a weakness, as is use of the anemic PSU. Sacrificing a small % efficiency to use a higher capacity PSU is a good tradeoff for something so integral to your computing as a fileserver on 24/7, and that unlike desktop PCs probably won't need replaced for several years if it doesn't break prematurely or have crippling BIOS HDD size limitations.
  • mindless1 - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    An ITX board uses no less power than a full sized counterpart with the same chipsets, or rather if there is a difference it's from trivial things kinda useful in a server like an additional chip for more drive ports.

    An ITX board has worse thermals due to using same amount of power but having less heatsinking area, and often fewer stages in the VRM circuit. Note 65W TDP max, it's literally running near max capacity with many modern CPUs at full load.

    However, a E5200 /etc is quite overkill for a file server. Even a Pentium III 1GHz is, unless you're doing software raid other than level 1, but there's the other issue of PIII era systems not having other desirable features like SATA, GbE not sitting on the PCI bus.

    Lack of PCI-E 4X or better and limited # of hard drive support is definitely a weakness, as is use of the anemic PSU. Sacrificing a small % efficiency to use a higher capacity PSU is a good tradeoff for something so integral to your computing as a fileserver on 24/7, and that unlike desktop PCs probably won't need replaced for several years if it doesn't break prematurely or have crippling BIOS HDD size limitations.
  • strikeback03 - Friday, December 4, 2009 - link

    If you also let your server transcode movies for you for storage then you would want more processor capability though.
  • thechucklesstart - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    I have to ask you, what features do you want from home server that exist in the standard edition?

    As for running Windows Home Server over FreeBSD, here are my reasons for choosing WHS:

    A) Security. The number 1 reason why a server operating system is insecure today is Misconfiguration. I don't have the knowledge or time to double check everything I set up is configured securely. With WHS, the configuration is already done my Microsoft, I don't touch a thing.

    B) Ease of use. I don't have to figure out the obscure way my router handles port forwarding, it is handled through uPnP and again, I don't touch a thing. Windows Home Server Addons also add some really nice abilities like auto DVD ripping.

    C) Virtual Machines. I have messed with Xen, and I just didn't care for the creation and handling of Virtual Machines on Xen (not to mention it didn't support one of my networking cards, but that doesn't really matter). Virtual Server 2005 handles things much smoother (although, it too could greatly be improved).

    D) Easy upgrading. Adding a new disk and having all of your shares have extra space is nice, again with no configuration. Removing a disk is pretty easy too, just tell WHS which disk to remove and... done.

    E) Backup Software. The WHS connector software is the best backup software I have used. I'm not saying there isn't better, I am just saying I haven't found it.

    While all of these things are done easily under FreeBSD and Linux (or other operating systems for that matter). They are all pretty easy to do under WHS.

    1) The one thing I found that was not so easy to get setup is using my server as a Mercurial (hg) source code repository. Diagnosing my problems were particularly difficult because it appeared to work when I acted as the intermediary over SSH.

    2) Also for my Linux machines, I use rsync to back up to my WHS as well. I am also planning on use rsync to back up my WHS to another server, once it gets set up. But getting rsync set up was no walk in the park either (but much easier than Mercurial)

    Both of these would have been easier to set up under a *nix environment. However, now that they are set up, I will not have to mess with them for quite some time.

    For the record copssh > FreeSSHd.
  • brshoemak - Friday, December 4, 2009 - link

    I am a fan of WHS also - but to be fair there is no way you can honestly list 'Security' in the first bullet point and 'uPnP' directly after it. There are multiple security vulnerabilities posted about uPnP and too many chances for external sources to compromise your network if uPnP is open and closing ports in your firewall without your knowledge. Your WHS server may be safe but what about the other PC's on your network. I love WHS, but I will take a proper (and controlled) static firewall any day.
  • jigglywiggly - Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - link

    Also before people say FAKERAID, well yes it is fakeread, but at least I can manage it from the BIOS, and transferring it to a different motherboard (ich9-10) based, it will function as RAID perfectly, no need to configure the OS.
  • dagamer34 - Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - link

    It's called a HOME server for a reason. You aren't SUPPOSED to know that info. If you want to setup a Linux box or an actual Windows Server 2003/2008 box, be my guest, but simplicity usually trumps all. And we have to remember that your needs are different from everyone else's needs (and lets remind people that 99% of people aren't like the people on AnandTech, but they still have 97-99% of the money).
  • pcfxer - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    FreeNAS has a web GUI and it is tailored for exactly this job. Oh and it supports ZFS, Microsoft will NEVER support ZFS...EVER.
  • jigglywiggly - Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - link

    Simplicity does not trump all, you are sacrificing a lot of features. Let's not forget that the BSDS, Linux, are free.

    Still, you have a point on simplicity, but then you might as well just use Windows Vista home, or XP home, and right click a folder and hit "share".
  • nilepez - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    Bull. Give linux 100 normal PC users. Give another 100 WHS. One thing is certain: more will be successful with WHS than *nix.

    And to be clear, normal users don't work in IT (though I know plenty of people under that broad umbrella that couldn't set up either).
  • mcnabney - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    The backup features for Windows clients makes Home Server a no-brainer. I get full backup capability for seven Windows machines of various flavors without duplicating information since the same data is only stored once instead of for each backed-up system. Plus with the easy and secure remote access, loads of easy to use apps, automated backup, easy streaming, and selective data duplication - the choice is obvious. WHS is by far Microsoft's best work for a targeted need.
  • piroroadkill - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    Vista and XP don't support software raid of the box, do they?
  • jdjbuffalo - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    Yes they do support software RAID.
  • HanSolo71 - Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - link

    Smaller then my rig by a long shot, for my NAS i use a IBM Xseries 225, and its over 26" long, although i do have only 3 drives in it that soon will be 7, with 6 being 1.5TB drives in RAID 5
  • mcnabney - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    Hah!

    My Home Server laughs at your puny rig.

    An old Armour+ case - free
    Low power AthlonX2 chip on an microATX MB ~$100
    1GB of DDR2 left sitting around - free
    extra SATA controller ~$30
    550W Corsair PS ~ $60
    Connectors/cables from Monoprice ~ $20
    Extra fans and cages ~ $35
    TWELVE 1.5TB seagate drive ~ $83 each (thanks Dell!) = $990
    WHS OEM license ~ $85

    So $1320 provided 18TB of storage

    Why yes, I do stream media to all seven PCs in my home. At the same time without a hitch. And my laptops over the Internet. And store tens of thousands of pictures. And all of my movies. Plus all of the home movies. For my entire extended family. Oh, and I store offsite bare drives for backup purposes so I only use folder duplication for data that has not been copied offsite.

    RAID =/ backup or security and I don't care about 'up-time'
    The box can already saturate gigabit ethernet
    Never had a drive fail in the past 18 months... yet.
    Server has only shut down to install updates - never crashed
    And it only sucks ~50 watts out of the wall when actually doing something
  • Inglix - Sunday, December 6, 2009 - link

    50w? Really? I mean the all the drives spun up would take 100w with a 100% efficient power supply. I know that's not a typical situation but at idle WHS isn't the best at leaving them alone. Even with just one spun up disk that would be difficult with a 550w psu...

    I do congratulate you on keeping offsite backups and not thinking WHS duplication is good enough though!
  • 3DoubleD - Friday, December 4, 2009 - link

    12 * 1.5 TB = 18 TB... you can't have 18 TB of storage if you hope to backup any data. I'm sorry, but you have far less storage than you admit/realize. If you duplicate every file you only have 9 TB of storage. You mentioned you don't duplicate everything, but you will always have far less than 18 TB storage unless you backup none of your data.

    Unraid is the ultimate NAS storage. If you are tech savvy enough to be reading this article, you can handle Unraid. It is a striped down version of Slackware with added functionality for data parity and easy networking. You have one parity drive that is the size of your largest disk in your array. You can have up to 16 disks in you array. So in the case of "Mr. Home Server laughs at your puny rig" he would have 1 1.5TB parity drive and 11 1.5TB data drives for a total storage space of 16.5TB, all completely parity protected. If a drive fails, go buy a new 1.5TB hdd, add it to the array, and the disk is rebuilt from parity.

    Data can be allocated to the drive by user shares. You can assign shares such as "Movies", "Pictures", "Documents", "Backups", ect. Each share can be added to Windows as a network drive. You can assign specific rules for data allocation in each share to the drives in your array (eg. keep data on one drive, fill one drive at a time, keep the same amount of free space on each drive in the array,ect.). All setup is done via browser user interface (it's really easy).

    As with all parity protection systems, this doesn't protect against user error (data deletion). It also doesn't allow for multiple drive failures, but it allows you to recover the data from the remaining drives as they are in a linux friendly file format. However, it offers a superior way to maintain a NAS that parity protects your data in addition to being easily expandable (need more space? Just add a drive to the array). If you want to include bigger drives, you just replace the parity drive with a bigger drive, rebuilt the parity, and then add the old parity drive to the array. From then on you can incorporate the size of the new parity drive into your array. It is the poor man's RAID server. I've had one for nearly a year and I can't imagine my network without it.

    WHS is great if you have no idea what you are doing, but much better options exist.
  • kkwst2 - Sunday, December 6, 2009 - link

    Holy Crap, just what wanted to hear, one more troll who has clearly never spent any time with WHS go on about how you can do so much more with a NAS unit.

    The author of the article clearly has used NAS extensively. I've used NAS extensively. Beyond being easier to maintain, WHS allows you to do things you simply cannot do with NAS. I've no need to regurgitate it here, either read up on it or go away.

    If you think 1 out of 12 drives for a parity drive gives you data protection then you are a fool. With that many drives, the likelihood of 2 drive failures is certainly not insignificant.

    To recap: 1) I know what I'm doing, and WHS is still the best option for my home. 2) I would stop giving out advice, when your concept of data security is very flawed. 3) Read more, rant less.
  • 3DoubleD - Tuesday, December 8, 2009 - link

    Dude, if two of your drives failed simultaneously you would lose data too. The same is true with a RAID, except you lose all of your data. WHS and Unraid both can sustain multiple drive failures and only lose some data. The chances of a two drive failure is low (ridiculously tiny). If you have multiple drives failing it's probably a power supply failure and you are screwed anyway. Or maybe it's because you are not so smart and bought 12 of the same drive at the same time (all from the same production line). I never buy two drives at the same time. I buy them as I need it which saves me money and lowers my risk for multiple drive failures. Finally, if you have super important data, you should have another backup, just in case. The bottom line - Unraid gives you the same data security for way less investment and storage space. I hope you enjoyed my "rant" and good luck with wasting almost half your storage space.
  • warriorfan23 - Friday, December 4, 2009 - link

    I want to set up a WHS rig myself, but 1 quick question. Can I stream media to mac osx machines from WHS?
  • dagamer34 - Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - link

    Windows Home Server Power Pack 3 shipped November 24th. Go grab it now!
  • dagamer34 - Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - link

    Also, I still find that the added utilities included in HP's latest MediaSmart Servers far outweigh any gains made from building your own server.

    Things like:

    1) Time Machine support
    2) Superior media streaming support via TwonkyMedia
    3) Built-in video encoder
    4) iPhone streaming app
    5) Mac client
    6) Nicer case compared to home-built server
    7) Probably better thermal policies

    These things are worth spending the extra $100 or so in the long run, at least until Windows Home Server 2 fixes most of these issues.
  • Spivonious - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    My dad has the HP server. HP case only fits one harddrive, the fans are loud, and the whole thing runs a little hot. iTunes streaming doesn't work with PowerPack 3.

    Plus, building it yourself is more fun. :)
  • Exelius - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    HM MediaSmart EX495:

    4 Hot-swap SATA bays, comes with 2 1.5TB drives. Does TimeMachine, iTunes streaming, etc.

    $699 everywhere. And the case looks nicer. And has a warranty. I can understand building some things yourself, but a server that's going to sit in your basement and you can get it cheaper from a vendor? No way.
  • heinzr - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    The HP Mediasmart EX490 comes with a 1 TB disk, and sells for $499 at Newegg, and looks like the better buy. (I doubt that the EX495 comes with 2 disks.)
    I have the EX485, into which I put two additional disks, for about 9 months, and I am very happy with it.
  • heinzr - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link

    The HP Mediasmart EX490 comes with a 1 TB disk, and sells for $499 at Newegg, and looks like the better buy. (I doubt that the EX495 comes with 2 disks.)
    I have the EX475, into which I put two additional disks for about 9 months, and I am very happy with it.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now