Hi,

I was just ordering hw to build me a homebrew 'old-school' NAS, as I stumbled upon this WHS stuff..  It certainly looks great but as an 'old-school' server admin I'm having doubts .. and questions:

1)  my homeserver was to have hw-assisted RAID5 which is the most efficient in disk usage. (3x 1 Tb =  2 Tb volume). WHS makes shadowfiles so actually it does sort of file-based 'mirroring'. Which means 1 Tb of files = 2 Tb of diskspace + tombstones. 

On the other hand, the WHS backup seems to be able to filter out one single copy of each file version, eliminating duplicate files on multiple pc's/external storage. Now this is interesting! (cleaning up duplicate files on multiple pc's is always a killer).

Does this duplicate-elimination add up for the disk space usage ? Iow, is it interesting enough to NOT go RAID5 and use the WHS method instead ?

2)  right now I'm still making good old Ghost images, because a. they're so reliable and b. with a ghost image you have both disaster recovery (full OS restore, even for my multi-OS workstation), and at the same time a file-based restore tool that works perfectly (Ghost image browser). 

In comes the WHS backup system. Sounds great, but is it good? reliable? (I still have a problem 'believing' in backing up a running os .. and, sorry, microsoft ... )

3)  I'm used to managing 2K3 servers and the like .. (so basic NTFS). In WHS it's hands off the filesystem, or U blow the thing.  Now this brings back nightmares from the early versions of IIS.. (go through the FrontPage extentions, or you're dead!).  Is this WHS interface thing stable enough? reliable enough ?  What if ...   (I can hook up any regular NTFS disk to an XP and start tooling around .. what's the story with those WHS Disk Extender managed disks ?)

A lot of questions (and probably stupid  ones), I know ..
Thanks for your input anyway !!
P.

1. I haven't really tested this to see, I don't have a lot of duplicates on different machines, so I haven't noticed.  You can also tell it what you want to have duplicates of, so you don't need to duplicate everything.

2. Mine has been great.  I've been using WHS since the beta and had no problems at all.  You can still do a bare bones restore (just like with a traditional image based backup) - I've used this once so far (HD in one of my computers died).  It's very simple to do, just pop the boot cd in the comptuer you need to restore, it will find the WHS over the network, you tell it what computer to restore & from which backup, wait for maybe an hour and you're done.

You can also browse through all of the backups that you have done and pull out individual files (it mounts the backups as a drive, so you can play with them just like a manual backup).

It's also great how easy it is to add more hard drives once the system is built.  I debated for a long time if I wanted to do a linux based NAS setup using RAID, or a WHS - I opted for WHS in large part because of the ease to add a new hard drive.  After you install a disk you just tell it to add it to your storage pool and you're done.  Takes no more than 2 minutes in software to do.

The client side software seems very reliable, it is also fairly smart, it tells you if any machine on your network hasn't had a successful backup in a few days.  If you add another drive to one of the machines in your network, the software will recognize that and prompt you to add it to your backup set - I though this was kinda a neat feature.

3. You can still log into the computer and go throught the files by hand, though I don't think it's a good idea, and they give you all sorts of warnings about it.  You can also remote desktop into it no problem, though you really don't need to much (if ever) - the console program that they give you is really quite good, and with a few (free) add-ons, it should do everything you need.

One of the neat things they added with the PowerPack 1 release is the ability to backup the WHS itself - this means you can set one of the drives in it to backup your backup server.  This should help diminish fears of it breaking.

I ultimatley chose WHS over a NAS style system because of the ease of adding additional storage to it, and I really didn't want to hassle with manual backups for all of the systems in the house.  I've been very happy with it thus far, and would certainly pick it again.

---

Just my $0.02.

I've never heard of the duplicate-elimination feature and I've used WHS for 1.5 years.
It does have file-duplication (not shadow copy) if you use more than 1 HDD with it. That's as close to mirror-raid you'll get. It doesn't support any type of raid, hardware or software. There are white papers that explain it all on microsoft's site.
Yes, it's good and reliable. I'm not really sure about your questions, your grammar/sentence structure is too hard to decipher.

MitchSchaft:

I've never heard of the duplicate-elimination feature and I've used WHS for 1.5 years...

Here's a quote from: http://www.davescomputertips.com/newsletters/2008/080701.php#2

:

When a computer is first backed up a complete backup is made. WHS's backup works on the cluster level. It looks at 4kb chunks of the drive as it backs up. Because of this on subsequent backups it only stores clusters that are different from the first backup. This backup method saves space on the server, requires less time to complete, and keeps the data sent across your network to a minimum! Ah, but there's more! WHS also keeps track of the clusters from other computers it has already backed up. If multiple computers have the same files they only get backed up once. Again speeding the process, limiting time, and saving network bandwidth! WHS keeps a database noting which computers have specific clusters, which makes this process work. All of this happens in the background. You don't have to remember to do the backup, or what has and has not been backup up previously. This is very similar to an incremental backup when using drive imaging software.

---

Just my $0.02.

I'm an experienced IT professional and I also chose WHS over NAS/Win2003/Win2008 solutions.  I'm extremely happy with the automatic backups.  I've already use the restore on my MediaCenter after the TV Pack upgrade failed.  The restore works over the network and is very reliable.  However, I highly recommend that you upgrade to a gigabit network.

I used to use Ghost but with WHS and the ability to backup even Home Premium computers, there is no longer any need to use anything else for backup.

The advantage of JBOD (just a bunch of disks) and WHS's avoidance of duplicating clusters means that if you have files stored across multiple computers they won't take extra space.  i.e. multiple copies of your mp3 music stored across multiple computers.

WHS works well and is easy to configure for user folders.  And, it can also be used as a VPN Server if you know how to configure Remote Access.

That is awesome. I guess that never stuck out for me since I only back up a couple computers. Only my media center has all the cool files on it.

Hi,

just to add my 2p to the discussion, I've had a WHS machine now for a few weeks, recently upgraded from evaluation version to a tranquilpc home server - it does what it says on the tin....

Backs up each and every pc that has had the connector software run on it;

stores and shares all music, photos and videos

Allows remote access to all shares, plus any documents stored on the server - we now have each my documents pointing to the user folder on WHS, so whenever we now update any files, they are instantly available from outside the house too

It just sits there, does its thing, with no interference - works wonderfully well!

Tony

---

AMD64X2 6000+ | 3Gb Ram | 750Gb Maxtor SATA | 200Gb Samsung Spinpoint for Vista | ASUS M2N-SLI Deluxe | FloppyDTV + Dragon CAM | Pinnacle 7010ix | XFX 8600GT Silent Video Card | LG Blu-ray/HD DVD Drive | Xbox 360 | Arcsoft Total Theatre

Thanks all for your comments!  You have (almost) convinced me to put my new RAID controller on eBay :)  Guess I have only 2 issues left:

- I need to overcome this old fear of mine of being totally dependent on one single Microsoft interface/product/environment to do everything ..  (learn to trust MS .. hmm ;-))

- what still bugs me a little bit: 
When I save a file to a RAID5 share, from the second the physical write is executed the file is safe. 
 
Now when I save a file to a WHS share, it is not safe. It is only safe AFTER the WHS software has done its task, creating the secondary shadowfile. So 1) delay (I believe the duplication of shadowfiles is a scheduled task?).  2) if the file is open, no shadowfile.  3) if there is not enough space on a different physical disk, no shadowfile.  4) what else can happen .. ? :))

Now I read that you can continuously monitor the status of all files on the WHS shares in real-time, but frankly I like to consider my server as a 'safe' cabinet - write a file to it and it's safe. Period.
I don't really want to check a list of 'healthy' and 'not healthy' files on some interface ....     

Ok maybe I'm just too oldfashioned, and I need to 'get with the new stuff' .. :) 
Maybe I'm asking too much data security for what is after all only a home environment .. ?

What do you guys think ?    Thanks for your opinion! 

Hi,

why don't you try downloading the software and running as an evaluation, see how you get on with it? That way, you can always revert back to your trusty current setup.

Tony

---

AMD64X2 6000+ | 3Gb Ram | 750Gb Maxtor SATA | 200Gb Samsung Spinpoint for Vista | ASUS M2N-SLI Deluxe | FloppyDTV + Dragon CAM | Pinnacle 7010ix | XFX 8600GT Silent Video Card | LG Blu-ray/HD DVD Drive | Xbox 360 | Arcsoft Total Theatre

Tony_Park:

Hi,

why don't you try downloading the software and running as an evaluation, see how you get on with it? That way, you can always revert back to your trusty current setup.

Tony

Hi Tony,  yes I was planning to do that - but it will just show me the interfaces, look and feel  (and I'm confident that I will find my way around those :)

Why I'm posting my questions&doubts here is to find out how good the thing really is when used IRL, with real data, real backups, and most important: real restores! :))   

Iow:  real-life experiences from users - and the trouble they (might) have seen with it .. (or the positive things, of course :)))

But thanks for your comment!

Hi,

sure, can understand that :-)

I've got nothing bad to say about mine yet - but then its not been hit hard by my wife, who can kill any MS products (keep telling her she should work for them!)

Tony

---

AMD64X2 6000+ | 3Gb Ram | 750Gb Maxtor SATA | 200Gb Samsung Spinpoint for Vista | ASUS M2N-SLI Deluxe | FloppyDTV + Dragon CAM | Pinnacle 7010ix | XFX 8600GT Silent Video Card | LG Blu-ray/HD DVD Drive | Xbox 360 | Arcsoft Total Theatre

Pirre_GW:

- what still bugs me a little bit: 
When I save a file to a RAID5 share, from the second the physical write is executed the file is safe. 
 
Now when I save a file to a WHS share, it is not safe. It is only safe AFTER the WHS software has done its task, creating the secondary shadowfile. So 1) delay (I believe the duplication of shadowfiles is a scheduled task?).  2) if the file is open, no shadowfile.  3) if there is not enough space on a different physical disk, no shadowfile.  4) what else can happen .. ? :))

It's true that your files won't be instantly backed up in a redundant fashion.  For computer backups this really shouldn't matter since you have the original computer as a backup in case your WHS fails (unlikely that both will fail together).  For NAS storage you do run the risk of loosing something when you copy it over until the time that it is duplicated on another drive. 

I don't rembember what the actual time is, but I want to say it is like ever 30-60 minutes that it duplicates the files (could be wrong here).  This could be an issue, and might mean changing the way you use it; for me this isn't a big deal since I am never editing things directly off of the WHS, meaning I still have a backup on another computer for a while.  Anything that I am putting directly on the WHS without it first being on another computer is usually things like downloads that I need across the entire network, or CDs for my music library - things that I could easily recreate if needed.

If you are wanting a NAS style space that has immediate duplication, then hardware RAID is really gonna be the way to go.  For me the benefits of WHS outweighed this drawback.

---

Just my $0.02.