RE: Re: NAS or WHS

["Paul Gordon" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Phil

My understanding is the WHS storage management is actually based on DFS
(Di=
stributed File System, not a sofa warehouse) like technology, rather than
t=
raditional RAID as we know & love.

Now, I see absolutely no reason whatsoever why the two couldn't happily
coe=
xist, considering that when you add storage to the WHS, you have the
option=
to add (or not add) it to the servers' storage pool... If you choose to ad=
d it to the pool, then it is subsumed into the storage management
mechanism=
and thus ceases to be an independent volume - no longer appears as its own=
drive letter for instance, - and all the standard shares begin to use it t=
o duplicate the data... (presuming you haven't disabled duplication)

Alternatively, you can add storage and elect *not* to add it to the pool.
I=
n this case it behaves just like any other disk on any other Windows 2003
s=
erver...

The WHS just sees whatever "disks" you have attached to the
server, pretty =
much regardless of how they're attached, be they SATA, IDE, USB, Firewire,
=
etc.. and I'd absolutely expect that this would/will also include a
hardwar=
e RAID array, which after all is configured outside of, and entirely
indepe=
ndently of, whatever OS you choose to put on the box (of course you'll
need=
suitable OS drivers to make best use of it).

I know there are lots of warnings about not doing various things with WHS
s=
torage, but as far as I've ever been aware, these refer to storage that is
=
in the pool.

I'd be inclined to give it a go, - I'd be shocked & stunned if it
didn't wo=
rk, after all, WHS is 99% 2003 server, with 1% extra stuff to make useable
=
by numpties....

My main Windows 2003 server has this arrangement, 3 x 320 SATA's in RAID
5,=
yielding a 640GB useable volume. Windows' disk manager just sees a single =
large "disk" attached, which it then uses as normal. WHS should
be no diffe=
rent.

Just my =A30.02

Paul G.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx [mailto:ukha_d@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Phil Harris
> Sent: 30 November 2008 01:18
> To: 'Phil Harris'; UKHA Group
> Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Re: NAS or WHS
>=20
> Hmmm ... after a little more digging it seems that shares on WHS can
> either
> be duplicated or not - seems that MS don't support "RAID"
like strategies
> under WHS - is that correct? Do you really have to have everything
> duplicated (mirrored) to have data security or can you actually have a
> RAID
> type of setup (which is still extendable) under WHS?
>=20
> Phil
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Phil Harris [mailto:phil@xxxxxxx]
> > Sent: 30 November 2008 01:05
> > To: 'ukha_d@xxxxxxx'
> > Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Re: NAS or WHS
> >
> > Given all the discussion about WHS recently there's one thing I'd
like
> > to know - unfortunately the amount of data I'm playing with on my
> > server is a bit on the hefty side (about 14Tb at the moment) so I
don't
> > really want to have to start migrating all that data over to a
new OS
> > just to try and see whether it works.
> >
> > What I would like to know is - if you have a "pool" of
storage (for
> > example my "Movies" collection) set up as a software
RAID5 array can
> > you still dynamically expand that array?
> >
> > Also, what happens if you shut down the server and physically
move
> > drives around so they're on different SATA connections? Is WHS
> > intelligent enough to work out that the data is still intact and
*NOT*
> > assume that the data needs to be rebuilt or the array has been
trashed?
> >
> > Phil
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx [mailto:ukha_d@xxxxxxx] On
> > Behalf
> > > Of Geoff H
> > > Sent: 28 November 2008 10:16
> > > To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [ukha_d] Re: NAS or WHS
> > >
> > > Thanks for all of the responses. It looks like WHS seems to
be the
> > > preferred choice.
> > >
> > > I shall read the forums to see what experiences people have
had. I
> > have
> > > read some of the reviews on wegotserved and the Tranquil PC
systems
> > > come
> > > out well, so this is probably my preferred choice.
> > >
> > > Geoff
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ------------------------------------
>=20
> ********************************************
> Limited Time Offer - Free iPhone VAT Calculator
> http://berble.com/index.php/component/content/article/109
> ********************************************
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.9/1806 - Release Date:
22/11/200=
8
> 18:59

------------------------------------

********************************************
Limited Time Offer - Free iPhone VAT Calculator
http://berble.com/index.php/component/content/article/109
********************************************=20=20