OS Drive for Windows Home Server

[xazraelx]

Does it really need to be 80gb minimum, 300gb recommended? I have a 32gig raptor that I recently acquired for quite a cheap price ($20), just because someone I know was trying to get rid of some PC parts. Good deal or no, I'm currently using two computers as follows:

I have my main computer, which is using a slow old 320 seagate, but it works. Vista load time is around 40 seconds. Have two additional hard drives in there for storage. This is kind of my workhorse computer, I play games, convert videos, whatever on it. Sometime this year, though, I plan on getting rid of it and going i7

I have a second computer, which has never seen a full OS boot, just testing. I recently built it off of spare parts from slickdeals, it's about a $200 amd 6000+ 4 gigs ram build. I was wanting to start using it as a file server, streaming server, etc, for the various multimedia devices in my apartment. Several people I know recommend I start with WHS, so I was going to. I've been looking into getting 2-4 WD greenpower 500gigers for storage, but have no idea what to use for the OS drive. Windows suggest (read: http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...ingStarted.pdf) a 300 gb OS drive, with a minimum of 80gb. Why the hell would we need such a large OS drive? Like I said, I have the 32gb raptor drive that I'm inclined to put to use.

Just wondering if it would be more beneficial for me to buy a single platter 160/250 hdd -for the WHS computer-, or to just use the raptor I have laying around.

Thanks TPU =)

[thoughtdisorder]

Originally Posted by xazraelx

Does it really need to be 80gb minimum, 300gb recommended? I have a 32gig raptor that I recently acquired for quite a cheap price ($20).

Just wondering if it would be more beneficial for me to buy a single platter 160/250 hdd, or to just use the raptor I have laying around.

Thanks TPU =)

Well it looks like you're running Vista, so with that in mind, I would consider the following three thoughts before making up your mind:

1) Recommended HDD size is 40 GB minimum for Vista.

2) What is the manufacture date on the 32 GB Raptor? How much longer before failure?

3) The low cost of a decent 250/320 GB drive these days.

IMO, I would go for a 250 or a 320 Gb and call it a day if you can afford to do that.

[Jizzler]

While I'm not completely familiar with WHS, I believe that recommendation comes from two things:

- If you start with a single drive, WHS isn't much of a "value" when you don't have much space to save files and computer backups.

- After you have two or more drives, you have the option to have specified shared folders backed up on other drives. MS is expecting most users to start with a 300GB+ drive, then add another, then another, etc. It's mostly transparent to the user, or so I've heard.

So a 32GB OS drive with multiple storage drives sounds like an viable setup to me, though hopefully someone with more experience will chime in.

[xazraelx]

Originally Posted by thoughtdisorder

Well it looks like you're running Vista, so with that in mind, I would consider the following three thoughts before making up your mind:

1) Recommended HDD size is 40 GB minimum for Vista.

2) What is the manufacture date on the 32 GB Raptor? How much longer before failure?

3) The low cost of a decent 250/320 GB drive these days.

IMO, I would go for a 250 or a 320 Gb and call it a day if you can afford to do that.

I'm honestly not trying to be mean, but please re-read the original post. I'm trying to find a hdd to use for my OS in WHS, not vista. (sorry if I was unclear)

While I'm not completely familiar with WHS, I believe that recommendation comes from two things:

- If you start with a single drive, WHS isn't much of a "value" when you don't have much space to save files and computer backups.

- After you have two or more drives, you have the option to have specified shared folders backed up on each other. MS is expecting most users to start with a 300GB+ drive, then add another, then another, etc. It's mostly transparent to the user, or so I've heard.

So a 32GB OS drive with multiple storage drives sounds like an viable setup to me, though hopefully someone with more experience will chime in.

Of your first point, I'm aware. I have about 1.3ish TB of data that need to go on this, located on several different locations. I've been debating to go with raid 1+0 on 4 hdd drives, but then I only have 1tb of space with no upgrade room if I go with 500gigers. To be honest, I've been holding out on the 1TB drives until they hit a steady $90 mark for good drives, not the death stars *shudder*

I am not sure why they recommended the 80gig for OS drive, as I can't see why anyone would use the OS drive for their storage on a server...But I, like you, have never personally used it, so I'm hoping some here have =)

Thanks for your responses.

[Jizzler]

Yeah, I only briefly used the beta of it. 'Real' Server 2003/2008 is more my speed.

Just remember that this is Windows Home Server. Separate OS and data drives, and even RAID isn't something they're expecting from users. It's redundant backup is nothing more than coping the shared folders to another drive (hence the use the multiple large drives, even if one has the OS on it).

Is RAID-5 an option on your board?

[xazraelx]

Originally Posted by Jizzler

Yeah, I only briefly used the beta of it. 'Real' Server 2003/2008 is more my speed.

Just remember that this is Windows Home Server. Separate OS and data drives, and even RAID isn't something they're expecting from users. It's redundant backup is nothing more than coping the shared folders to another drive (hence the use the multiple large drives, even if one has the OS on it).

Is RAID-5 an option on your board?

I've never used Server 2003/2008 much at all, and wasn't sure whether I would have the time or patience to learn how to use it fully. Would you advise starting with 03/08 instead? I certainly don't mind new operating systems, and I'm sure it will feel familiar at first, but is the level of work worth it for the output? I know the goals one may have in mind vary, and it puts it in accordance with your answer, so here is what I eventually plan on using it for. It will have a web server (private), act as a media server for documents, VPN server, remote access to connected computers, and really anything else I wish to eventually do.

90% of this I don't know how to do already. It will require quite a bit of time and research on my part no matter -what- I go with, I just heard through the grapevine that WHS was quite functional and surprisingly easy. I'm -willing- to use 03 or 08, as I'd like to eventually learn them anyway, but I'm not sure where to jump.

Sorry for the vagueness/add nature of my typing, I know it can be frustrating to read.

Thanks for your assistance.

Oh: To answer your question, RAID 5 is not on my board, just 1,0,10. And I've thought about RAID5 before, as it seems quite effective and very practical, just never known anyone to personally use it (plus I'd need a RAID controller, or a different mobo)

[Jizzler]

I'm the Sys Admin at where I work, so I like having the features of Server 2003/2008 at home as well. Stuff like a domain, roaming profiles, storage, backup, etc.

WHS, from my point of view, makes for a great NAS. Can buy a pre-built system or choose your own hardware. Storage expansion is easy, and mostly transparent to the user. A lot of the file sharing and organization is also handled by WHS (which already has a pre-built interface/website for it all).

I believe it also handles remote access to your systems (proably through RAS). If so, WHS more or less fits with your requirements.

Hope that helps