locked
Installation on 37GB drive... RRS feed

  • Question

  • is it possible to make the installer install on a smaller drive.

    I've got 3 40gb drives which will format to around 37gb'ish.

    however i keep being told i have to have a minimum of 65gb Sad

    Here is the setup error

    [6/14/2007 10:08:03 AM  4d4] Message to user: The first hard disk drive is not suitable for installing Windows Home Server.
    The first drive must be at least 65 GB and connected to a SCSI, ATA or SATA disk controller.
     The first disk found on this system has 37 GB and is connected to ATA.

    If there is a way round this i would be greatly appreciative Smile
    Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:44 AM

Answers

  • Per this post (and personal experience) the hardware requirements are now being enforced. So no, there's no way to force the install to use a 40 GB drive.
    Friday, June 15, 2007 5:50 PM
    Moderator
  • One possible solution not mentioned previously to utilize your 3 40gb drives would be to use a hardware RAID-5 solution that would present the three drives together as an 80gb drive.

     

    I feel compelled to mention that storage is going for about $.25/GB these days so your 40gb drives are worth about $10 each, not to mention that they probably draw 3x the power of one larger drive.

    Tuesday, June 19, 2007 11:19 PM

All replies

  • I got the same problem here.

    My first hard disk drive is 60gb.

     

    Is there any way to get around this?

     

     

    Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:26 PM
  • Evening,

     

    The only possible way, might be to install it onto a 'larger' drive, then clone it back to the smaller drive.

    However, RC1 requires a minimum of 20gb which leaves you very little staging area when you are doing back-ups.

     

    Colin

    Thursday, June 14, 2007 4:25 PM
  • The previous builds didn't have this limitation.  I used in my setup a 40GB primary drive and it worked fine in the beta 2 and CTP builds, but on this RC version this error has come up. What I don't understand is the odd size requirement (68GB).  I can at least swap my drives around and get around the new setup restriction, but hopefully they can answer your question on any possible install  path.  Either that or try to find an 80GBer on newegg or eBay...
    Friday, June 15, 2007 3:11 AM
  • They really do suggestthat you use the largest possible drive you have available, (I use a 500gb). The reason is that during the backup process, the extra space on this first drive is used as the 'staging area' for the files, before they are transferred to the correct location.

     

    Maybe the 68 limitation is that 48 gb is the actual minimum size the 'staging area' can be.

     

    Colin

    Friday, June 15, 2007 4:55 PM
  • Per this post (and personal experience) the hardware requirements are now being enforced. So no, there's no way to force the install to use a 40 GB drive.
    Friday, June 15, 2007 5:50 PM
    Moderator
  • This is annoying.  I'd prefer to install WHS on as small a drive as possible and use that drive only for the OS.  Then you could have the data by itself on as many other drives as needed.

    Keeping the OS separate would greatly help recovery and re-installing if that ever became necessary.

    Not that it really matters that much because there seem to be no good recovery scenarios anyway.  If anything happens to the OS or the OS drive, you're completely screwed and will likely lose all your backups and some portion of your data.

    That has been one of my biggest complaints about WHS from the start and it doesn't look like the situation will improve at all for RTM.  The lack of recoverability is a serious problem with this product.  If the OS was on its own drive, I could just replace that drive, reinstall the WHS software, point it to the drives with the existing data and backups and be up and running.
    Saturday, June 16, 2007 5:40 PM
  • hi

    you can't install it on 37 gb you have to have more than 60 gb hd to install the windows

    Sunday, June 17, 2007 3:47 AM
  •  pd48 wrote:
    This is annoying.  I'd prefer to install WHS on as small a drive as possible and use that drive only for the OS.  Then you could have the data by itself on as many other drives as needed.

    Keeping the OS separate would greatly help recovery and re-installing if that ever became necessary.

    Not that it really matters that much because there seem to be no good recovery scenarios anyway.  If anything happens to the OS or the OS drive, you're completely screwed and will likely lose all your backups and some portion of your data.

    That has been one of my biggest complaints about WHS from the start and it doesn't look like the situation will improve at all for RTM.  The lack of recoverability is a serious problem with this product.  If the OS was on its own drive, I could just replace that drive, reinstall the WHS software, point it to the drives with the existing data and backups and be up and running.

    Not sure where you got the idea you are screwed if the system/OS drive goes down. Per the FAQ, a WHS system/OS drive is completely recoverable :-). All backups are safe, and if you have duplication enabled for the shared folders, they are safe too. Note that from RC1 the system partition is 20GB.

    Sunday, June 17, 2007 11:47 AM
  • You are correct.  I spoke too soon based on my Beta2 experiences. RC1 greatly improves recoverability.  I did a reinstall test yesterday and it worked well.

    I would still like to see the OS on its own small drive and the data on separate drives.  Separating system files and data is always a good idea and keeping the data on its own drives gives you more flexibility in the long run.
    Sunday, June 17, 2007 12:35 PM
  • Note that backups are only "safe" from a system drive failure if they aren't stored on the system drive. It's possible for backups to be stored on the system drive if WHS only has two drives, and they will certainly be there if there's only one drive.
    Sunday, June 17, 2007 1:08 PM
    Moderator
  • One possible solution not mentioned previously to utilize your 3 40gb drives would be to use a hardware RAID-5 solution that would present the three drives together as an 80gb drive.

     

    I feel compelled to mention that storage is going for about $.25/GB these days so your 40gb drives are worth about $10 each, not to mention that they probably draw 3x the power of one larger drive.

    Tuesday, June 19, 2007 11:19 PM
  •  Brian_R wrote:
    The previous builds didn't have this limitation.  I used in my setup a 40GB primary drive and it worked fine in the beta 2 and CTP builds, but on this RC version this error has come up. What I don't understand is the odd size requirement (68GB).  I can at least swap my drives around and get around the new setup restriction, but hopefully they can answer your question on any possible install  path.  Either that or try to find an 80GBer on newegg or eBay...

     

    There were limitations on previous builds. The requrement for Beta 2 and CTP were 32GB. I've actually installed RC1 on a 5GB partition on a 20GB drive but the software kept generating warnings that there was less than 5GB free on the system partition.

     

    If I can figure out how to seperate the system partition from the primary data partition, I'll be installing WHS on a 16GB DOC module.

    Wednesday, June 20, 2007 1:33 AM
  • Thanks for the responses guys Smile

     

    I was hoping to get round this as i didnt want to make/buy a new pc just to test Home Server i thought i could just use an existing one with a couple of average hdd's.

     

    I think HLaRoux's suggestion is going to be the nearest one that will be suitable for testing purposes.  Hopefully i can find a RAID card that can at least do striping for the purposes of this RC

     

    It does seem a little strange that enforcing such a high requirement for the boot/system drive is so high.  If i could get away with it i'd have the average size hard disk of say 40gb or whatever that happens to be when i come to getting HomeServer when its released and then have mass storage as the other drives.

     

    Perhaps i've missed the point Smile

    Wednesday, June 20, 2007 5:49 AM
  • The "bang for the buck" price point for drives is around 320 to 400 GB right now, with drives in that range costing about $0.24/GB. Drives in the 40 to 80 GB range are anywhere from 2x to 4x the cost per GB. So you might want to rethink your "average" drive size. Smile
    Wednesday, June 20, 2007 3:40 PM
    Moderator