locked
RAID-6 vs WHS RRS feed

  • Question

  • I'm still on the fence about whether I should go with WHS or RAID-6. One of the concerns I have with WHS is that most of my data (DVD rips) is not so important that I would want to utilize folder duplication and basically half my storage pool. However, if I lost a drive it would still be a pain in the ____ to re-rip 300 movies. With RAID 6 I would have considerable protection against this event without sacrificing much storage.

    If a drive fails in WHS, is there some sort of report you can access in WHS that tells you the names of all the files on that drive? Something that says, "Hey, WHS can no longer find the actual files for these tombstones...". This way, I would at least know which movies I needed to re-rip.

    If I decided to do RAID 6 instead of WHS, I would probably go with Windows Server 2008 r2 as the OS. On the otherhand, this is quite costly. What would be the pitfalls of using the Windows 7 operating system on a server? I assume that addressing volumes over 2TB wouldn't be an issue? Would performance take a hit? Would sharing with other computers be more difficult? I have 3 PCs that will use the server. An office PC, an HTPC, and a laptop.

    I appreciate the help.
    Sunday, October 25, 2009 7:51 PM

All replies

  • I'm still on the fence about whether I should go with WHS or RAID-6. One of the concerns I have with WHS is that most of my data (DVD rips) is not so important that I would want to utilize folder duplication and basically half my storage pool. However, if I lost a drive it would still be a pain in the ____ to re-rip 300 movies. With RAID 6 I would have considerable protection against this event without sacrificing much storage.

    If a drive fails in WHS, is there some sort of report you can access in WHS that tells you the names of all the files on that drive? Something that says, "Hey, WHS can no longer find the actual files for these tombstones...". This way, I would at least know which movies I needed to re-rip.

    Not directly.  However, there is a tool created by a user named catsaver called Windows Home Server Cleanup Tool that would, in fact, create a batch file that could be used to remove the broken tombstones.  (Of course, using the tool is unsupported.)

    If I decided to do RAID 6 instead of WHS, I would probably go with Windows Server 2008 r2 as the OS. On the otherhand, this is quite costly. What would be the pitfalls of using the Windows 7 operating system on a server? I assume that addressing volumes over 2TB wouldn't be an issue? Would performance take a hit? Would sharing with other computers be more difficult? I have 3 PCs that will use the server. An office PC, an HTPC, and a laptop.

    All of these questions would be better asked in the Win7 forums.  Having said that, I don't see any reason why a properly configured client OS (whether it's XP, Vista, or 7) couldn't be used as a "server" for what you're looking for.  The drawbacks of going that route are you lose the other pieces of WHS (expandable storage pool, Remote Access, and client backups).  As for difficulty of setting it up, the average user might have problems setting up the shares/permissions, but since you know what RAID 6 is, I doubt you fall into that category.  :)

    I appreciate the help.

    Sunday, October 25, 2009 8:00 PM
    Moderator