locked
Drive Extender - Duplication on question RRS feed

  • Question

  • So with folder duplication on, and with two drives, the files in the shared folders are duplicated to the 2nd drive.

    The backups are not duplicated.

    So the only way to get redundancy with the backups is through RAID, which is unsupported, but which works.

    Is this correct?
    Sunday, November 16, 2008 4:25 AM

Answers

  • Alex Barimo said:

    So with folder duplication on, and with two drives, the files in the shared folders are duplicated to the 2nd drive.

    The backups are not duplicated.

    So the only way to get redundancy with the backups is through RAID, which is unsupported, but which works.

    Is this correct?


    No.  The only supported method is to copy the backup database from the server by following the instructions in the Windows Home Server Technical Brief for Home Computer Backup and Restore.

    There is also an unsupported registry modification that will enable duplication on the backup database folder, as well as a new add-in that will allow you to backup your backup database (and also automatically change the registry for you).  Please click here for more details.
    Sunday, November 16, 2008 5:38 AM
    Moderator
  • Per Microsoft's design, the backup database is essentially fungible. It's not intended to be used as an archive of old computers, and indeed can't be used that way in the long term, as you will eventually need to start removing them as you add new ones due to the 10 computer limit.

    I am comfortable with the thought that something which damages the database (an experience I have not had in a production environment since I put my first home server together almost 2 years ago) will require me to recreate it, so I don't personally do anything to protect it. However, I've experimented with that registry edit and it seems safe. I've also experimented with the add-in kariya21 linked above. If I needed to preserve my backup database, I would use the add-in myself.

    RAID is, of course, also unsupported, and it introduces it's own set of potential issues.

    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Sunday, November 16, 2008 1:53 PM
    Moderator

All replies

  • Alex Barimo said:

    So with folder duplication on, and with two drives, the files in the shared folders are duplicated to the 2nd drive.

    The backups are not duplicated.

    So the only way to get redundancy with the backups is through RAID, which is unsupported, but which works.

    Is this correct?


    No.  The only supported method is to copy the backup database from the server by following the instructions in the Windows Home Server Technical Brief for Home Computer Backup and Restore.

    There is also an unsupported registry modification that will enable duplication on the backup database folder, as well as a new add-in that will allow you to backup your backup database (and also automatically change the registry for you).  Please click here for more details.
    Sunday, November 16, 2008 5:38 AM
    Moderator
  •  

    Thank you for your response.

    So am I better off changing a registry value in order to enable an unsupported WHS feature, or running a beta add-in called WHSBDBB?  The objective is for the 2nd drive to mirror the backups so that in the event of failure of one of the drives the backups on the 2nd drive are still available.  I'm aware that the original machines provide redundancy, however the original machines are off-site and the initial backup time is long.

    It seems to me that it'd be better to run a RAID at a hardware level, which at least is generally known to work, rather than either of the above specified options.

    Is this analysis wrong?

    Thank you in advance for any help you can provide.

    Sunday, November 16, 2008 11:49 AM
  • Per Microsoft's design, the backup database is essentially fungible. It's not intended to be used as an archive of old computers, and indeed can't be used that way in the long term, as you will eventually need to start removing them as you add new ones due to the 10 computer limit.

    I am comfortable with the thought that something which damages the database (an experience I have not had in a production environment since I put my first home server together almost 2 years ago) will require me to recreate it, so I don't personally do anything to protect it. However, I've experimented with that registry edit and it seems safe. I've also experimented with the add-in kariya21 linked above. If I needed to preserve my backup database, I would use the add-in myself.

    RAID is, of course, also unsupported, and it introduces it's own set of potential issues.

    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Sunday, November 16, 2008 1:53 PM
    Moderator
  • Alex Barimo said:

     

    Thank you for your response.

    So am I better off changing a registry value in order to enable an unsupported WHS feature, or running a beta add-in called WHSBDBB?  The objective is for the 2nd drive to mirror the backups so that in the event of failure of one of the drives the backups on the 2nd drive are still available.  I'm aware that the original machines provide redundancy, however the original machines are off-site and the initial backup time is long.

    It seems to me that it'd be better to run a RAID at a hardware level, which at least is generally known to work, rather than either of the above specified options.

    Is this analysis wrong?

    Thank you in advance for any help you can provide.



    I agree with Ken.  Out of the 3 possible choices (RAID, reg hack, add-in), I would go with the add-in as well (primarily because, at least in terms of backing up the backup database to another hard drive, the add-in essentially automates the only supported method of backing up the backup database, which is in the technical brief I linked to before).
    Sunday, November 16, 2008 2:29 PM
    Moderator
  • Ken / kariya : thank you very much for your reply and for sharing your knowledge.  I appreciate it.
    Sunday, November 16, 2008 3:41 PM