locked
Backing up Windows Home Server OS RRS feed

  • Question

  • I did a search but couldn't find the answer.  I understand what WHS is and I am getting prepared to install it.  I also understand that WHS backs up the user data (videos, music, backups, etc) on to multiple drives so if one drive fails the data is not lost.

    My question is, is the Windows Home Server OS backed up?  So if, for some reason the primary drive the WHS OS is installed on fails will the whole server die or is the OS also backed up in some way on to multiple drives?

    Reason I ask, the server I am installing it on has 2 x 120GB hds and 4 x 250GB hds.  I was considering installing WHS on the 2 x 120GB in a Raid 1 configuration, then just adding on 250GB hard drive at a time to see how the adding hard drives process works.  However, if WHS backs itself up, then I would just use 1 250GB drive as the OS and use the rest for data storage.

    Thoughts?

    Also, I have read the post on using a larger the 80GB drive as the primary drive, but is their any major difference between using a 120GB or 250GB drive as the primary?
    Tuesday, February 27, 2007 10:29 PM

Answers

  • This FAQ hints at the answer to your first question. No, WHS doesn't back itself up, not in the way that you mean. But it does offer data redundancy through duplication of files placed in shares. If your primary drive fails, you can supposedly do a "repair" install of WHS and recover all your shares. You will lose users and backups, though. If you lose a drive in the storage pool, and everything on that drive was in a duplicated share, then you replace the drive and lose nothing. If nothing was in a duplicated share, you lose everything on the drive. Any backups on that drive will be lost, or course. Does that make sense?

    What I would do in your situation is install on one of the 250 GB drives and abandon the idea of using RAID. Instead use the WHS duplication feature.

    Finally, the reason you want to use your largest drive for your primary has to do with the way the storage pool is managed in the beta. If you are comfortable with never being able to copy more than (slightly less than) 110 GB of data to your WHS at once, then by all means the smaller drive should do. Backups will fail if you have a home PC that has more than that amount of data on a single drive, though.
    Tuesday, February 27, 2007 10:47 PM
    Moderator

All replies

  • This FAQ hints at the answer to your first question. No, WHS doesn't back itself up, not in the way that you mean. But it does offer data redundancy through duplication of files placed in shares. If your primary drive fails, you can supposedly do a "repair" install of WHS and recover all your shares. You will lose users and backups, though. If you lose a drive in the storage pool, and everything on that drive was in a duplicated share, then you replace the drive and lose nothing. If nothing was in a duplicated share, you lose everything on the drive. Any backups on that drive will be lost, or course. Does that make sense?

    What I would do in your situation is install on one of the 250 GB drives and abandon the idea of using RAID. Instead use the WHS duplication feature.

    Finally, the reason you want to use your largest drive for your primary has to do with the way the storage pool is managed in the beta. If you are comfortable with never being able to copy more than (slightly less than) 110 GB of data to your WHS at once, then by all means the smaller drive should do. Backups will fail if you have a home PC that has more than that amount of data on a single drive, though.
    Tuesday, February 27, 2007 10:47 PM
    Moderator
  •  Ken Warren wrote:

    What I would do in your situation is install on one of the 250 GB drives and abandon the idea of using RAID. Instead use the WHS duplication feature.


    Based on your suggestion, what I'll probably do is install WHS on one 120GB drives, add a in a 250GB drive then pull the primary 120GB and install another 250GB as primary and test the recovery process to see how smoothly the process is, before I start creating a few user accounts.

    Then I can try copying more then 110GB at once to see if WHS is able to adjust for the increase in size as a result of doubling the HD capacity.
    Wednesday, February 28, 2007 12:19 AM
  •  UltimateHTE wrote:


    Based on your suggestion, what I'll probably do is install WHS on one 120GB drives, add a in a 250GB drive then pull the primary 120GB and install another 250GB as primary and test the recovery process to see how smoothly the process is, before I start creating a few user accounts.

    Then I can try copying more then 110GB at once to see if WHS is able to adjust for the increase in size as a result of doubling the HD capacity.

    Word of warning: make sure the recovery process is nothing more than a test.  Due to the way that the Drive Extender Technology works right now, and some known bugs, there's a good chance that you could lose the data on the 120GB once you pull it, even when using the wizard.  Testing is good, and by all means do it, but make sure you have every single (non-system) file that's on that drive backed up elsewhere before you run the test...

    Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:20 AM