Posts: 355
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation:
7
I have never had/built a home server or any sort of NAS before so I have a few questions to ask.
Here is what I want to do with my server:
1. Obviously store all my media.
2. Instant access to media (or as instant as possible) over gigabit network.
3. Ability to stream HD content to multiple locations (even off site).
4. Run Sab, SB, CP, HP, and Plex media server without too complex of an installation process.
5. Ability to backup PCs or Macs.
6. User shares for personal data.
So this server probably needs to be able to be >100 MB/s transfer speed.
I think that a basic WHS 2011 will serve most of my purposes, but I am not sure about #'s 2, 3, and 5 (macs).
I did a quick search on this forum and most of it is related to Unraid (which I don't want to do because of #4).
Any help/advice is appreciated.
Posts: 1,136
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
18
Balinus
Skilled Skinner
Posts: 1,136
2012-01-17, 19:04
(This post was last modified: 2012-01-17, 19:09 by Balinus.)
Over a simple 10/100mb network, I access my files almost instantly (like 1sec max). I don't see a difference between local and network files in terms of access time.
Server is a Synology DS211j NAS. It would do most of your objectives, except maybe for #4. Though, there's a new beta software (DSM 4.0) that seems pretty nice in terms of installing packages, etc... This is the software that controls your NAS.
Posts: 147
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
1
lol, no worries. If built currectly you will not have to wait for movies to load.
it's almost instant, seriously like 1-2sec.
Well HDD's are your least expensive alternative, No one dumps their movies on SSD's, maybe the OS but that's it.
Posts: 355
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation:
7
Thanks guys.
Just classic overthinking on my part.
I have my current HTPC that will be converted to a WHS 2011 server soon. Just wanted to make sure I am ok with it... and it looks like I will be.
Posts: 355
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation:
7
I was confused. It makes sense now.
I think I want 100MB/s or more because there is a chance I could be streaming content locally and offsite while downloading a variety of things. I also happen to live in KC that is planning on offering Google Fiber soon and I will probably have that (gigabit speeds).
I would go with Unraid, but I am looking for something a little more familiar. I will actually end up paying less for WHS, but it might not have as many tools.
We'll see how it goes.
Posts: 74
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation:
0
Sorry to sort of hijack this thread but with a number of people with WHS 2011 whom have replied to this topic but is it worth the upgrade from WHS 2003 that i currently have ?
Posts: 147
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
1
I have recently upgraded to 2011, but not for the reason of new software or DLNA support. I think 2003 was great and if it wasn't for some of the hardware limitations I put in place, it would still serve me today. Actually it still is. I downgraded the CPU From a c2d to a celeron so I can run it passively. Removed all my 3.5's and replacing them with smaller 2.5 for cooler temps. It houses my software for surveillance and every other day does a backup of my whs2011 pictures and document folders.
The speeds I have achieved have been very similar, again cause I kept all my NIC's being intel.
Posts: 1,815
Joined: Sep 2006
Reputation:
0
Geeba
Posting Freak
Posts: 1,815
WHS 2011 is definitely faster than Ver 1 - I have my new 2011 box sat on my network at home as my Ver 1 box seems to be slowly dying with bad sectors on the system drive... I'm still not migrated fully to 2011 after the Windows 8 'drive extender like' software announcement and getting time to swap drives etc about, personally I think MS will bin Home Server and package it all up in Win 8.