Home Server Advice
#1
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.
Reply
#2
WHS will serve you fine. You're asking it to achieve 100MB/s?

I able to achieve a little over that but most of the time its sitting at 100MB.
I run my setup on Cat6A with gigabit connection with all Intel NIC's. Once i change NIC's i have seen a slow down. But overall Windows 7 and WHS2011 work very very well together. Achieving 70MB/s is really good.

#2 - WHS offers DLNA support and gives instant access. I think that's the point of the server on Media SHaring folders. On other access, you can request that the PC's authenticate once and remember the authentication.

#3 - That's the point of a "server" isn't it? as long as you aren't putting in a 486 server, i don't see how multiple streamings will be an issue.

#5 - http://www.wegotserved.com/2011/10/21/os...me-server/
Reply
#3
r1lee Wrote:WHS will serve you fine. You're asking it to achieve 100MB/s?

I able to achieve a little over that but most of the time its sitting at 100MB.
I run my setup on Cat6A with gigabit connection with all Intel NIC's. Once i change NIC's i have seen a slow down. But overall Windows 7 and WHS2011 work very very well together. Achieving 70MB/s is really good.

#2 - WHS offers DLNA support and gives instant access. I think that's the point of the server on Media SHaring folders. On other access, you can request that the PC's authenticate once and remember the authentication.

#3 - That's the point of a "server" isn't it? as long as you aren't putting in a 486 server, i don't see how multiple streamings will be an issue.

#5 - http://www.wegotserved.com/2011/10/21/os...me-server/

Thanks rlee.

As far as #2 goes... I think I meant for it to essentially act like a local hard drive (or as close as possible) as far as file access time is concerned. I may have used the wrong term. I noticed in unraid that adding an SSD cache drive helps a lot with this. I'm not sure if you can do something similar in WHS. Maybe avoiding drive loading times is impossible. Maybe it's not a big deal. I don't really want the HDDs spinning all the time, but I would rather not have to wait long for a movie to load (I know I sound pretty impatient).
Reply
#4
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.
Reply
#5
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.
Reply
#6
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.
Reply
#7
r1lee Wrote:WHS will serve you fine. You're asking it to achieve 100MB/s?

I able to achieve a little over that but most of the time its sitting at 100MB.
I run my setup on Cat6A with gigabit connection with all Intel NIC's. Once i change NIC's i have seen a slow down.

This is a great point, if you are using the onboard LAN (in my case a cheap Intel board running WHS 2011, but with a Realtek LAN chipset) - I added an old PCI Intel NIC I had lying around and now can push 110MB/s consistently (multiple transfers to separate drives) through a Cisco SOHO switch.
Reply
#8
cwide Wrote:As far as #2 goes... I think I meant for it to essentially act like a local hard drive (or as close as possible) as far as file access time is concerned. I may have used the wrong term. I noticed in unraid that adding an SSD cache drive helps a lot with this. I'm not sure if you can do something similar in WHS. Maybe avoiding drive loading times is impossible. Maybe it's not a big deal. I don't really want the HDDs spinning all the time, but I would rather not have to wait long for a movie to load (I know I sound pretty impatient).
I think you may be a little confused here. The cache drive in unraid is to improve write speeds to the server. Without a cache drive in place every time you write a file to the server it must calculate parity which slows the process down. Reads from the server are basically as fast as the physical HDD and NIC can provide. The cache drive does not impact or help access time. Using unraid, latency in accessing your media will be basically zero as long as your disks are spinning. If the disk that contains the media is spun down then you have to wait for it to spinup. AFAIK all servers that support inactive disk spindown will suffer from this problem.

Also, I don't understand why you think that you need >100 MB/sec speeds. I have unraid without a cache drive (so I get 25 MB/sec writes) and I currently do/use everything that you listed with the exception of plex, CP, macs, and offsite streaming. I suspect that unraid can support those just fine but I don't currently use them. Installing apps like sab and SB could not be any easier IMO. I know basically zero about linux and it was a piece of cake (as long as you can read and follow simple instructions).
HTPC: Win 7 Home 64-bit | MB | CPU | GPU | RAM | Case | PSU | Tuner | HDDs: OS, Media | DVD Burner | Remote
Media server: unraid 4.7 | CPU | MB | RAM | Case | PSU | HDDs: Parity-2TB, Data-2x2TB
Reply
#9
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.
Reply
#10
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 ?
Reply
#11
reksveks Wrote: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 ?
Probably not, it might not even work without upgrading some hardware. Also you lose Drive Extender (if you've been using that).
Reply
#12
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.
Reply
#13
live4ever Wrote:This is a great point, if you are using the onboard LAN (in my case a cheap Intel board running WHS 2011, but with a Realtek LAN chipset) - I added an old PCI Intel NIC I had lying around and now can push 110MB/s consistently (multiple transfers to separate drives) through a Cisco SOHO switch.

Thank you, I preach this but I think a lot of people just overlook it. A gigabit NIC should be a gigabit NIC. I wad getting horrible speeds and once the main systems all had intel, it was smooth sailing. I'm sure it would be the same if you went all realtek, but intel NIC's are hands down the best in the business.
Reply
#14
reksveks Wrote: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 ?

With Windows 8 around the corner, I would say no. Even if you don't use DE, the data migration can be a huge headache and I don't think you really gain anything if you have a WHS v1 build you are happy with.
Reply
#15
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.
Reply

Logout Mark Read Team Forum Stats Members Help
Home Server Advice0