Microsoft Home Server 2011

[coxhaus]

Why does everybody run NAS and not something like Home server 2011? I have never run a NAS before, just servers. When I retired, I shutdown all my virtual servers and domains. Domains are too much work for small home environments. I still needed disk storage so I installed $50.00 Home Server 2011. I used my Intel server motherboard and an Intel RAID5 card. I built a RAID5 server with 6 drives and Home server 2011.
My Home server seems to work fine for storage. Transfer speed is faster than any of my workstations. My fastest workstation is my music server and it can transfer between 52meg and 60meg/second moving large music files. Even with this speed the RAID is barely working.

 

[claykin]

Home Server 2011 is fine. Most people prefer an appliance, not another OS that needs a power hungry box, OS patching, antivirus, etc...

Unfortunately Microsoft has abandon the WHS project. They are pushing WHS users into Windows Server Essentials 2012. A robust and capable OS, but again overkill for most SOHO users.

To me, the advantage of WHS is the NTFS permissions. I sometimes get caught up with users who want granular permissions and for these Windows Server wins.

 

[stevech]

There's a reason Newegg and others have a sale discount for WHS down to $35.

 

[coxhaus]

Yes Microsoft is pushing people toward Windows Server Essentials 2012. I think it is a mistake for Microsoft. Trying to push home users to use a Domain environment is a mistake. Domains are too granular for home use. You spend so much time setting up structure it is hard to get things done for the Domain.

Home Server 2011 is still going to be supported for a number of years. It does not use Domains and is pretty simple to set up. It does not require antivirus any more than a NAS does. Home Server 2011 is designed for clients to use antivirus and only store clean files on the server the same as a NAS. The plus benefit is you gain client backups and restores.

I am not sure power hungry is an issue any more since there are low voltage processors now. Using low a voltage processor you are in the same class of power draw as a NAS.

I think WHS is a steal for $35. What a bargin!

 

[stevech]

It appears that MS dropped out of WHS because of low sales volume. I can understand... how many homes with busy families and non-geeks need/want WHS? Even dumbed-down.

Apple did better with the UI and marketing of "Time Capsule". Lay persons get it, with this jargon.

 

[tipstir]

WHS not like running Windows Advanced Server 2000, Windows Server 2003 Standard or Windows Server 2008 R2. But in all to get the Media side supportive was fun back then. Today to save on your electric bill and upgrades, virus attacks, just a simple way to use a NAS which focuses on one thing file management.

Of course what I have NSA 325
adds to the file server, web server, media server DLNA, boy just can't live without these features.

Smartphone
Network Media Player
Tablet
Netbook
Desktop

All of these can access the NSA 325 for music, videos, photos, docs you name it. Even through the browser it has it own media HTTP engine.

So yeah why use the WHS where a full multi-media NAS can do the trick for less money and you can store up to 6TB in there too. Use it as RAID or just as standardized HDD access so you can get full usage for both 3TB/3TB.

Whatever your needs are.