Buzz Out Loud Lounge: Must Windows Home Server Always Be Running?
Must Windows Home Server Always Be Running?
by tonyny77 - 5/20/08 9:11 AMI'm considering a system with Windows Home Server (WHS) to make the backups of my other systems a little easier. However, since I intend to use this WHS box only for making full system backups, I wondered whether it would be okay to leave the server turned off when I'm not making backups. Will that confuse/mess-up the other systems in my network?
I ask only because I can't see leaving the WHS box turned on all the time just because another system/client in my network is turned on.
Thanks.
server are designed to run 24/7
by mementh - 5/20/08 4:10 PM In reply to: Must Windows Home Server Always Be Running? by tonyny77so unless you are powering on each time you plan to use it.. i would leave it on.
Power a server off?
by pagesix1536 - 5/20/08 6:54 PM In reply to: Must Windows Home Server Always Be Running? by tonyny77WOT? Turn a server off and only power it on when you need it?
(JK, I'm a server administrator, I would never...)
If all you're using it for is for backups only, I'm almost thinking you would've been better off buying a one-touch external hard drive to backup those PC's then, and just hit the button when you need a backup.
Otherwise, maybe find some more uses for the server other than backups and keep it on all the time.
Backups
by Dirty Pirate - 5/22/08 7:23 AM In reply to: Must Windows Home Server Always Be Running? by tonyny77I think a server is overkill if all you are doing is backups. Perhaps a external hard drive is all you need. I bought a Terra Byte cheap.
Is this just a single computer that you are backing up? I am just assuming that it is.
No, There Are Three Systems
by tonyny77 - 5/22/08 8:34 AM In reply to: Backups by Dirty PirateDirty Pirate ... To answer your question, there are three systems involved. I already have an external hard drive for two of the systems, but now that I have three systems, I thought that another system with Windows Home Server (WHS) installed might be a more convenient choice than having to go to each system to run a backup manually.
I might be wrong, but I find myself disagreeing with the post by PageSix. In the most strict sense of the word, a "server" may need to be available at all times. However, in the context of WHS, although it's called a server, the only service I'm intending to use is the backup feature it provides. Therefore, as I see it, my configuration and use of WHS would be the same as a mere networked drive or a NAS ... in other words, like an external back-up drive that's available to all the systems in the network. By the way, I think that's the definition of a NAS. Is it not? A NAS, I thought, is an external drive (or drive array) thats accessible by other systems in the network.
Since I'd be using WHS only for its backup services, there should not be a need to leave the WHS system running all the time unless, UNLESS Microsoft produced WHS to run in a way that might cripple the other systems in the network if WHS happens to be unavailable.
Therefore, my original question should have been worded this way: "If Windows Home Server (WHS) is not available for what ever reason, will the other systems in the network be temporarily disabled by WHS not being available?"
Note ... I'm surely not arguing with you. I'm just discussing the way I hope that WHS actually works. Thanks for your reply.
The short answer is no, but...
by fbbbb - 5/22/08 1:24 PM In reply to: Must Windows Home Server Always Be Running? by tonyny77... the long answer is that it will lead to missed backups, no matter how dilligent you think you are.
As the use of the Time Flaming Capsule teaches many people, it is that a backup device which makes incremental backups should be available without extra faff.
WHS also has some unresolved 'issues' at the moment which while not affecting backups, could prove problematic if you decide to work directly off the machine.
As a matter of interest, why should it not stay on all the time?
Good Question
by tonyny77 - 5/22/08 3:37 PM In reply to: The short answer is no, but... by fbbbbFBBBB ... Thanks for the info. You make good points, I feel, and I appreciate the note about the unresolved issues.
To answer some of your questions ...
- If I had a WHS system, I guess I'd do incremental or differential backups once a day. Full backups would be weekly or bi-weekly, perhaps.
- Yes, I heard about problems with people opening files "directly off the machine," as you say. I don't intend to be doing that, though.
- Why not keep it on all the time? Well, if backups are my only use for it, I just can't see leaving it on all day long. It's just a power issue. Gosh, but I guess that's another system that's going to need an UPS.
- Lastly, since I'd use WHS only for backups, this makes its function less server-like. For this reason, I feel that if it's not available for whatever reason, I see no reason why it should inhibit or crash the performance of the other systems in the network. Notice I did not refer to the other systems in my home network as "clients."
Am I making any sense? Your comments are appreciated. Thanks!
Hmmm
by fbbbb - 5/23/08 2:34 AM In reply to: Good Question by tonyny77There's no particular problem with the setup you propose. WHS does make sense for large/frequent backups over-(wired)net due to the extensible storage and faster write performance than many of the Linux-based, upper-end NAS's out there and approaching a 'real' PC in terms of network throughput.
* Many people, when they buy a Gigabit NAS, assume that it maxes Gigabit. This is of course untrue as network throughput over a Gigabit network is up to the hardware in the NAS itself. The more expensive NAS's cost nearly as much as a PC when fully loaded but they still lag behind PC's in terms of raw network throughput. Which is the reason why many Linux geeks use FreeNAS/etc and put together their own NAS's using low cost PC's as a base. However, the baseline hardware required by WHS means that it will be among the fastest - and most expensive - NAS-class devices. *
But I'm not sure the hassle of switching it off after you've finished, then switching on and doing each backup on each PC manually is going to be viable, nor ideally in keeping with how WHS works.
Very Much Appreciated
by tonyny77 - 5/23/08 5:58 AM In reply to: (NT) Addendum: I ought to qualify 'NAS' as 'consumer NAS' by fbbbbFBBB ... Again you've made good points. I may have to reconsider my intention to shut down the WHS unit when I'm not doing backups.
Thanks again for your valuable and well-considered thoughts. Good luck.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
