WHS or full blown NAS

[Generious]

Hello All,

I'm currently in the market for a new Nas/WHS device.
A couple have caught my eye so far.

One being the HP storageworks x510 and the Second being TS-419P/439
What I need is performance and a decent amount of space.

I have around 2Tb of films, games, music in total that is being streamed using my netgear stora at the moment.
Which isn't fast enough for the backups streaming from it does fine.

I have 4 Windows 7 ultimate edition Laptops, 3 are used by the wife and kids, a PS3 and a Xbox all are pretty much used all the time.
The other laptop is my work laptop data on this laptop at the moment is stored on a external USB drive and rotated every month connected via a wired connection when being used in my office.

Two desktops one is a gaming windows 7 core i7 desktop and the second is a used for browsing the net(rdp from gaming system into this)

And a HP Proliant ML350G4p running VMware ESX4i out in my "shed" connected to a Netgear prosafe 5port Gigabit switch and a single connection from the GS105 into the house using a 30Meter Cat6e.
and a ML110G6 server that I haven't setup as of yet haven't decided what I'm going to use it for yet.

The backups to the storage are taking to long not getting any higher than 24MBps when doing a backup, I know its not the disk as I have swapped them out one by one into the desktop and did a local backup to them performance of the disks is fine.

The network consist of the following devices.
Wireless clients connected into a WNDR3700 using wireless N USB nics.
The desktops are connected to HP Procurve 1400 8 port switch using CAT6 2meter patch cables.
The netgear stora is connected via a 1meter cat6 to the procurve switch.
The prosafe GS105 is connected to the procurve 1400 inside the house and single connection running from the 1400 to the WNDR3700.

I'm not concerned about the servers at all thats configured up in a RAID6 using a smart array controller so thats all good the VMs running on the host are backed up by a tape drive.

The reason I like windows home server is because of the possibility of running vmware server inside it ( Yes I'm a vmware geek by hobby and job )
Which would allow me to donate the server to a local school as they would get more use out of it compared to me as I only use it for testing builds, templates, and ESX patches.

The second reason I like the WHS is the connector software that gets installed on the local clients and manages the backups so no need to keep on checking that they have run every single week.

And the final reason is the possibility of running a small apache server on it and mail server and the shares are incredibly easy to manage.

Cons: price, bang for the buck, performance, deduplication, and its at the end of the day windows 2003..

The Qnaps performance wise far superiour over the storagework device.
The interface clean and crisp
439pro VMware compatibility
Ability to present supported LUns to the ESX host.
using svmotion and Enchanced vmotion the vms onto the ML110 and scrap the ML350G4p as planned

In another three weeks I will be adding in a couple of VOIP components so to keep everything seperate the procurve will be moved to the shed, the GS105 will be moved underneath the TV stand and I'm looking at a procurve 1800g switch using vlans to seperate the voip traffic and work traffic from the local lan traffic.

So what I really want to know is anyone running WHS and a regular NAS device in their home network how is it working out?
How happy are you with the WHS performance wise and reliability wise?
I have built a WHS virtual machine several times with each release of a new powerpack but I'm still unsure whether to buy one or not....

Thanks for reading the above I know its a fair amount of details just trying to explain what I have so you can see the bigger picture

Cheers
Gen

 

[claykin]

WHS V2 is in beta testing. Built on Server 2008 R2. Should be out before end of 2010. Some rumors indicated this Fall, in time for Holiday season. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Home_Server_V2

Also look at Netgear Readynas Pro. Prices have come down quite a bit. New diskless model available. Check Newegg.
See here about VMWare. http://www.readynas.com/?cat=78

WHS backup app is OK, but it won't win any awards except for ease of use. The imaging tool won't allow you to make Virtual Machine images in case you need to boot one of them. It also won't restore to dissimilar hardware. Look at using Storagecraft Shadowprotect Desktop or Symantec BESR 2010 for your images.

File backup can be accomplished using many programs. One of my favorite is Syncback SE or Pro from www.2brightsparks.com. It does just about everything. You can also look at Oops Backup from www.altaro.com. V3 is in beta and has a lot of improvements. Its Time Machine for the PC if that type of backup app excites you. Even the free Cobian Backup is a great file backup app. All these will backup locked/in use files.

Your WNDR3700 is likely only capable of 12MB/s max transfer on 2.4 or 5Ghz. This is about as good as it gets for most N routers. There's a couple new N450 routers, but I don't think they're much better in real world use. Plus you need a 3x3 radio in your notebooks to take advantage of N450.

Even your desktop class wired NIC's are likely only capable of 70MB/s or less. Some server grade NIC's can do close to 90MB/s, but remember that assumes a quality NIC on both sides.

 

[Generious]

HI Claykin,

Many thanks for your advice defo something else to look at don't know why I didn't look into the Netgear readynas range they have some pretty solid devices.

As for the nics in the desktops I have a dual port NC380T which is based on a broadcom BCM5706.
Also on the motherboard it has a integrated dualport Marvel Yukon 88E8056.
Desktop to desktop using the procurve I can max out the connection at around 100/110MBps.
So I know the Nics are more than capable.
Not to worried about the laptops used by the kids and missus as they only really stream anyway.

Off to look at some of the netgear devices now

 

[claykin]

As for the nics in the desktops I have a dual port NC380T which is based on a broadcom BCM5706.
Also on the motherboard it has a integrated dualport Marvel Yukon 88E8056.
Desktop to desktop using the procurve I can max out the connection at around 100/110MBps.
So I know the Nics are more than capable.

Using single or dual NIC in LAG mode? Those transfer rates are seriously good for a single NIC. How are you testing?

 

[Generious]

Using single or dual NIC in LAG mode? Those transfer rates are seriously good for a single NIC. How are you testing?

Well the nics in the desktops are server grade nics so that makes a huge difference over the onboard marvels yukons plus the little bit of onboard memory.
And I went out and bought a ProCurve 1810G-8 Switch earlier today.
I have the nics teamed up using the HP teaming interface in transmit load balanced mode on windows 7 (utility in 2008 compatibility mode), and the ports are bundled up using lag with a jumbo size of 9014 on the teamed interface on both ends.

Testing using a mixed bag, Teracopy,Filezila,iperf & Regular drag and drop, and measuring the teamed throughput using Netmeter & the teaming interface itself.

Still though copying to the stora still is a bit meh 25/33MBps but I'm sure thats down to the lack of memory in the device and lack of processing power in it simply not able to keep up.

This is the nic i'm using in both workstations
http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsuppor...=1155257&prodTypeId=329290&objectID=c00678930

Not planning on keeping the second nic in the workstation this will be moved into the ML110 which is getting built up using ESX4i update 2 next week as the ML350G4p is going to its new home.

 

[prometheus]

check out the readynas ultra range just released

I have also looked at the idea of running WHS but my main concern is power consumpsion as i want it running 24/7.
i did think of running WHS on an atom 330 based board but i and hearing that the CPU is just not up it

 

[Osamede]

check out the readynas ultra range just released

I have also looked at the idea of running WHS but my main concern is power consumpsion as i want it running 24/7.
i did think of running WHS on an atom 330 based board but i and hearing that the CPU is just not up it

That's not true. You can run WHS on an Atom 330 just fine - the Tranquil brand home server units for example do this well. I have even played around with Windows Server 2008R2 on the Tranquil box - it runs fine. And WHS2 is basically a stripped a version of 2008R2 with a few pre-installed services tacked on.

 

[prometheus]

That's not true. You can run WHS on an Atom 330 just fine - the Tranquil brand home server units for example do this well. I have even played around with Windows Server 2008R2 on the Tranquil box - it runs fine. And WHS2 is basically a stripped a version of 2008R2 with a few pre-installed services tacked on.

I did say i heard a rumour

 

[claykin]

That's not true. You can run WHS on an Atom 330 just fine - the Tranquil brand home server units for example do this well. I have even played around with Windows Server 2008R2 on the Tranquil box - it runs fine. And WHS2 is basically a stripped a version of 2008R2 with a few pre-installed services tacked on.

What kind of read/write speeds can you get running WHS on an Atom 330?

 

[Osamede]

I havent done any study but it worked quite fine on the Tranquil box for me. This is no surprise as there are WHS boxes sold by commerical providers with equal or lesser CPU's.

Someone who did it as a DIY has a website with some numbers. See here:
http://nas.kievit.me/

 

[HDClown]

Me personally, if you want "Windows simplicity" I think you'd be BEST served by Windows Server 2008 R2 natively, especially with the iSCSI requirements you have. It will mean a lot more of rolling your own for certain services, but it will offer your the most flexibility.

From what I read about WHS v2 as far as iSCSI goes, everything says "iSCSI devices can be added to a storage pool". Does that mean WHS itself cannot be an iSCSI target? If it can't be a target, I think it's useless to you. If it can, then perhaps it's viable, but it's not released to market yet, and furthermore, look at what happened with data corruption in WHS v1. Now look at how WHS v2 has had a complete re-write of drive extender. Then ask yourself when you will trust WHS v2. No matter howe long a beta run is of a product, certain problems don't come to light until full production release and a massive user base is using the product.

However, an off-the-shelf NAS will give you an even easier level of "windows simplicity", as you won't have to roll your own services for certain features. But, now you loose the VMware component.

Should you decide on an off-the-shelf NAS, I wanted to show you some real world, end-user performance figures

First, You mention QNAP TS-439 Pro, but you wouldn't want that. You would want the TS-459 Pro with dual core Atom D510 (should you decide on QNAP). Basically, don't by any off-the-shelf NAS unless it has the Atom D510 or something better (like a Core2 Duo processor)

I have the TS-459 and below are my own network performance results. It's always nice to know that benchmarks provided by manufacturers can be easily replicated, which is my main point here. You'll see that my numbers match up pretty damn close with QNAP's benchmarks here: http://wiki.qnap.com/wiki/4_Bay_Series

-Switch; HP 1810G-8, jumbo frame enabled
-NAS: QNAP TS-459 Pro (Atom D510) - Connected to switch with both GigE ports, 802.3ad link aggregation in use on NAS and switch. jumbo frame enabled, MTU 9000 (max available)
-Desktop: Win 7 x64, connected to switch via oboard RealTek RTL8110SC GigE NIC, jumbo frame enabled, MTU 7000 (max available)

Samba write: 94.1 MB/s sustain
FTP write: 90-103MB/s sustain for first 2gigs of a 12g+ file, then it settles to 95-98MB/s once you get into the 4-7g+ range of the file

I have not done read tests, because everything I've done has been pushing data to the NAS. However, given that my own tests line up with QNAP's benchmarks, you can just view their numbers above to read read results, as well as iSCSI performance figures.

Pay attention to the fact that these figures are to an EXT4 file system, which is not yet supported by all NAS devices. You should see very similar performance figures to ANY manufacturers dual core atom D510 NAS, assuming EXT4 is in use. If only EXT3 is available, figures will be slower, because EXT3 is slower.

Should you decide to build something, you can build a box around a Core i3 processor, which will likely have better performance then an Atom D510, using a case like the Chenbro 4 slot hot-swap, or Lian Li PC-Q08 case, both of which are mini-ITX and similar sized to an off-the-self NAS. Total cost to assemble the entire hardware set in the $500-600 range, which will put you in similar (or cheaper) price range for an off-the-shelf NAS.

 

[corndog]

I'd strongly recommend NetGear ReadyNAS devices over WHS. ReadyNAS supports a wide variety of client types, runs very reliably, and has the best range of backup options (both push and pull) I have ever seen. I had a three-year-old ReadyNAS 1100 completely die on me. NetGear shipped a new one, and I put the drives into it, and it "just worked".

QNAP has a slight edge over Netgear on speed, but their very limited backup options (rsync push only) in my opinion makes the ReadyNAS much better.

WHS assumes it's your only NAS and doesn't really have any options for over-the-network synchronization to another NAS. I use an old ReadyNAS to PULL weekly from my HP WHS, and that's how I back it up.

But what worries me most is that I have lost my CD that came with the HP WHS and I don't know what will happen if the system drive dies. As a precaution I pulled it out, and put it in another computer, and then imaged it with Ghost. Hope that does the trick...

ReadyNAS X-RAID is basically a customization of plain old Linux software RAID that has been around for years - combined with some good expansion utilities. QNAP RAID is almost exactly the same. If you gain ssh access to either one, and look at /proc/mdstat it is nearly identical to your home-spun linux server.

In contrast, WHS uses a "mystery-meat" storage service, that "somehow" maintains multiple copies of your data on several drives, but only if you tell it to. It also uses the system drive as a kind of "staging area" when you copy new files to the NAS, and then relocates them somehow to the other drives. So you need a big fast system drive. (mixing a high-performance-high-flux service like this on the same drive as the OS is standard microsoft evil. Don't believe me? just try to locate the log files for various microsoft services on a Windows server - they're in a subfolder of the c:\windows folder or even worse the c:\windows\system32 folder - how brain-dead is that? pretty much guarantees your OS volume is abused and fragmented half to death.) In addition, the storage service on WHS is custom-cut specifically for that OS - it is NOT some regular time-honoured windows storage service that has done time in the trenches and had all the kinks worked out of it on millions of enterprise servers.

For that reason alone I would recommend staying away from WHS or at least don't trust it at all with your important stuff - do a DAILY backup to a real NAS, like a NetGear or a QNAP, that is based on some tried-and-tested storage technology.

my 2 cents...