Delta_42 wrote:
I had WHS running on a server at home, with around 1Tb of data. Not only does the somewhat limiting drive management system mean you need double the amount of storage, but the storage management cripples performance (not to mention the fact that it seems to be almost constantly trying to re-balance the storage).
The drive management was actually what attracted me most about WHS - the ability to add/remove drives of any capacity at any time, and they'll be incorporated into the general storage pool (correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK you don't actually *need* double the storage - you can replicate individual folders or shares if you want, but it's not obligatory).
It's a nice idea in theory - you just have a single unified storage space and let the OS worry about where the files are actually physically located, but it's a moot point given that it doesn't seem to work properly anyway.
Delta_42 wrote:I was only getting 5Mb/sec transfer between the server and a PC.
As I understand it, you can normally max out your network speed using WHS until it starts shifting data from the "landing zone" on the second partition of the boot drive, which is when transfer speeds take a dramatic tumble.
The whole thing needs a radical overhaul before it's worth considering IMHO, but I can see what they were trying to do, and I do think it'll be quite nice when it's finished.
I guess the obvious alternative would be BSD 7.0 or Sun Solaris, using ZFS (the "one filesystem to rule them all"), but I don't really feel inclined to learn the vagaries of yet another OS, Linux gives me enough of a headache as it is...
