Building A Home Server Part IV

December 6th, 2007 • Related • Filed Under

My shameless begging for a copy of Windows Home Server has finally paid off and I’m in the process of installing it as I write this post.  I knew that somebody would eventually send me a copy!

Over the last couple of days I’ve discovered some problems with my NASLite installation that has made me decide it’s time to move on and build a more advanced Home Server using Windows Home Server:

  1. Limited extension and upgrade capabilities
  2. Slow transfer speeds
  3. Complicated RAS configuration

I can live with #2 but #1 is the one that concerns me the most.  Although NASLite is a very good NAS platform, that’s literally all it can do.  This is why I’ve found it hard to to setup RAS as it’s not designed to do this.  I’ve decided it’s time to move on before I get too attached to NASlite, especially as it’s now holding all of my files, as I have no idea how easy it will be to upgrade in the future.

Moving to Windows Home Server fully is going to take me a while as I have to transfer all the files off my NASLite installation onto a second PC, and then back onto the Windows Home Server box.  So far I’ve wiped one HDD so that I can install WHS, and I’ll have to keep switching HDDs in order to boot the different OSs in order to move files back and forth.

So far the installation of WHS is going well (3o mins to go) - I’ll let you know how I get on when it’s all up and running.

Bookmark & Share

Related Posts

«« Leaving iTunes Behind - Moving To MediaMonkey And Lossless Music
Preview Of New Eureka WordPress Theme »»

About the Author

author photo

Everton is based in London and has worked in the internet and mobile space for over ten years now, and before that worked in corporate strategy and consulting. He has a degree in Economics from Cambridge University, and currently runs the Portal and online operations for one of the largest ISPs in the UK. He also writes for Windows 7 News.

See All Posts by This Author

There Are 7 Responses So Far. »

  1. #1

    Comment by Smackall on 6 December 2007:

    But if it is only for file serving, do you think WHS would be the best option?

  2. #2

    Comment by Techpark on 6 December 2007:

    Thanks for the informative update Everton, though its smaller compared to your other parts.
    Will wait for the next (final?) update..

  3. #3

    Comment by Everton on 6 December 2007:

    @Smackall

    Just for fileserving no. But, who knows what my requirements may be in the future? In just under a week I’d outgrown NASLite, so I don’t want to be stuck on a system that can’t grow as my needs grow.

  4. #4

    Comment by Smackall on 7 December 2007:

    thats true… But when you can really define that the system is only going to do this or that stuff, I prefer it can use the very lite, optimized OS. Say in an office environment, where you are not going to bother about the system when it does want you want. But at home, we always think of adding up another use to the same system. For home use, I will definitely choose windows where you will like to test something new, give it a try… things like that. :)

  5. #5

    Comment by Doc on 8 December 2007:

    What if instead of installing a windows server on a host, you use those cute boxes that actually let you connect 30 monitors and keyboards to one PC? I forgot what the tech is called, but I’ve seen it demo 30 concurrent users running various aps on a single main server

  6. #6

    Comment by Everton on 8 December 2007:

    @Doc

    Would be very messy!!

  7. #7

    Comment by Internet on 9 December 2007:

    thank you Everton , useful tutorial

Subscribe without commenting

Post a Response


Comment Policy: Any comments are permitted only because the site owner is letting you post, and any comments could be removed for any reason at the absolute discretion of the site owner.