m185945

Recovering Whs

1 post in this topic

The primary hard drive on my WHS v1.1 HP EX495 is dying. The server will boot up, but it shutsdown uncontrollably. I ran chkdsk and it found and corrected errors, but the shutdown problem persists so I’m ready to move on. I have several options and I’m looking for advice regarding the best option.

  1. Slave the 1 GB primary drive to Win7 then take a Ghost image of the defective drive. Slave a new 1 GB drive to Win7 and restore the Ghost image. Put restored drive back into the EX495. (Any MS Product Activation issues?)
  2. Replace the 1 GB primary drive with another then install WHS v1.1
  3. Replace the 1 GB primary drive with another then install WHS 2011 and DriveBender v1.2.
  4. Replace the 1 GB primary drive with a 750 GB drive that already has WHS v1.0 installed. This drive would come from an unopened HP EX485 so I don’t know if there would be any driver issues or MS Product Activation issues.

I am open to suggestions from the knowledgeable forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Upgrade to a WGS Supporter Account to remove this ad.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now



Upgrade to a WGS Supporter Account to remove this ad.



  • Posts

    • I wouldn't go for Storage Spaces - there have been reports of issues when a disk goes bad (and I too have had that sort of problem). You can go down the RAID route if you have the hardware controller to support it - don't go for software RAID. Alternatively, have a look at Stablebit Drivepool which give you the flexibility of duplication at the folder level or across all storage. If you have data that doesn't need to be protected, you don't have to sacrifice the space for duplication of that folder. 
    • Like I said, you won't get the combined (aggregate) bandwidth to a single destination.   Torrenting makes multiple outgoing and can receive multiple incoming connections to and from multiple seeders and leechers (behaving more like the load-balanced scenario) in the best-case scenario, so it's one of the few applications that scale fairly well with WAN load-balancing, and if you're just downloading data, the torrent application can reassemble the whole torrent from the randomly received chunks from each seeder.  Torrent was almost designed to benefit from WAN load-balancing because of the way the P2P network was conceived. ...but that wouldn't work for streaming media or online gaming or VoIP where there's no mechanism to deal with out-of-order packets being sent and received, or the fact that it's still asymmetrically routed -- in that instance, you're still limited to the bandwidth of a single connection, you can just make more of them at a time on different paths.   802.3ad or LACP (Dynamic Link Aggregation) requires switching and routing hardware that's also LACP-compliant in order for it to work, but in that case, would be more like the aforementioned ISP IMUX connection than WAN load-balancing.   Your SpeedTest results are probably from burstable traffic over one connection, because a single SpeedTest run will only use one connection during the course of that test run, which is why it only shows a single public IP address. Sustained bandwidth testing with something like iPerf will show a more accurate picture.   Speedify would pretty much have to be tunneling all traffic as the "first hop" and reassembling traffic before going back out to the public Internet so that their VPN endpoint becomes your new public IP address out on the Internet; in essence becoming an ISP over an ISP -- if that's what it's actually doing.  While that may solve one issue, it would probably cause a drastic increase in latency to do so, and I doubt it would support streaming media very well.
    • Hi, Thanks for the reply. I understand what you mean but then that's like having 2 DC's having DHCP to issue IP in case one goes down, so both DHCP scopes would have to issue same IP address to same client or they would run out of addresses. But anyway thanks for clarifying, I was getting really frustrated about not being able to solve this because I was understanding that the clients would not leave the network when the DC is down and authentication takes place at RODC. Thanks a lot.
    • Well your right and wrong at the same time, i tested the idea using a tp-link loadbalancer and while kt didnt work on websites, for torrents/netflex it worked perefctly simple messirment's of speeds on speedtest.net got me the combined speeds as well and thats without using the 802.3ad protocol which from what i been reading makes it works perfectly long story short, even if i am not able to use the "full pipe" in all applications, it make hell of a diffrance from the plain single connection   note: i think that adding a vpn layer will even solve the multipath problem, thats what speedify and others are doing to get the combined speed
    • Yeah, mine stopped working also, but this time the communicator would allow connection to the server.
      But the automated backups were not occurring. I had to re-setup the folders associated with the computer "Customize Backup For This Computer" and then the automated backups worked again. Apparently there is an option for an anniversary clean install. Then install the connector.
      I think that would be the best option. But definitely a pain in the butt. Let us know how it goes.
      Shane
      Sydney, Australia      
  • Popular Contributors