Richard Ainz

20Gb Of Ram, Only 8Gb Usable?

13 posts in this topic

I was over my system settings and noticed this, which must have eluded me previously. See screenshot.

Any explanation?

post-22058-0-72894100-1333523429_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Upgrade to a WGS Supporter Account to remove this ad.

WHS 2011 is based on the Windows Server 2008 R2 Foundation edition. This OS has a 8GB limit. Here is a link to MS site explaining the limits based on the different versions of the OS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn. I need that for virtual machines. Bloo****y MS

You can put Win 7 64 bit as your primary OS and then install WHS in a VM. That way you get to use all your RAM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your idea has merit, but I rathert not use a Virtual Machine "in production", at least not until I have tested a bit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have WHS 2011 running in a VirtualBox VM - I keep it for testing before I move anything to the hardware 2011. It works just fine and appears stable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your idea has merit, but I rathert not use a Virtual Machine "in production", at least not until I have tested a bit

Test it. I know of very few companies that deploy new servers to bare hardware - almost everything is virtualized these days. Even the last SBS server I deployed, even though it's the only server on the box, is in a VM. Recovery and management of the server is so much easier if it's in a VM... In fact the only servers I currently deploy to bare metal with no VM are WHS to the HP MediaSmart/DataVault appliances since they really can only support one OS due to them only supporting 4GB of RAM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know of very few companies that deploy new servers to bare hardware - almost everything is virtualized these days.

Yes, I know. I am also aware of configuration related issues with extensive virtualization that you do not have with "bare metal". We have about 80 virtual servers in ESXi environment. From what I gather of the Infrastructure Team, I consider myself fortunate not having those on my watch.

But I will check it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am also aware of configuration related issues with extensive virtualization that you do not have with "bare metal". We have about 80 virtual servers in ESXi environment. From what I gather of the Infrastructure Team, I consider myself fortunate not having those on my watch.

Am I to understand that they think Virtualization is a negative?

To paraphrase the great joke "I think your doing it wrong". While not perfect, the benefits far out weigh the issues - at least from my personal experience and for any other admins I interact with. The only issue I have with virtualization is Microsoft's Hyper-V doesn't support access to USB or serial ports from within a VM - but VMware does. Other hardware related restrictions tend to revolve around desktop OS (such as 3D graphics support - mainly for games) rather than server related issues.

Windows Home Server should run in a VM rather nicely...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Risking off topic here, a bit, but all I can say is I hear them swear and when we discuss things we do it from very different point of views. Since I deal with support I reflect the needs of the users and since they deal with server administration they reflect the need for, well, administration.

HyperV has been thrown out the window due to issues with windows firewall, if it is disabled, some patching will just generate errors, and if it is enabled other issues happen.

Issues with ESXi have been volume capacity and other stuff I don't recall right now. I could listen in a bit more, but this is not the place to discuss it anyway. From an administrative point of view, the ability to quickly create new servers with similar setup and the advantages of being able to allocate CPU/RAM resources and Disk storage in a simpler way, is of course positive. We never had so many servers... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have used Superspeed Ramdisk plus to get around the RAM limitations of xp 32 bit and in a few other windows installs. I wonder if it would work with WHS 2011? With Superspeed ramdisk you can create a ramdisk on memory the OS can't/won't allocate and put your pagefile on it; moving the virtual memory into physical memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure that would work. WHS2011's limit is hard coded. It's restricted to 8GBs. If you want more than that, you'd need to use something like Small Business Server 2011 Essentials (which is limited to 16GBs I think... maybe 32... documenation is shady on that subject at best). Or use 2012 Essentials, who's limit is 64GBs, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a quick search on google looking for people that have tried WHS 2011 with various ramdisk products, and was able to find able to find a german forum where they tried a couple. They had success with Primo Ramdisk Server edition and vSuite Ramdisk from what I could make out. Another forum tried the ramdisk software included with asrock motherboards but that didn't let him address any additional RAM. So it is hit and miss and dependant on what ramdisk software you choose.

http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://forum.team-mediaportal.com/threads/whs2011-ram-disk-und-16gb-ram.105010/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dwindows%2Bhome%2Bserver%2B2011%2Bramdisk%26start%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1577%26bih%3D891%26prmd%3Dimvnsfd&sa=X&ei=JlRqUKaPOMy6yAGspYG4BQ&ved=0CDQQ7gEwATgK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

    • Well, what are you upgrading from?  If it's Windows Home Server, are you using its client backup feature?  And if so, is this something you want to continue? What do you use your server for, and are there any new capabilities you want to take advantage of?
    • OK here is my problems I have an old dell 1430 server with a 256mb ssd drive and 2 3MB hdds. the ssd drive is where I would install win 10 . what do I have to do to make this (upgrade) to win 10 go as smoothly as "possible"? I can put the OS on a hdd also this is a store bought version of win 10 home.
    • 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.
  • Popular Contributors