[geeks] HP Home Server for $299 ($250 off list)

[Lionel Peterson]

On Nov 24, 2008, at 10:53 AM, nate at portents.com wrote:

>> Officemax.com is selling the HP EX470 Windows Home Server for $299
>> (shipping is free), it takes 4x SATA HDs, comes with one 500 gig HD,
>> and has a low 512 meg ram and sempeon CPU (both upgradeable).
>>
>> It also has a Marvell eSATA port that supports port multiplier (4x
>> drives, one eSATA port.
>>
>> Small, quiet server for windows homes at $299.
>
> That file corruption bug must have really tanked sales.

Probably not that much - it's only HP that is having a "fire sale",  
and they have not updated this system since it was first announced.  
Could just be blowing out old inventory by cutting prices so deeply.

> I still think most people would be better off with a 2-bay or 4-bay
> Synology NAS.  Due to it's lower electrical draw, it will pay for  
> itself
> over the long run compared to any Windows Home Server, and I have been
> very impressed with the multi-platform compatibility and feature
> improvements they've made over the last year.  Literally every
> ethernet-enabled platform spanning 20+ years of computing in my  
> house can
> connect to my DS-207+, and I can also stream media to my PS3 and I  
> have a
> centralized iTunes server.  There are things I can do with it that I  
> never
> even considered using a NAS for, like have it control USB webcams  
> for home
> security or act as a remote-controlled music playback station.

I don't think the power savings are *that* significant. While the box  
you listed is nice, it is pricey (no disks included), and is even more  
minimal spec'd that the HP box I referenced.

The HP box can do almost anything a Win2003 server can (as long as  
Active Directory isn't needed), and has some very nice Windows backup  
tools (including bare-metal restore).
>
> Meanwhile, I was really unimpressed with all the problems Microsoft  
> has
> had with Windows Home Server.  They didn't have 64-bit client  
> support in
> place until the release of Power Pack 1, and even now XP x64 isn't
> officially supported.  Power Pack 1 also fixed a serious flaw  
> involving
> file corruption of files with NTFS Alternate Data Streams when the  
> server
> is under heavy load.  Of course it took Microsoft three months to  
> admit
> anything and it didn't get fixed until nine months after release.

It was a Microsoft 1.0 release, and as a "consumer" appliance they  
didn't treat it the same as, say, a new Windows Server release.

> Of course there's no reason I can think of why you couldn't blow  
> away WHS
> and roll your own NAS with a *BSD or Linux install on that hardware,  
> but
> it might still be worth calculating the long-term electrical cost  
> vs. an
> equivalent Synology.

The Synology boxes are about cost-equal to WHS boxes of similar  
capacity (4 bay server box about $500 with 500 Gig storage). The WHS  
box I pointed out has on-board video (but it is a minor hack to access  
it), and it could likely run a *nix or *BSD, that wastes a $100  
software investment... Similar boxes can be built without a commercial  
OS for about $400-450, I figure.

My point was that this solution is low-priced for what it is, but it  
is by no means the be-all, end-all of low-powered servers. This is for  
Windows households, and for them it fills a need. I wonder if any MS  
partners are planning a "time machine-like" WHS appliance with one  
sealed-in HD (1 TB, naturally) and maybe Wi-Fi?

Lionel