HP MediaSmart Servers Gain Mac Compatibility

[ddrueckhammer]

mytdave-

good points, I hadn't really thought about the throughput of the processor as I figured it should be much better than any NAS. Certainly the new Mediasmart server has a much better processor and more RAM than the older one.

I saw a review on Laptop Magazine's website for this new box that said they got around 100 Mbps using gigabit eithernet hooked to 802.11N. Of course, they could have been just estimating the 802.11N speed and not speed of the box.

Still, I am looking to get something expandable to lots of storage 4TB+ and the Mini solution is good for a couple of TB but once you start adding external drive enclosures it seems very inelegant.

Edit: According to SmallNetBuilder the older Media Smart Server got around 50Mbps write for filesizes under 1Gb. Read wasn't as good at around 20Mbps for filesizes under 1Gb. I'm curious to see what the results would be for the updated one since it has so much more RAM and better processor.

 

[mytdave]

mytdave-

good points, I hadn't really thought about the throughput of the processor as I figured it should be much better than any NAS. Certainly the new Mediasmart server has a much better processor and more RAM than the older one.

I saw a review on Laptop Magazine's website for this new box that said they got around 100 Mbps using gigabit eithernet hooked to 802.11N. Of course, they could have been just estimating the 802.11N speed and not speed of the box.

Still, I am looking to get something expandable to lots of storage 4TB+ and the Mini solution is good for a couple of TB but once you start adding external drive enclosures it seems very inelegant.

Edit: According to SmallNetBuilder the older Media Smart Server got around 50Mbps write for filesizes under 1Gb. Read wasn't as good at around 20Mbps for filesizes under 1Gb. I'm curious to see what the results would be for the updated one since it has so much more RAM and better processor.

Some things to keep in mind...

You wouldn't hook 'gigabit ethernet to 802.11n' - as stated, that doesn't make sense... but that's okay, something probably just got lost in translation...

Be careful with listed specs, and make sure they're written correctly: Mbps means BITS per second, and MBps means BYTES per second (notice the capitalization of the 'B'). Gigabit Ethernet is 1000Mbps not 100, and that translates to 125MBps. WiFi (802.11n) can range in speed from ~108Mbps to ~600Mbps depending on the # of channels used. Most (90%?) 'n' wireless is going to be 108. Even so, all of these are theoretical maximum bit rates. Real world throughput is much less. For example, 802.11g max bit rate is 54Mbps, but you'll never see more than about 19Mbps of real data throughput, which is a paltry 2.375MB/s.

I would hope HP's media server, even with Windows, would be able to keep a single 802.11n (108Mbps or 4.75MB/s real world) connection saturated. The place you will run into an issue is if you start connecting multiple users over faster (say Gigabit) or multiple connections. The CPU then has to start negotiating who gets data, when, how fast, and what order, in addition to managing disk I/O, files, the OS, and other application functions. You can quickly start to overburden a wimpy CPU. Some OSes also don't manage this type of thing very efficiently (hence my recommendation of Linux).

If you could get your hands on one of these to try it out, then you could do some testing... Or find someone who has tested it.

I agree that lots of external boxes and cables is inelegant. If you need tons of storage, I suggest the LaCie 4big RAID. Four drives, up to 6TB, only 1 external box. Of course this is all your decision. Regardless of what anyone says (including me) pick the solution that you're happy with.

 

[VideoFreek]

I want to ask a couple of questions to people who have a HP Media Server already. I have been looking for a 4 drive internal NAS solution for a while (was hoping Apple would release something) and my research has lead me to get one of the following:

HP Mediasmart Server
Linksys ReadyNAS NV+
Drobo or Synology Device

...

1. For the Media Smart server how does the folder duplication work? If I add 4 1 TB drives (internal) and share all of my folders does that mean I get 2 TB of storage? The ReadyNAS for instance (I think) will give you 3TB of storage if you have 4 1 TB drives but if more than 1 drive fails you lose data.

2. Does anyone have any experience with a 1st gen Media Smart server with 2 GB of memory added? Is it faster or slower for streaming video (UPnP to PS3, Xbox etc.) than a ReadyNAS, Drobo, etc.?

3. I think if your Media Smart Server fails then you have to put the drives in another WHS machine to retrieve data as normal Windows won't read the drives. Is this correct?

4. Is the thing too loud compared to NAS devices? I live in an apartment so it would probably have to go in my bedroom but I guess I could set it to auto-shutdown after a certain time of night...

I can give you some partial answers, as I run a ReadyNAS NV+, and I'm now running an evaluation version of WHS on an old Dell box. I don't have direct experience with the MediaSmart however.

1) Essentially, you have it mostly right. WHS will duplicate any folders you have marked for duplication (duh) so that each file is present on 2 separate hard drives. This is less efficient than the RAID system used in the ReadyNAS (similar to RAID 5 afaik), which as you say gives (n-1) drives' worth of capacity when "n" equally-sized drives are installed. The mirroring system used in WHS has a great benefit over RAID 5, however, in that it is possible to recover files from individual drives (the full file is duplicated, not just "parity" info as in RAID 5). Also, you can opt to not mirror certain folders, so this is a way to save some space.

2) Can't help you here, but there are plenty of reviews online where read/write speeds are measured and discussed. Be careful about what mytdave says...his statements about NAS speeds are way off, at least for the ReadyNAS. In my own tests, I achieve speeds pretty close to the claimed speeds of about 20 MB/sec write and >30 MB/sec read. Overall, I disagree with much of what he says from a home network perspective--he seems to be coming from a corporate IT perspective (fiber channel switches, for Pete's sake???), but the reality is you just don't need the same horsepower in a home that you need with a corporate server that's getting hit by hundreds of clients at once.

3) Not really. The recovery procedure from a failed drive depends on which drive fails. WHS installs the system partition on the first drive it sees, and there is no redundancy for the system files. The remaining space is set up as the storage pool, where files are duplicated across the other disks as described in #1 above. So, if one of the non-system drives fails, no big deal--you simply replace the drive and WHS automagically rebuilds it. If the disk containing the system fails, however, there is a partial recovery possible wherein you must reinstall the OS, and then it will rebuild the storage pool from the duplicate files on the other drives. However, user accounts and other settings must be recreated manually.

4) Can't help you here, but there are plenty of reviews that can give you some idea.

Some general comments: I've been playing around with WHS for just a few days, but so far I'm very impressed--I think what MS have achieved with this product is extraordinary. You probably need to know a bit about Windows server OS's to really appreciate what they've done, but creating a version of Windows Server 2003 that is actually easier to set up and run than your average PC or Mac is no mean feat. For me, it's the technical equivalent of building an 18-wheeler that your average soccer mom could drive! But behind the simple interface is much of the power of Server 2003, so if you know what you're doing, you can coax much more out of it. Those who state that this does nothing more than a NAS or a Drobo or a Time Capsule have no idea what they're talking about.

I don't know where this "boot camp and virtualization not supported" crapola came from (did HP really say this?), but it's rubbish. All that setup requires is that you install the desktop connector software on an XP or Vista machine, and then connect to the server. BC will work just fine, and the only problem I'd foresee under virtualization would be if you were running your virtual network adapter in "NAT" mode, since the virtual PC would then be on a different subnet than the server and might have trouble finding it. If HP really did make this statement, I suspect it's because they don't want to deal with tech support calls from people who have no idea what the hell they're doing.

My advice--get the free 120-day evaluation version of WHS, throw it on an old PC box, and play with (er, I mean evaluate) it. Get a reference book (such as WHS Unleashed), or visit one of the online forums (such as MS's own or wegotserved.com) and learn about all you can do with this puppy. I think you'll be impressed.

 

[w0ngbr4d]

What kind of speed do you all expect from this HP? Will it beat the Drobo and Sharespace?

A review of the old unit can be found here:

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/30135/75/1/9/

You can compare this HP to other units here:

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/component/option,com_nas/Itemid,190/

I have to second the positive comments made about Windows. Just because this thing runs Windows doesn't make it a bad product. Writing it off because of this is very short sighted.

 

[ddrueckhammer]

Thanks for the info. The old version of the Mediasmart server had better read/write speeds than most NASs already so I would imagine that the new one should be even better. I guess we will have to wait and see until the retail version has come out since none of the reviews so far have looked at performance.

The main reason why I am looking at these is that they look like a great value compared to other NASs. For instance, Newegg has the Netgear ReadyNAS NV+ listed for $699 without any disks. For $100 less you get more functionality and a 750Gb drive. I'm sure if I shopped I would find some NASs that are better deals. I think there is an iomega one...but, none of them can do as much as this server. Honestly, unless Apple updates them alot, I can't imagine anyone buying a Time Capsule over one of these (or any other NAS) unless they were just using if for backups and wanted something that works without any tweaking.

I just realized that I won't be able to stream video unless I sit it next to my TV and physically hook up my PS3/Tivo HD to my router via gigabit ethernet. Too bad Sony wan't forward thinking enough to go ahead and put 802.11n rather than g into the PS3 but I guess they want you to buy stuff from their store rather than stream from a server...

I'm not sure if it was mentioned but I noticed on another review that the new one doesn't have port replication on the eSATA port so I guess using an external eSATA array is out? If so, then buying one of the older servers and upgrading the RAM yourself and downloading the software updates might be the best option. I wonder how much better the 64-bit Single Core, Celeron (same as Core 2) processor is over the 64-bit 1.8 GHz AMD Sempron?

 

[w0ngbr4d]

I'm not sure if it was mentioned but I noticed on another review that the new one doesn't have port replication on the eSATA port so I guess using an external eSATA array is out? If so, then buying one of the older servers and upgrading the RAM yourself and downloading the software updates might be the best option. I wonder how much better the 64-bit Single Core, Celeron (same as Core 2) processor is over the 64-bit 1.8 GHz AMD Sempron?

I read somewhere that they were going to try to fix the port replication via an update. I don't have a link right now though.

I agree with you. The Celeron might edge out the Sempron, but the little bit of extra performance might not be worth the extra cost.

 

[ddrueckhammer]

Oh well, I just checked and HP doesn't have any EX470s and they are $499 on Amazon.com so after upgrading the RAM you are saving less than $100. I would go with the EX485 since it isn't that much more and hope that the port replication is fixed later on. I don't have a need for more than 2TB (4TB physical) right now but if I keep whatever I get for 3-5 year I might...

I do wish they would have used 1 TB drives in the new one instead of 750 GB ones though...

 

[Shiner]

I use a 1TB Time Capsule today as a complete iTunes media server and, of course, for Time Machine backup. Just set your iTunes database location as the time Capsule disk (set in iTunes preferences) and copy your iTunes folder to that location. Set all your macs to have iTunes use the library located in the folder. This works well with a caveat... if you are doing a Apple TV wireless sync you may have some playback issues if you are simultaneously trying to stream video to the Apple TV. A workaround is to connect a ethernet cable to the mac connected to Apple TV.

I connect a second HD to a USB hub connected to the Time Capsule to regularly back up data on the TC server. This solution is also hundreds of dollars cheaper than the HP server, has a much smaller footprint, work on a Mac without having to use Windows first and looks a hell of a lot better than this HP thing.

You have a nice itunes storage and backup device but not a server.

 

[Shiner]

Compatibility is a Windows user argument, and it's ironic that Windows is now THE biggest proprietary software on the market.

My setup does not have 4 internal HD bays, and it's not necessary. But if I did want that functionality there are plenty of solutions out there. My basic point is that there are easier, less expensive and more reliable options.

You keep saying this so name one other device that does everything the mediasmart does.

 

[w0ngbr4d]

I do wish they would have used 1 TB drives in the new one instead of 750 GB ones though...

I'd rather have a diskless setup for $499. But considering this is targeted at your average computer user, I don't think they would do it.

UPDATE:

A comment from here: http://www.mediasmartserver.net/2008/12/28/review-hp-mediasmart-server-ex48/#comment-871 says the eSATA port will not be updated to be port multiplier aware.

"I did get final word from HP that there will be no update to the EX485/EX487 to enable the eSATA port to work with port multipliers, which means no external multidrive enclosure support."

 

[ddrueckhammer]

I'd rather have a diskless setup for $499. But
UPDATE:

A comment from here: http://www.mediasmartserver.net/2008/12/28/review-hp-mediasmart-server-ex48/#comment-871 says the eSATA port will not be updated to be port multiplier aware.

"I did get final word from HP that there will be no update to the EX485/EX487 to enable the eSATA port to work with port multipliers, which means no external multidrive enclosure support."

Well then, it all depends on if the new processor is that much faster, whether some of the software that is available on the new one and not on the old one is worth it, and also whether one needs an eSATA array as to which one should be chosen.

 

[iDave]

You can compare this HP to other units here:

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/component/option,com_nas/Itemid,190/.

Thanks for that!

 

[harrye123]

Can some techie here explain to me:

I read that you access your files via a browser interface, wtf is that? What's tha advantage of home "server" instead of an old box with a good raid card and any old os running on it (preferably ubuntu or osx of course). I mean if the "server" gives you access via a browser...what's that about? I have a set up with a couple of lappies and my main raid-ed pc serving as server but with a normal ubuntu os and I can see my files and folders via typical tcp ip network, what's the extra functionality of a server? I can log in to my raid pc via remote connect functions too, all sorted....

CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN?

 

[ddrueckhammer]

I'm pretty sure you access your files via an SMB share just like you would any NAS or server via OS X. You access the server settings via a preference pane I believe. Or you can remote desktop into the server and control the preferences directly from there.

The file access via a browser you are referring to might mean that you can access your files via the web. In other words if you are traveling and need to access your files then you can have them shared via a web-portal...

If you want to build your own. Everything the HP Server does can be done for cheaper most likely. That said, being able to backup via Time Machine, backup to Amazon S3, stream to UPnP devices, automatically share photos to sites like Flicker, have redundant backup for 4TB internal and 5TB external, automatic media aggregation from PCs, and several other features right out of the box sounds really nice to me for the money.

 

[harrye123]

I'm pretty sure you access your files via an SMB share just like you would any NAS or server via OS X. You access the server settings via a preference pane I believe. Or you can remote desktop into the server and control the preferences directly from there.

The file access via a browser you are referring to might mean that you can access your files via the web. In other words if you are traveling and need to access your files then you can have them shared via a web-portal...

If you want to build your own. Everything the HP Server does can be done for cheaper most likely. That said, being able to backup via Time Machine, backup to Amazon S3, stream to UPnP devices, automatically share photos to sites like Flicker, have redundant backup for 4TB internal and 5TB external, automatic media aggregation from PCs, and several other features right out of the box sounds really nice to me for the money.

then what about this quote fromt the original article:
"while remote access to files stored on the server is available via Internet browser."

they others sure sound nice dd, no denying. I am just wondering WHAT the superiority of a "server" os software instead of nomal os installed on pc with raids, because all the things you mentioned can be done via any os acting as server, though not being a server, plus you can stick a screen to it or remote connect to it at any point and have it run whatever your heart desires in terms of p2p software or pretty much anything. So what's the point of system such as say the open source ready nas, or open nas, can't remember the name exactly if an os plain and simple does everything. And all about these server protocols samba etc. etc., what's the use, do they augment file sharing in any way? NO.

 

[archer75]

I read that you access your files via a browser interface, wtf is that? What's tha advantage of home "server" instead of an old box with a good raid card and any old os running on it (preferably ubuntu or osx of course). I mean if the "server" gives you access via a browser...what's that about? I have a set up with a couple of lappies and my main raid-ed pc serving as server but with a normal ubuntu os and I can see my files and folders via typical tcp ip network, what's the extra functionality of a server? I can log in to my raid pc via remote connect functions too, all sorted....

CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN?

With WHS you get your own website. Whatever name you select at suchandsuch.homeserver.com

You can log in remotely from a web browser, upload and download files and even control the other windows machines on your network.

Browsing actually shares while your at home is done via windows explorer or finder.

they others sure sound nice dd, no denying. I am just wondering WHAT the superiority of a "server" os software instead of nomal os installed on pc with raids, because all the things you mentioned can be done via any os acting as server, though not being a server, plus you can stick a screen to it or remote connect to it at any point and have it run whatever your heart desires in terms of p2p software or pretty much anything. So what's the point of system such as say the open source ready nas, or open nas, can't remember the name exactly if an os plain and simple does everything. And all about these server protocols samba etc. etc., what's the use, do they augment file sharing in any way? NO.

Well with RAID 5 you need to use hard drives of the same size. On WHS you don't. I have 2x250gb, 2x500gb, 3x750gb and soon 2x1tb. I built my own and have room for a dozen drives.
The drives can be IDE, SATA, eSATA or even external. It will add everything to the storage pool.

In RAID 5 or Drobo should it die and you just want to take a drive out and plug it in another computer to get the data off, you can't. With WHS you can.
It also has a feature that allows you to backup the server itself. So should the server itself explode you can have another backup.

WHS also backs up all the other PC's on your network so you can restore you PC to the exact moment of the last backup quickly. And now time machine can backup to it.
I have an addon installed called webgui so I can login from work and listen to all my music or browse my photos at home.

 

[harrye123]

Hey archer thanks for the reply!

ok, about the getting your own website with a .homserver ending, gimme a break you can get that for free in like 1000s of companies offering that on the web.

Your second point, well I can log in remotely to my pc box running either xp or ubuntu and do whatever I want with it with just a normal os, no server involved. Of course I can't host my website there if that is what you mean, but who on earth would want to host their website on their superslow, not 100% on homemade server, when you can have superfast data center storage at 99.9999999% on times and tons of gbs space plucs tons, literally of other features, for as little as say $5 a month, with literarlly tons of features in terms of usability, safety etc. etc. distaster control...

"Browsing actually shares while your at home is done via windows explorer or finder. "

Ok great, that's a good feature, but then again it's what you can do with a mere xp or ubuntu or os x installation, that's what I do at the moment, just browse the remote folders within explorer or finder.

//edit:
ok the last features after your edit look really nice, to tell you the truth I was just waiting for the tec to mature a bit before I got on it, the home server that is, I was trying to figure out what's so much better than a mere os install and it seems (as usual with computers) little is. As for the raid you describe with different hd sizes, that is indeed the best feature I have heard so far, but a good raid card I am sure would do that too. give you that flexibility.

 

[harrye123]

It also has a feature that allows you to backup the server itself. So should the server itself explode you can have another backup.

Where do they let you back it to, do they offer some online disaster safe place for you do that? Cause if they want you to backup in ANOTHER one of your won raid drives that's pretty much useless.

 

[diamond.g]

then what about this quote fromt the original article:
"while remote access to files stored on the server is available via Internet browser."

they others sure sound nice dd, no denying. I am just wondering WHAT the superiority of a "server" os software instead of nomal os installed on pc with raids, because all the things you mentioned can be done via any os acting as server, though not being a server, plus you can stick a screen to it or remote connect to it at any point and have it run whatever your heart desires in terms of p2p software or pretty much anything. So what's the point of system such as say the open source ready nas, or open nas, can't remember the name exactly if an os plain and simple does everything. And all about these server protocols samba etc. etc., what's the use, do they augment file sharing in any way? NO.

Windows Server allows more than 10 simultaneous inbound connections. Ironically OS X doesn't have this limitation. MS is supposed to be working on getting Server 2008 kernel for use in the next WHS. People will see big speed gains then as Server 2008 can be very, very sparse (you can install it with no gui and when you do you pretty much have to be a powershell ranger).

 

[archer75]

Hey archer thanks for the reply!
ok, about the getting your own website with a .homserver ending, gimme a break you can get that for free in like 1000s of companies offering that on the web.

Yes, but this is free. And while you can get your own website anywhere they won't let you log into your server from anywhere in the world, upload and download files and control all the PC's on your network. From just a web browser anywhere in the world.

I am NOT talking about hosting your own website. That has nothing to do with this.

For example, I was at work and my coworker wanted some of my ebooks to read on a computer at work. No problem. I open up a web browser and navigate to myserver.homeserver.com and download the files to the work computer.
You can create accounts for as many people as you want and they can download from you and upload to you.

Your second point, well I can log in remotely to my pc box running either xp or ubuntu and do whatever I want with it with just a normal os, no server involved. Of course I can't host my website there if that is what you mean, but who on earth would want to host their website on their superslow, not 100% on homemade server, when you can have superfast data center storage at 99.9999999% on times and tons of gbs space plucs tons, literally of other features, for as little as say $5 a month, with literarlly tons of features in terms of usability, safety etc. etc. distaster control...

Yes, you can log in remotely to your own computers. I do it myself. You can even log in remotely to a computer at home while you're at work with special software installed at home. But this doesn't require special software. Just a browser pointing at your address.

No, I do not mean hosting your own website.

Ok great, that's a good feature, but then again it's what you can do with a mere xp or ubuntu or os x installation, that's what I do at the moment, just browse the remote folders within explorer or finder.

Of course. It's no different in that regard. The advantages are it pools all your hard drives into a single pool. I don't have to have my movies on drive a, drive b, drive c, etc. and navigate through them all to find what I want.

Unlike raid I can use drives of any size. I have a bunch of drives of different sizes and can utilize all of them. With raid i'd have to buy a bunch of new drives. And raid 5 suffers form bit rot and the write hole error.

It backs up all your computers for you. Should a drive die and need to be replaced in your desktop or you just need to restore you boot from the restore disc, point it at the backup and it restores your computer to the exact moment of the last backup. No need to configure anything, you are backup and running as if nothing happened.

All files on the server are protected by volume shadow copy. What this means is you can roll back to previous versions of your files and folders should you accidentally mess up something.

Where do they let you back it to, do they offer some online disaster safe place for you do that? Cause if they want you to backup in ANOTHER one of your won raid drives that's pretty much useless.

Externals. I plug in an external select the shares I want to backup and hit go. It does it all. That backup is also readable by any computer. A server is not a backup solution. Even though this will protect against single drive failure one should always have their important files backed up elsewhere.
People asked for the feature and they added it.
I just backup my photos, books, music, home movies, etc. to my external. The movies on my server I have all the DVD's/blurays for.

You can use several offsite backup services, they plug directly into the home server console and will backup whatever changes to an offsite location

 

[VoR]

harrye123, you were talking about serving files via http - It just means you can access them from a web browser, locally or otherwise.
It's just an operating system. Everything you've mentioned in your posts can be done on this and most premade systems, just as it can on a fully featured commercial desktop os or a stripped oss distro.

And all about these server protocols samba etc. etc., what's the use, do they augment file sharing in any way? NO.

A 'good raid card' like you said would cost almost as much as this device and serve no purpose for most uses/users - only cause issues if something does go wrong.

I wouldn't rely on a single raid for data you can't afford to lose.

 

[pooryou]

Does this thing even have a video output so you could hook it up to your entertainment center? If not then it's even more of a joke then I thought.

Do you even know what a server is?

Yes, very very well. Do you? Do you realize a server is still a computer?

Make sure you know what you are talking about before putting your foot in your mouth.

A Mac Mini can do everything relevant this box can do, and much much more.

 

[harrye123]

Hey guys, kudos, thanks for the great replies, cleared a lot of things up for me, I can see where this whole server thing stands at the moment!!

@diamond.g, hey buddy, thanks for the reply, I see, well my point would be that as a home server this functions would be pretty superfloous, I d rather have these functions for any of my webpages somewhere offshore in a data center where they will take care of bussiness, not that they are not welcome of course.

@arher75, you can do the first things you describe with remote connect, via a web browser also with no special software under xp/vista/ubuntu, you just asign a static ip on your machine it's easy, no added functionality for me there. In terms of drive pools I can see how usefull this can be. Thanks for the heads up!
"You can use several offsite backup services, they plug directly into the home server console and will backup whatever changes to an offsite location"
That I d be interested in, because currently I have a raid with 3tb all mirrored one to one, what do I back it up externally a 3tb drive lol? Of course these home servers should have data safety as their no. 1 feature they are nas drives. That said I have yet to find an affordable solution for offsite backup, when I go into the tb region the costs for a single user, to me at least, are way way too high.

@VoR, thanks for clearing a lot of things up. Point well taken about a raid card. What do you mean you wouldn't rely on single raid? can you explain. I have raid mirroring all three of my 1 tb drives to another tb drive each, the only thing other than raid I can think for extra security would be an offshore backup, but that like I said cost $$$$$$$$ as far as I looked, not much else I can do.

 

[mytdave]

You keep saying this so name one other device that does everything the mediasmart does.

Any Mac (I use a Mac mini w/1TB additional HD).

With a little searching on the internet and a few downloads, probably any Linux box too.

 

[VoR]

There's never enough you can do with regards to offsite storage and multiple backup mechanisms, lots of different situations. I was just trying to make quite an obvious point, all I meant was that I wouldn't rely on a single device for important data - your system for example, sounds quite resilient to a drive dying but a single miss click/command and you've lost data?