I have two options in the future I feel. One is to keep WHS as a pure NAS machine and then I would just keep the MS itself and use it as pure storage.

Then I would build another headless machine that will be my workhorse. The machine that runs Squeezecenter, that runs all my media extender software, does my transcoding, handles all the grunt work of my data crunching needs. So I would depend on the MSS to store and give me access to the data for this other machine. In most cases I don't see why I would need more than Gig-E speeds to access that data.


The alternative is to build a super WHS (when is that 64-bit WHS coming?) that is my grunt machine running WHS, so my NAS and my workhorse would be the same machine. That seems like the better solution in some senses.

Cost is not something I concerned with in this exercise, I just want to hear some opinions on the pros and cons of each approach.

I'd like to hear from people who view their machines from both perspectives. I know some here use their MSS as pure NAS and don't install anything else. How is the performance of software running on other machines using the MSS as the data source. I others like myself have tweaked applications to run on the MSS. In this case the WHS machine would be much more powerful.

The one issue I can see is power consumption of having a powerful quad core NAS when 99% of the time it won't be used. But on the other hand I intend to leave this second "grunt" machine on 24/7 as well. So it would in fact save me energy to have one machine. I suppose it comes down to how well the new WHS will handle virtualization. I think if I could have a VM running a pared down Linux to run my SC then it obviates the need for a separate box to do such things.

I'm surprised you asked for opinions on this forum and nobody responded.

Anyway, one person's opinion: I prefer to keep my WHS dead-simple because it's my centralized backup solution. If any of my other machines in the house fail or have problems, I HAVE to know that I can recover from this machine. Because of that, I want it to be as close to single-purpose as I can get. Installing extra software and using it more for day-to-day tasks increases the likelihood that something can go wrong with it, so I do that stuff on a separate machine.

My $.02.

--kurt

I've been going through the same exercise the last few days as I'm purchasing components to build a new WHS. I was really struggling with whether to go with an Intel core 2 duo solution (E8400) or a low wattage dual core AMD solution (5050e). Since I'm not going to overclock the CPU or use the machine to play games or do any CPU intensive activities, I made an executive decision yesterday to go with a low wattage AMD solution which will keep it simple. All I really want it to do is be a simple file server with only a few addins that make management of the WHS easier, myiHome as an http media server, and Squeezecenter to serve music to a Squeezebox. I'll probably keep my MSS to do the nightly backups of the client PCs

I still hope to build a DIY WHS soon. I was expecting to get some components for fathers day, but my monitor went bad so the new monitor replaced any new components. Plan is to use WHS same as MSS with some additional features (add tuner cards, rom drive, etc...). Unfortunately I have been finding the EX470 a little too under-powered. Also want to get all my HDDs into one case instead of have two separate enclosures as I do now.

_________________
Cheers,
Damian

DIY WHS - 12.5TB and growing, too many gadgets to list

Did you read the MediaSmartServer blog today?
Blog - http://www.adigitalhomeblog.com
"Like a midget at a urinal, stay on your toes!" - Lieutenant Frank Drebin

While I basically subscribe to the same theory as Kurt, I do also use my MSS for control of my home security system and, when not at home, several remote cameras. The security functions are very low-demand on the MSS and allow me to NOT have other computers running. The camera application requires a bunch more cycles but does not seem to interfere with the normal backup functions. And, of course, there is no File Serving when no one is present!

(And I cannot believe I did not comment before this!)

_________________
....JBick

EX475, 2 GB, LE-1640
PC1: Vista-->W7 Ultimate/32, (D-Drive RAID-5 Array)
PC2: Lenovo Laptop, Win XP Home SP3
2xLinksys WRT54G v1.1 and 2xNetGear GS105 Gbit switch