Microsoft Says Home Server Ready For Liftoff
Posted by Daniel Fleshbourne on 24 July 2008 - 11:19 · 28 comments & 6237 views
About the Author
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by Budious on 24 Jul 2008 - 11:27
- Windows Home Server still needs more features to be marketable. While it may now have reliability, it's still inheritedly limited by it's simplicity. While it's possible to put in place advanced user permissions through NTFS, these features are completely lacking through the WHS Console, and I am reluctant to make these changes directly to NTFS and having the WHS components not being compatible with my desired changes. Also, this is a product that could be easily integrated with Windows Media Center for an all in one home solution, it would make sense to merge these two product lines, seeing as how limited in scope WHS feature set already is.
-
#2 Posted by +Volatile on 24 Jul 2008 - 11:37
- Worthless if you ask me. I'd just use the server standard and be done with it.
On another note.. why pay for a whole computer and pay for a MS license when you can just buy a cheap NAS and get the same backup effect. *shrug*
-
(7 replies)
#3 Posted by tsutton on 24 Jul 2008 - 12:05
- Volatile - this is really aimed to people who knows nothing about computers & backup but wants one. Hell, it can be useful for professionals like myself. I use it to backup everything which saves my time with faffing about the settings, etc.
That's where WHS comes in.
Set up server, install clients to PC/laptops - that's it. -
#3.1 Posted by
markjensen on 24 Jul 2008 - 13:01
- (tsutton said @ #3)... this is really aimed to people who knows nothing about computers & backup but wants one.Exactly. Like anti-virus vendors who sell boxed software in the stores to people who don't realize that they can get equal protection for free in Avast, AVG and others.
...
Some people just want to buy something to make it easier. -
#3.2 Posted by NateB1 on 24 Jul 2008 - 16:08
- (markjensen said @ #3.1)(tsutton said @ #3)... this is really aimed to people who knows nothing about computers & backup but wants one.Exactly. Like anti-virus vendors who sell boxed software in the stores to people who don't realize that they can get equal protection for free in Avast, AVG and others.
...
Some people just want to buy something to make it easier.
...Except that WHS is worth the money, at least in my case. I have it backing up 5 computers, image backup, every day. Large hard drives on each computer. Total backup size is 100 Gb.
I have about 40 Gb of pics on there, duplicated across all 3 750 Gb HDDs.
All transparent to the user. The simplicity and ease of use isn't there with the free solutions. -
#3.3 Posted by markjensen on 24 Jul 2008 - 16:20
- ... and you are more than welcome to give Microsoft money for that.
Does WHS offer even data security through RAID yet? When I last checked, it was "no". In fact, up until earlier this week, a second drive could cause data corruption when used in conjunction with other Microsoft products.
"Free" isn't always "worse", you know. -
#3.4 Posted by Rolith on 24 Jul 2008 - 16:41
- WHS uses microsoft's alternative to RAID, a filesystem that's database based and duplicates data that you say you want duplicated.. IE i don't care if WHS loses the dvd backups of movies I've got, cause I can just rip them again, but i do care if my personal documents / paperwork gets backed up, so it's duplicated to all drives on the system.
Free isn't always worse, but WHS functions better, out of the box, with no time spent configuring than just about anything else imaginable. -
#3.5 Posted by markjensen on 24 Jul 2008 - 16:59
- Ok. It is still "no" then.
-
#3.6 Posted by MioTheGreat on 25 Jul 2008 - 02:19
- (markjensen said @ #3.5)Ok. It is still "no" then.
But surely there's nothing preventing hardware RAID, is there? -
#3.7 Posted by Smigit on 25 Jul 2008 - 03:41
- (MioTheGreat said @ #1)pretty sure you can if you want but then again why would you want to? One of the pros of this is you can pull HD's in and out at any time without having to keep half a dozen drives in raid. Being able to add to and remove drives is one of the more important features here. Sure for a desktop or high performance server you wouldnt want a software raid...but for a machine with pretty minimal speed requirements it makes sense to go with the offered Software solution.(markjensen said @ #3.5)Ok. It is still "no" then.
But surely there's nothing preventing hardware RAID, is there?
And btw, yes the data corruption bug sucked but the fix has been available for about 2 months for those that signed up for the beta of the Power Pack.
-
(10 replies)
#4 Posted by Rolith on 24 Jul 2008 - 17:03
- "no, they did something better."
Fixed. -
#4.1 Posted by markjensen on 24 Jul 2008 - 17:31
- Two copies of a database != real drive redundancy with RAID.
A little education for you, too.
I guess when people think that two copies of a database on a single drive is better than true redundancy... That signals the time that discussion has left reason and turned into a "I believe it because I am told it" mentality.
Last edited by markjensen on 24 Jul 2008 - 17:42 -
#4.2 Posted by Rolith on 24 Jul 2008 - 18:05
- I guess when people think that two copies of a database on a single drive is better than true redundancy...
it clones the database structure and the files that require protection from drive failure onto every drive on the system... sounds like true redundancy to me.
Strikes me as a smarter system then cloning every single file including system files (which are easy to recover) and bulky, but "meaningless" media files that are quick and easy to re obtain but take up prohibitively large chunks of valuable hard drive space if duplicated several times.
Mind you, you CAN duplicate even media files and whatever you want (it lets you flag folders for duplication / drive failure protection) just giving an example of what would be duplicated under a raid that dosn't necessarily NEED to be. -
#4.3 Posted by +Volatile on 24 Jul 2008 - 18:25
- (Rolith said @ #4.2)Someone who has the sense to have a server to backup their home inventory will look at cheaper, more effective solutions that are out today.I guess when people think that two copies of a database on a single drive is better than true redundancy...
it clones the database structure and the files that require protection from drive failure onto every drive on the system... sounds like true redundancy to me.
Strikes me as a smarter system then cloning every single file including system files (which are easy to recover) and bulky, but "meaningless" media files that are quick and easy to re obtain but take up prohibitively large chunks of valuable hard drive space if duplicated several times.
Mind you, you CAN duplicate even media files and whatever you want (it lets you flag folders for duplication / drive failure protection) just giving an example of what would be duplicated under a raid that dosn't necessarily NEED to be.
That process may be ideal in a home use setup for someone who doesn't understand that in a RAID fashion there is also a performance boost, faster uptime, and less intervention. In a parity setup, if one drive fails.. just replace it. The drive will rebuild itself and your good. When your main OS drive fails.. do you have to spend hours rebuilding the OS and all your settings before you can get your data back (or maybe you will just slave that backup drive on another PC until you can afford another HD). It simply states Windows Home Server because it is not ideal or as advanced as a RAID configuration.
Maybe good for someone who knows nothing about computing.. but I would consider someone like that to not even consider disaster recovery at all... at the most backup stuff on DVD or a flash drive. So I guess it comes back to how they are seriously going to market this product. Unless I can get this for far cheaper than plain jane Windows Server Standard... forget it. -
#4.4 Posted by phiberoptik on 24 Jul 2008 - 18:33
- (Rolith said @ #4.2)I guess when people think that two copies of a database on a single drive is better than true redundancy...
it clones the database structure and the files that require protection from drive failure onto every drive on the system... sounds like true redundancy to me.
Just wait till your database corrupts, then you'll have duplicated corrupt databases also
-
#4.5 Posted by Rolith on 24 Jul 2008 - 18:42
- how often do databases actually get corrupted? seriously? You'd think, with how horrid most corporations backup policy are, if Microsoft were THAT bad about DB corruption we'd have heard something about it by now.
From my understanding of the data corruption bug, it was caused by their new file system itself, not by the database failing.
as far as "Performance boost and faster uptime of raids" as far as I'm aware, WHS writes to all drives available equally aggressively and balances the writing of files to whatever drive is available, then during idle time balances the load to make it quickly accessible.
As for faster boot, and drive / system recovery... WHS taking 4 seconds longer to boot when it's been running for 5 months solid (besides system updates that happen overnight when the backups are through), nor is an hour's downtime when the drive containing the system partion dies relevant to me, a "hardcore user" who isn't afraid of messing with RAID, when I want a no-nonsense no-configuration required backup system that just WORKS without worrying about raid controllers. -
#4.6 Posted by markjensen on 24 Jul 2008 - 19:35
- (Volatile said @ #4.3)Someone who has the sense to have a server to backup their home inventory will look at cheaper, more effective solutions that are out today.Which is what I have said since the beginning. A valid solution for someone who wants to pay for a pre-set backup solution. Then someone chimed in that duplicating a database was a better solution.
...
Maybe good for someone who knows nothing about computing.. but I would consider someone like that to not even consider disaster recovery at all... at the most backup stuff on DVD or a flash drive. So I guess it comes back to how they are seriously going to market this product. Unless I can get this for far cheaper than plain jane Windows Server Standard... forget it.
(Rolith said @ #4.5)how often do databases actually get corrupted? seriously?Often enough for Microsoft to release a patch as part of their WHS update this week. They had a known issue with database corruption when accessed by other Microsoft products. Seriously. -
#4.7 Posted by Rolith on 24 Jul 2008 - 20:03
- I love you you completely ignore the fact that I pointed out the corruption issue ISN"T on the database level, but the file system layer, so you can continue to spam the point. Unless you have arguments that change my understanding of the issue.
...
If you're not going to read what windows home server / it's file system does before pointing out "NATS DO THAT" or "RAIDS DO THAT" then there is no arguing with you, seriously.
Database-driven file structure - not just a "database" that gets "copied".
Dynamic storage across all accessible drives, including duplicating data that needs to be protected against drive failure.
Speed / performance boosts by smart software use of drive write queues to store data as fast as possible as well as keeping it quickly accessible later on with constant data balancing.
Built in, one button UPnP media streaming streaming.
Built in, one button remote file access.
Built in, one button system backups that smartly ignore wasted file space like temporary internet files and system hibernation data.
This is crap that you won't find on any "cheap" network storage devices, and would require hours upon hours of investment to get functional on ANY other system. The investment of under $100 for same basic space on any hardware device out here right now is a small price to pay for the simplicity and power it provides.
Saying there's cheaper ways to do this is like saying there are places that offer $100 laser eye surgery. Sometimes it's a good idea to investigate the deal you're getting and the features you're missing out on. -
#4.8 Posted by markjensen on 24 Jul 2008 - 20:50
- (Rolith said @ #4.7)I love you you completely ignore the fact that I pointed out the corruption issue ISN"T on the database level, but the file system layer, so you can continue to spam the point. Unless you have arguments that change my understanding of the issue.An argument that changes your understanding?
How about RAID isn't a database? Why in hell would you add database issues to a RAID backup. Just make a RAID array. No database. Quit bringing databases into the discussion of RAID as if the two are joined at the hip.
How's that for separating out why Microsoft's database issues aren't to be considered as part of a RAID solution that better protects data integrity?
-
#4.9 Posted by +Volatile on 24 Jul 2008 - 21:16
- The OEM has been marked down in April to 149.99US so it is more affordable with I'm sure restrictions as a home user. The prebuilt machines which range from 600.00US - 800.00US sport a 500GB-1TB storage space (no redundancy) with a *cough* shity 1.8 AMD Sempron which is the lovely successor of Duron.
Not my cup of tea. It runs cheaper than I thought, so without reading the specs, its probably a very stripped down OS stamped server software. They added some bells and whistles with a Microsoft style wizard for sharing and the likes. I don't see any mention anywhere about an integrated backup solution. Pastor George will be very upset if he loses his kiddie porn! -
#4.10 Posted by Smigit on 25 Jul 2008 - 04:04
- (Volatile said @ #4.3)Someone who has the sense to have a server to backup their home inventory will look at cheaper, more effective solutions that are out today.Raid isn't cheap but and there isn't less need for intervention. For a WHS box if you want to add a drive its a matter of plugging it in and away you go. It takes literally two minutes from the time of opening the case. If you run out of sata ports you can buy a $50 sata card.
That process may be ideal in a home use setup for someone who doesn't understand that in a RAID fashion there is also a performance boost, faster uptime, and less intervention. In a parity setup, if one drive fails.. just replace it. The drive will rebuild itself and your good. When your main OS drive fails.. do you have to spend hours rebuilding the OS and all your settings before you can get your data back (or maybe you will just slave that backup drive on another PC until you can afford another HD). It simply states Windows Home Server because it is not ideal or as advanced as a RAID configuration.
RAIDS imho are alot more static in terms of size and if you want to resize them theres alot more headaches. Also what happens if you run out of ports on a raid card? You have to go buy a new card but unlike a cheap sata card which doesn't need to support raid at all, a decent Raid card of 8 or 16 slots will set you back quite a bit of money.
WHS has pretty much no maintanence and I'm sure anyone that has used it will attest to that. Also it's no more expensive to get the OS than it is to get a decent raid card...infact I'd argue it's considerably cheaper.
As for performance boost...who cares. This is a media server/backups for a home situation. You aren't going to notice any loss due to using a software based raid solution (WHS more or less) over a hardware raid.
and as before...if hardware raid is so important you CAN use it. WHS is just a modified version of Server 2003 after all and supports a fair bit more than is written on the box AFAIK if you really want to dig into it.
-
#5 Posted by blackcat77 on 24 Jul 2008 - 17:41
- I'm sure that experts could rig up their own solutions but I've had WHS for about 8 months now and it's proved it's worth to me several times over when we've been able to avoid complete re-installations from scratch. It also provides a central spot for our music collection and, since we operate a home office, a backup and single location for the files we both need to access. I'm sure it could have been done more cheaply -- provided the expertise to build and operate it was there -- but in a very short time, I've gotten to the point where I can't imagine not having WHS.
-
(2 replies)
#6 Posted by HalcyonX12 on 24 Jul 2008 - 21:24
- Why do you need a home server if you already have external storage back up to, or better yet, DVD-Rs which cannot be modified (it's harder to lose your backed up files), and shared folders to share data with? Why a home server instead of simple network storage? It's even common to be able to buy inexpensive external storage with one-touch backup. MS has to try and convince customers that their server is a better backup solution and that will be difficult.
Any other features can just be applications on the local computer. It's a lot cheaper just to run a network storage device than to have another computer running, even if you count the power saving features both use. To people at home, even the word 'server' is foreboding, it sounds a lot scarier than even dealing with the problems on their own computers, which they already have trouble with. Both the marketing and the product have issues here...
If anything, MS may have more luck simply offering this service online so users don't have to worry about software issues or about installing a server. -
#6.1 Posted by MioTheGreat on 25 Jul 2008 - 02:24
- (HalcyonX12 said @ #6)Why do you need a home server if you already have external storage back up to, or better yet, DVD-Rs which cannot be modified (it's harder to lose your backed up files), and shared folders to share data with? Why a home server instead of simple network storage? It's even common to be able to buy inexpensive external storage with one-touch backup. MS has to try and convince customers that their server is a better backup solution and that will be difficult.
Any other features can just be applications on the local computer. It's a lot cheaper just to run a network storage device than to have another computer running, even if you count the power saving features both use. To people at home, even the word 'server' is foreboding, it sounds a lot scarier than even dealing with the problems on their own computers, which they already have trouble with. Both the marketing and the product have issues here...
If anything, MS may have more luck simply offering this service online so users don't have to worry about software issues or about installing a server.
The point is that this entire thing is automatic, images all of the PCs in your house (With features in place to prevent the need to store multiple copies of the same file, such as system files across multiple PCs), and can easily restore them just by popping in the WHS computer restore cd, and letting it do its thing. I'd rather have a seperate box for my backups than using an external drive, anyway. -
#6.2 Posted by Smigit on 25 Jul 2008 - 07:02
- (MioTheGreat said @ #6.1)The point is that this entire thing is automatic, images all of the PCs in your house (With features in place to prevent the need to store multiple copies of the same file, such as system files across multiple PCs), and can easily restore them just by popping in the WHS computer restore cd, and letting it do its thing. I'd rather have a seperate box for my backups than using an external drive, anyway.Exactly. Also external solutions require a strategy to handle the necessity to use multiple CD's DVD's ect or hard disks. WHS you don't have to consider that as you just rely on one storage cluster be it one drive or many.
When you go to external cd's or dvd's you rarely keep application data too, just user files, so any restore will be a lot slower and manual process than WHS presents.
-
(1 reply)
#7 Posted by Airlink on 25 Jul 2008 - 01:01
- The funny thing is is that they have to actualy "Create Demand" for this product... because no demand exists!
If you want to run a server in the home, use a real server OS, not this FUBAR pos. -
#7.1 Posted by KevinN206 on 25 Jul 2008 - 01:40
- (Airlink said @ #7)The funny thing is is that they have to actualy "Create Demand" for this product... because no demand exists!
If you want to run a server in the home, use a real server OS, not this FUBAR pos.
People who claim WHS a POS fail to understand that WHS is not marketed for your IT admin. It is marketed specifically for the average joe who wants a piece of mind on his/her pictures and documents. They don't want to spend hours configuring a real server OS. One of the best features is Single Instance Store where multiple copies of a file is stored only once. This reduces required space tremendously when backing up from multiple computers.
Run out of space? Plug in an external drive and done. The new drive gets added to the pool transparently.(HalcyonX12 said @ #6)Why do you need a home server if you already have external storage back up to, or better yet, DVD-Rs which cannot be modified (it's harder to lose your backed up files), and shared folders to share data with? Why a home server instead of simple network storage? It's even common to be able to buy inexpensive external storage with one-touch backup. MS has to try and convince customers that their server is a better backup solution and that will be difficult.
Any other features can just be applications on the local computer. It's a lot cheaper just to run a network storage device than to have another computer running, even if you count the power saving features both use. To people at home, even the word 'server' is foreboding, it sounds a lot scarier than even dealing with the problems on their own computers, which they already have trouble with. Both the marketing and the product have issues here...
If anything, MS may have more luck simply offering this service online so users don't have to worry about software issues or about installing a server.
DVD are no longer a viable backup solution. I tried storing several GB of photos and documents on multiple DVD. They are not the easiest medium to work with when you do need them. You can certainly use USB drives, but I would rather have a single easy-to-use server hidden in the closet with several TB of storage.
Before this week's release of Power Pack 1, the first major update for Windows Home Server, Microsoft may have been reluctant to trumpet the virtues of a product whose primary function of backing up users' data was in doubt. Now that it has fixed the glitch, Microsoft can continue working on the challenge of creating demand for the brand new home server segment. Susan Bradley, a Small Business Specialist partner in Fresno, Calif., describes Home Server as a "strong" product, but says she's "honestly concerned" about the amount of marketing Microsoft has devoted to the product thus far.