Worse than Vista

[ToyotaNSaturn]

Windows Home Server: http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1499

Microsoft technology evangelist Volker Will lost a considerable amount of data to Microsoft Home Server. Same problem? Hard to tell, but losing 180GB of data on a file server is no laughing matter...

HP held back any sales of WHS until some patch was made available by MS. I wonder if these data loss issues are related to this patch that MS delivered?

 

[tmorris1]

Microsoft hasn't released a patch for this yet.

 

[stogiedude]

Nowadays if someone who is a "technology guru" doesn't back up 180GB of data then they deserve to lose it. Pretty much everyone at this point has heard how important it is to back up important information, shame on anyone who ignores it and neglects their important information.

 

[PandaBear]

stogiedude:

This windows home server's problem is data corruption in the software. Backup only helps if your system is well designed but suffer a hardware failure. If the software corrupt the data, no matter how you back it up, it is no use.

Rumor has it that the problem occurs only if you use the file directly on the server, and use the equivalent of spanning that group several drives together into one partition. If you avoid the 2, you should be fine.

However, I still don't understand what is the point of doing this when you can easily do the same with better performance and reliability with Linux. Windows' strength is in its user interface (desktop) and the available development tools (Visual Studio). It sucks up too much processing power as a server especially for home. A simple Pentium 200Mhz and a few hard drive should do well with Linux, rather than a 1Ghz Pentium III with Windows Home Server.

 

[Mystic]

One of the reasons for Microsoft Home Server is so people can save data to the computer that is running MHS. If you have 2 hard drives on the computer running MHS you should be able to save data to the 2nd hard drive. If there is a problem with this than Microsoft does need to fix it. The MHS should be just as good as an external hard drive for backing up data. If it is not doing so than what is the point of even having MHS?

For the cost of MHS a person can buy an external hard drive like the Seagate FreeAgent. I have a 500 GB Seagate FreeAgent that cost only a little bit more than what MHS costs. It will run on Windows or Mac computers. Yesterday I saved over 100 GB of stuff from my iMac in just a few hours.

 

[Mystic]

The average home computer user probably has no need for a server computer anyway. If a home server type computer is being used for security you can download SmoothWall and use as an O/S or if a person is really capable use OpenBSD on a spare computer. Or even get a Mac and install Mac OS X Server on it. You actually are behind a server anyway if you have an ISP because the ISP is using some sort of server/servers.

An external hard drive is easy to set up and stores files like Microsoft Home Server is supposed to be able to do.

If a person has a Mac Computer and a .Mac account they have access to a certain amount of online storage anyway (I can't remember how much).

I really can't see much need for a home server unless somebody has their own website or a home business.

Easiest way to store data is just to have external hard drives.

 

[TooManyWheels]

My understanding is that MHS is for someone like me - two wired desktops and a wireless laptop, who doesn't want to become a network guru to set up a network attached backup storage device. In my case, an NDAS system (network DIRECT attached, NETDISK by Ximeta) does the job well, but I am curious about Home Server.

 

[tmorris1]

Originally Posted By: stogiedude
Nowadays if someone who is a "technology guru" doesn't back up 180GB of data then they deserve to lose it. Pretty much everyone at this point has heard how important it is to back up important information, shame on anyone who ignores it and neglects their important information.

I agree with you, but the whole point of the Microsoft Home Server is to automatically backup the data from your workstations. If that was the only place that he had the data then he is an idiot, but that doesn't excuse MS from having a [censored] product that can't be trusted to do the job that it was designed to do.

 

[simple_gifts]

Quote:

The average home computer user probably has no need for a server computer anyway. If a home server type computer is being used for security you can download SmoothWall and use as an O/S or if a person is really capable use OpenBSD on a spare computer. Or even get a Mac and install Mac OS X Server on it. You actually are behind a server anyway if you have an ISP because the ISP is using some sort of server/servers.


So what you are saying is the least capable home server is a product called "Home Server"; pity the fools who didn't know this....

 

[Mystic]

I will speak for myself. What I mean is if somebody wants a home server for security SmoothWall (which is Linux I believe), OpenBSD (if a person is capable of setting it up), or Mac OS X Server might be good choices.

For storing data an external hard drive works well and with the right software and hardware it can be setup for automatic operation.

I don't know if Windows Home Server is the least capable server for home use or not. I have never used it. At work we use Unix and Windows Server 2003.

I just can't see the typical home owner needing a server. Unless a person is running a website from home or a small business. I am not trying to put down the average home computer user. But an external hard drive can be setup for automatic backup of data and it is easier to setup than a home server. The home server is an addtional computer and something like $180.00 for Windows Home Server. An external hard drive costs less.

Some of the most capable people I have ever met around computers were creative people who did wonderful things in photo editing, computer graphics, illustration, page layout, video editing, etc. Most of these people used Macs and many used Windows. Most of them had little ability to setup a server.

Some of the least capable people I ever met around computers were people who thought they knew everything there was to know.

The most brillant person I know when it comes to computers is a woman. She could probably work for Microsoft or Apple if she really wanted to. She can program Unix, Windows, etc. She is completely different from the typical 'Hacker' stereotype. She has written, by herself, specialized software just for us that we need for our work. We use a lot of specialized software. A lot of that software was written for Unix.

Another woman in IT is in a music band when she is not working. A very talented person who can play musical instruments and sing.

The guy who used to run the ISP I used for a while was fantastic with Linux servers. He loved motorcycles and was a biker.

My brother-in-law works with spacecraft and missle equipment and his two sons are now working for the same company. They build equipment for satellites and space probes. They are whiz kids when it comes to computers. If I needed a network setup I would go to them.

But aside from a modem/router/firewall and my computer I don't need a home server and a network. My ISP has the servers.

 

[stogiedude]

Sorry, I didn't know anything about this windows home server.

My point was you should have an external drive that gets regular image backups so what you lose is only the most recent data that hasn't been backed up since the last backup whether it's a day a week or an hour since backup. It's happened to me enough times over the years that I'm sensitized to it and now that I have a $100 external 500GB drive my stuff gets backed up regularly.

The more valuable you data/information, the more you need a backup or MULTIPLE backups.

Windows Vista and XP aren't great software, that's not what keeps us using it, they are what is readily available to the majority of people. When really good alternatives are available I and many others will gladly leave the windoze world behind.

I don't consider Apple computers a solution for the majority of people looking for mainstream computing. If Apple wands a large share of the market they will price themselves competitively, until then they will remain a small sliver of the computing pie.

Windoze is the Model T of computing, when some other good choices make themselves known, readily available and useable to the masses of naive end users then operating system diversity will occur. Right now it's a monopoly, not an oligopoly. If an operating system like Linux gets even 15% of the market I will rejoice. I like competition, it stimulates creativity, reduces prices and encourages innovation.

 

[TooManyWheels]

Two major reasons for home servers are to share files and backup devices among several computers. Theoretically, WHS should be ideal for that.

 

[Mystic]

I can agree with part of what you said. Sorry I became upset (I was not upset at you) but I don't want somebody putting words out for me and I don't refer to people as 'fools.' The woman who is not very sharp about computers may be a very talented artist. The man who is not very talented about computers may be a wonderful auto mechanic. Not everybody can be a computer genius. People have differing talents. All of the various talents are needed by society.

I think that Apple could have been a solution for the majority of people, but there are a lot of reasons it did not happen. I agree that Apple needs to be more competitive with price. Even if Apple did become competitive it would take years because of the huge lead Microsoft has.

I have to disagree with you about Linux. At one time I was very eager to switch to Linux. But Linux has had its chance (to be a desktop solution) and it never happens. Linux has been successful for server applications.

Windows has become pretty bloated (some 40-50 million lines of code in Vista) and I think something new will eventually be required. But I just don't see anything around that offers to be the new solution. Somebody needs to develop from the ground up a totally new, totally up to date O/S. Apple had a chance to do that and for whatever reasons 'Copland' totally flopped. When Steve Jobs came back to Apple they took the Machintosh GUI and some other technology and put it on top of FreeBSD. Microsoft puts additional layers of code on top of layers and layers of code. There has to be something better.

I can see somebody needing some sort of home server if they have several computers in their home. But it is possible to network computers together even without a server. And an external hard drive just seems like a better way to me to store data than to set up a network involving a server.

Just to be fair I think I should add that some people have lost data using Apple's Leopard Time Machine technology.

Maybe the best answer is to do the simple thing and hook up an external hard drive unless you have access to professional equipment like real industry servers.

I am glad I found out that there may well be problems with Microsoft Home Server. At one time I was considering using it. If there is a problem thank you I will stay with the external hard drive-at home anyway.

 

[Volvohead]

Windows Home Server? The 9x of "servers"?

Buy a NAS for backup and run RAID1 locally as a shared workgroup resource. There's your home "server".

It's all only as secure as the HDD integrity. Fragile little spinning disks.

Your data will thank you.

 

[tmorris1]

Originally Posted By: Volvohead
Windows Home Server? The 9x of "servers"?

Buy a NAS for backup and run RAID1 locally as a shared workgroup resource. There's your home "server".

It's all only as secure as the HDD integrity. Fragile little spinning disks.

Your data will thank you.


I think that MS was trying use Home Server to turn a PC into a NAS. This isn't a bad idea if the OS doesn't corrupt your data (bad thing!). I don't really see the need for it either (There are cheaper and better alternatives) but it has some automated backup stuff built in that will automatically backup things from all the workstations attached to it. This maybe nice if you have a bunch of family members with PC's that you want to control backups from a central administative PC (the server). It is a nice idea, but it obviously doesn't work worth a darn.

The easiest thing for the average home user is an external USB drive that can be shutoff and disconnected from the eletric grid or put in a safe when not being used for backup. That way if an electrical storm takes out your PC, at least your backup will not be toast (provided it wasn't running during the storm).

 

[nel]

I've been using a Trial version of WHS for the last two months, and it's actually worked well for me.

It's based on Windows Server 2003 so the foundation is a reasonable starting point. It automatically backs up to ten clients on a daily basis. I've used the restore from a server feature a few times when I was experimenting with my home PC. It worked flawlessly--actually saved my butt once or twice. I use it to serve media files to my Tivo, and as the central repository for mp3 files for SlimServer. In addition, I have folders set up for my wife and daughter to add whatever they want to share. My daughter has a Mac, so it doesn't get backed up by WHS unfortunately. What I haven't tried turning on is access to the server from outside the home network.

What's wrong? Microsoft implemented a new feature that duplicates files across drives (at the folder level) if the user opts for that feature for specific folders. This is kind of a poor man's folder level RAID 1. Apparently, their code does not handle situations where the file is updated incrementally by an app. The bug does not affect files that are written in full or systems with a single drive. It does not affect situations where the file is located on the user's PC and is backed up onto the server. See this blog is you're interested in more:

Blog entry on WHS woes

My trial runs out soon, and I've been happy enough with the automated features of WHS that I went out and bought it. They've had to reduce pricing because of the bug