Whats next for WHS?

[coolVariable]

@loup garou

I am not exactly sure what you are trying to argue. You seem to disagree on principle with a lot of stuff people are saying in this thread and take the WHS criticism rather personally.
If WHS was such a great product, why is it not more successful?
I have only seen complaints in this thread that are (i.) sensible, (ii.) constructive [from people that like WHS] and (iii.) echo what a lot of WHS blogs, forums and websites are demanding.

Originally posted by: coolVariable
I think WHS has multiple problems:

1. Price (too expensive; at $300+ drives it would be a no brainer)

Fact: buying a finished WHS costs $500+ (most seem to be in the $750 range). That is too expensive.
Fact: building a WHS with a case that is somewhat similar to HP's/Acer's/etc WHS cases costs easily $500+. Nobody is even asking for front accessible HDDs. Please name ONE SFF case (of similar size to the HP case) that can fit 4 3.5" drives for $100 or less. Please name ONE!
Conclusion: Yes you can build a monstrous WHS that is a desktop running WHS software. BUT if you buy a WHS or if you want to build one like the ones you can buy, it costs $500+! AND if you want to make the argument that it is theoretically cheaper to build ones own, then I think the argument others have posted in this thread (that you can do it even cheaper using LINUX or UNIX!!!!) is an even better argument. I would deem BOTH of those off topic.
=> WHS are too expensive!

Originally posted by: coolVariable
2. The reason people want WHS functionality merged with Media Center is simple: you buy a $1,000+ to $1,500+ Media Center PC and then you are expected to spend another $550+ for a box that adds nothing but file sharing and backups? I (and probably everyone else) would rather have one "server" that does it all.

NOT ONE GOOD ARGUMENT FROM YOU!
No "home user" wants to have 5 servers at home to service his various needs. ONE server that does multiple things! MCE already does everything WHS does with the exception of the nifty backup utility.

Originally posted by: coolVariable
3. Lack of cases/parts being available to system builders. WHS users are primarily first adopters. These first adopters are also more likely to build their own then to buy an overpriced system from Dell (when I checked ... the HP was at least $150+ overpriced).

See point #1 and you seem to agree with me on this one, although you do your best to disagree?

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: coolVariable
MCE already does everything WHS does with the exception of the nifty backup utility.

Which is why I'd prefer leaving out the MCE functions and concentrating on the unique things things that WHS does best:

Backup server
Web server
Remote Access server

Every single copy of Windows 7 will be capable of serving as a Media Center and as a file server (homegroups). Why do we need those features repeated in WHS, especially if they increase the cost of a WHS sysetm?

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
For sure, WHS' folder redundancy is a million times better than what most homeowners have now (which is nothing). But it's hard to know exactly how reliable WHS' drive redundancy is going to be in the field. That's going to take a bunch of actual hard drive failures. Plus, we all recognize that settling for disk redundancy rather than backups leaves a hole where data can be lost.

I can't possibly imagine a failure mode other than a multiple drive failure that would be an issue. WHS drive redundancy keeps files on 2 drives, which can be read as normal NTFS volumes. There should be no issue of reliability for files that have completed writing and have had a few moments to replicate.

And Homegroups are an ugly, ugly hack. They only work with W7 (no Vista, no XP, no Macs, no remote access) and require that the machine the file is on is online. Half the point of having a server is so that all your files are in one place so you don't have to worry about the other machines. Homegroups are not a replacement for a real file server like WHS, it's a lesser solution for those that can't justify a real file server.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: coolVariable
@loup garou

I am not exactly sure what you are trying to argue. You seem to disagree on principle with a lot of stuff people are saying in this thread and take the WHS criticism rather personally.

I don't take criticisms of WHS personally, I've lodged criticisms of my own in this very thread. What I do take personally is people who outright ignore what I've said, or twist my words in order to argue for the sake of argument, which is what you have done, especially flagrantly in this response.

If WHS was such a great product, why is it not more successful?

Does it not do what it is supposed to do well? Backups, centralized file storage, remote access. Yep, all work well. Of course there is room for improvement in all of these areas, though. I'd also say WHS is pretty successful for a new product of its type.

I have only seen complaints in this thread that are (i.) sensible, (ii.) constructive [from people that like WHS] and (iii.) echo what a lot of WHS blogs, forums and websites are demanding.

I agree, there have been lots of sensible complaints and criticisms. Some of them were even mine! My responses to others' that I have addressed are intended to shed some light on what *I* believe are the reasons for these complaints and actions users can take to mitigate the perceived problems that cause these complaints. Yes there have been some side discussions and off topic posts, it happens.

Fact: buying a finished WHS costs $500+ (most seem to be in the $750 range). That is too expensive.

I agree and have stated so repeatedly. Please read the thread.

Fact: building a WHS with a case that is somewhat similar to HP's/Acer's/etc WHS cases costs easily $500+. Nobody is even asking for front accessible HDDs. Please name ONE SFF case (of similar size to the HP case) that can fit 4 3.5" drives for $100 or less. Please name ONE!

I can't and I've bemoaned this in this thread (read it) and others (you can read them too, if you like). Chenbro makes a couple, but they are expensive.

Conclusion: Yes you can build a monstrous WHS that is a desktop running WHS software.

Patently false and I addressed it in my last response. My WHS box is not monstrous at all. Like I said it is silent and draws less power than an incandescent lightbulb. For some reason you have it stuck in your head that WHS has to have 4 drives. It doesn't.

BUT if you buy a WHS or if you want to build one like the ones you can buy, it costs $500+! AND if you want to make the argument that it is theoretically cheaper to build ones own, then I think the argument others have posted in this thread (that you can do it even cheaper using LINUX or UNIX!!!!) is an even better argument.

Of course you can do it cheaper using linux. I have a ubuntu box running on the same hardware as my WHS box. It's good for what I use it for too (boxee and dicking around in linux). It was $100 cheaper since I didn't have to buy a WHS license for it. Never could find a backup utility for it that was as easy to setup and use and worked as well as WHS's though, if you know of one, I'd love to hear about it. I prefer WHS's easy remote access as well.

NOT ONE GOOD ARGUMENT FROM YOU!

No need to yell.

No "home user" wants to have 5 servers at home to service his various needs. ONE server that does multiple things!

Not sure why you'd need 5 servers to accomplish a task, but yeah, no one wants a bunch of boxes. All I'm saying is if you put all of your home entertainment and networking eggs in one basket, it's sure going to suck when something in it fails. Then, they're up shit creek, at least for a little while as they rebuild the server/network device as needed. And I'm not trying to argue here, I'm just providing my thoughts on the matter as someone who has seen what happens when you come to rely on a single device for too many needs.

MCE already does everything WHS does with the exception of the nifty backup utility.

I'd like to see how Media Center offers remote connectivity to all of your home computers and remote access to all of your files through a web browser, out of the box. LOL, what you're saying doesn't even make sense!

See point #1 and you seem to agree with me on this one, although you do your best to disagree?

I only disagree with your continual shifts in what a WHS box "is" in order to make it cost what you think it must cost. I've given a simple, straightforward example of how to build a system for almost half of your perceived cost of a WHS box, but you continually ignore it and continue to shift the goalposts. Meanwhile, my little WHS box sits here humming along, doing what it should do.

PS Please notice how I took each of your points and replied in kind. It would be nice if you could extend the same courtesy to my replies, instead of removing my replies and putting words in my mouth. Thanks.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
I can't possibly imagine a failure mode other than a multiple drive failure that would be an issue. WHS drive redundancy keeps files on 2 drives, which can be read as normal NTFS volumes. There should be no issue of reliability for files that have completed writing and have had a few moments to replicate.

I have no reason to think this isn't true. Especially after the major Drive Extender overhaul last year. Call me paranoid.

One other thing that could prove a lifesaver is that WHS should report a drive failure as a popup on every single PC on the network. I've seen offices that went for days or weeks with an impaired (failed drive) RAID array and didn't even know it. Until the second drive failed.

 

[Ol Bob]

There may be an add-on for disk management that reports the smart status on its console page but one which pops up on clients would be even better I agree.My favorite pet peeve tho still has to be access to mapped drives from a common management interface within the whs console. I have here, on my wired gigabit home network, a bit over 8.5 TB total combined storage spread across 7 boxes. No I do not back all those up, heck I cant even remember whats on most of them, but it would be so nice to only have to look in one spot for anything rather than dozens of shared folders , partitions and drives. One day I'm want to sit down and eliminate the duplicate drive letters but then I'd really be lost.No I dont want to add all of this capacity to the whs drive extender pool, just some kind of common management page which can help to find things.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: Ol Bob
There may be an add-on for disk management that reports the smart status on its console page but one which pops up on clients would be even better I agree.

WHS Disk Management. It reports SMART status of disks, which is nice. You're right though, it doesn't report SMART events to workstations. The WHS connector icon will change to indicate an "unhealthy" or failed drive, though! I know this because I've had a drive fail on mine.

My favorite pet peeve tho still has to be access to mapped drives from a common management interface within the whs console. I have here, on my wired gigabit home network, a bit over 8.5 TB total combined storage spread across 7 boxes. No I do not back all those up, heck I cant even remember whats on most of them, but it would be so nice to only have to look in one spot for anything rather than dozens of shared folders , partitions and drives. One day I'm want to sit down and eliminate the duplicate drive letters but then I'd really be lost.No I dont want to add all of this capacity to the whs drive extender pool, just some kind of common management page which can help to find things.

You could just index all of your network shares using any desktop search app...you could do it on the server or on a workstation. It would probably generate a good amount of network overhead though...also I may be misunderstanding what it is you want to do.

 

[coolVariable]

Originally posted by: loup garou

Originally posted by: coolVariable
@loup garou

I am not exactly sure what you are trying to argue. You seem to disagree on principle with a lot of stuff people are saying in this thread and take the WHS criticism rather personally.

I don't take criticisms of WHS personally, I've lodged criticisms of my own in this very thread. What I do take personally is people who outright ignore what I've said, or twist my words in order to argue for the sake of argument, which is what you have done, especially flagrantly in this response.

If WHS was such a great product, why is it not more successful?

Does it not do what it is supposed to do well? Backups, centralized file storage, remote access. Yep, all work well. Of course there is room for improvement in all of these areas, though. I'd also say WHS is pretty successful for a new product of its type.

I have only seen complaints in this thread that are (i.) sensible, (ii.) constructive [from people that like WHS] and (iii.) echo what a lot of WHS blogs, forums and websites are demanding.

I agree, there have been lots of sensible complaints and criticisms. Some of them were even mine! My responses to others' that I have addressed are intended to shed some light on what *I* believe are the reasons for these complaints and actions users can take to mitigate the perceived problems that cause these complaints. Yes there have been some side discussions and off topic posts, it happens.

Fact: buying a finished WHS costs $500+ (most seem to be in the $750 range). That is too expensive.

I agree and have stated so repeatedly. Please read the thread.

Fact: building a WHS with a case that is somewhat similar to HP's/Acer's/etc WHS cases costs easily $500+. Nobody is even asking for front accessible HDDs. Please name ONE SFF case (of similar size to the HP case) that can fit 4 3.5" drives for $100 or less. Please name ONE!

I can't and I've bemoaned this in this thread (read it) and others (you can read them too, if you like). Chenbro makes a couple, but they are expensive.

Conclusion: Yes you can build a monstrous WHS that is a desktop running WHS software.

Patently false and I addressed it in my last response. My WHS box is not monstrous at all. Like I said it is silent and draws less power than an incandescent lightbulb. For some reason you have it stuck in your head that WHS has to have 4 drives. It doesn't.

BUT if you buy a WHS or if you want to build one like the ones you can buy, it costs $500+! AND if you want to make the argument that it is theoretically cheaper to build ones own, then I think the argument others have posted in this thread (that you can do it even cheaper using LINUX or UNIX!!!!) is an even better argument.

Of course you can do it cheaper using linux. I have a ubuntu box running on the same hardware as my WHS box. It's good for what I use it for too (boxee and dicking around in linux). It was $100 cheaper since I didn't have to buy a WHS license for it. Never could find a backup utility for it that was as easy to setup and use and worked as well as WHS's though, if you know of one, I'd love to hear about it. I prefer WHS's easy remote access as well.

NOT ONE GOOD ARGUMENT FROM YOU!

No need to yell.

No "home user" wants to have 5 servers at home to service his various needs. ONE server that does multiple things!

Not sure why you'd need 5 servers to accomplish a task, but yeah, no one wants a bunch of boxes. All I'm saying is if you put all of your home entertainment and networking eggs in one basket, it's sure going to suck when something in it fails. Then, they're up shit creek, at least for a little while as they rebuild the server/network device as needed. And I'm not trying to argue here, I'm just providing my thoughts on the matter as someone who has seen what happens when you come to rely on a single device for too many needs.

MCE already does everything WHS does with the exception of the nifty backup utility.

I'd like to see how Media Center offers remote connectivity to all of your home computers and remote access to all of your files through a web browser, out of the box. LOL, what you're saying doesn't even make sense!

See point #1 and you seem to agree with me on this one, although you do your best to disagree?

I only disagree with your continual shifts in what a WHS box "is" in order to make it cost what you think it must cost. I've given a simple, straightforward example of how to build a system for almost half of your perceived cost of a WHS box, but you continually ignore it and continue to shift the goalposts. Meanwhile, my little WHS box sits here humming along, doing what it should do.

PS Please notice how I took each of your points and replied in kind. It would be nice if you could extend the same courtesy to my replies, instead of removing my replies and putting words in my mouth. Thanks.

LOL. You are funny. No need to get testy just because you seem hell bent on disagreeing but don't have any arguments.

#1 So you agree. WHS is too expensive!
#2 Still no argument from you. So you agree that having MCE and WHS combined into one would be better?
#2a "No one wants a bunch of boxes" So you agree! Currently you need to have a separate MCE and a WHS: 2 boxes ... merge MCE and WHS => 1 box! Yay! That wasn't hard, was it?
#2b We are talking home use. Don't give me any bullsh!t about fail redundancy because then I want to see off-site file server backup built into WHS. Adding MCE capabilities to WHS would add a negligible risk of the whole system failing. (BTW - do you even have an MCE? If you don't maybe you shouldn't be arguing this point?)
#2c Remote connectivity - Have you heard of something called Remote Desktop? You should check it out. Otherwise, there is also live mesh and approx. 100 other, very simple to usem utilities like it.
#3 No arguement => you agree? What you are saying doesn't really make sense.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: coolVariable
LOL. You are funny. No need to get testy just because you seem hell bent on disagreeing but don't have any arguments.

#1 So you agree. WHS is too expensive!
#2 Still no argument from you. So you agree that having MCE and WHS combined into one would be better?
#2a "No one wants a bunch of boxes" So you agree! Currently you need to have a separate MCE and a WHS: 2 boxes ... merge MCE and WHS => 1 box! Yay! That wasn't hard, was it?
#2b We are talking home use. Don't give me any bullsh!t about fail redundancy because then I want to see off-site file server backup built into WHS. Adding MCE capabilities to WHS would add a negligible risk of the whole system failing. (BTW - do you even have an MCE? If you don't maybe you shouldn't be arguing this point?)
#2c Remote connectivity - Have you heard of something called Remote Desktop? You should check it out. Otherwise, there is also live mesh and approx. 100 other, very simple to usem utilities like it.
#3 No arguement => you agree? What you are saying doesn't really make sense.

Once again, you completely ignored my responses. I'm done with you, you're nothing more than a troll.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: coolVariable
MCE already does everything WHS does with the exception of the nifty backup utility.

Which is why I'd prefer leaving out the MCE functions and concentrating on the unique things things that WHS does best:

Backup server
Web server
Remote Access server

Every single copy of Windows 7 will be capable of serving as a Media Center and as a file server (homegroups). Why do we need those features repeated in WHS, especially if they increase the cost of a WHS sysetm?

I would think it'd be obvious why - the server is always on.

I dunno about eveyone else, but I set my PCs to go into sleep after just a few minutes of idle to save power - if you actually do the math, its shocking how much money leaving even a single computer on all day costs, let alone several PCs.

Out here, electricity is 18c a kWh. My desktop uses about 150W on idle, my laptop about 30, my server around 45, my HTPC around 90.

If I left it on all day, just the desktop alone costs about 65c a day to power, almost $20 a month, or $240 a year! If I left all of them on, it would be $1.36 a day, $40 a month, or $480 a year....thats insane! By leaving only the server on and waking the PCs as needed, I save hundreds a year. At the energy rates around here, the server practically pays for itself after a year or two.

By storing it all on a low energy consumption server, I can use my desktop, laptop or HTPC and be sure to get to my files without having to have them all on and waste tons of power just to make sure the file I need is accessible.

And as a somewhat indirect benefit, since media and documents are on the server connected to gigE, I'm looking forward to being able to use small, cheap, fast SSDs for the clients, which should boost performance considerably for the OS, apps and games.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: BD2003
Homegroups help a great deal, but in a way they kind of negate the need for the server to share files in the first place, when PCs can more easily access each other's files without too much configuration. Active directory style profiles would be sweet, although I'd think that might be somewhat difficult to retrofit into existing home networks.

Sometimes I wish that WHS didn't even DO file serving. Putting your only copy of a file on a WHS server (or any server, for that matter) forces you to consider how you will back up that file. This makes things complicated, rather than simplifying life.

For sure, WHS' folder redundancy is a million times better than what most homeowners have now (which is nothing). But it's hard to know exactly how reliable WHS' drive redundancy is going to be in the field. That's going to take a bunch of actual hard drive failures. Plus, we all recognize that settling for disk redundancy rather than backups leaves a hole where data can be lost.

If I had my druthers, I'd leave original data on the client PCs, share the data using homegroups, and only use WHS for backups. I'd even go as far as disabling the "fileserver" function in WHS unless there are at least two hard drives and folder redundancy is enabled. If Microsoft had intended WHS to be used as a fileserver in non-redundant mode, they should have come up with a good way to back up the server. WHS fails miserably when it comes to backing up itself. But it sure does a great job of backing up OTHER PCs.

Yeah, thats why I run backup software on the server itself, backing up to an external drive thats not part of the storage pool. The OS partition gets imaged, and the non-video files get plainly synced. I also only use a single 1TB drive for the storage pool.

This way if the OS partition somehow gets corrupted, I can restore the image and get it back up and running. I couldnt even do something that simple with the mediasmart because it doesnt even have VGA...

If the whole drive dies, I'll only lose videos, which are all on DVD anyway, I'll just have to re-rip them.

And if the house catches on fire, I can just grab the external and I'll be good.

Having only a single drive takes a load off the server having to constantly balance it, which causes performance issues in the first place. And if I ever want to get rid of WHS, I'll be able to easily transfer files away because the external drive isnt part of the crazy drive extender scheme on the drive.

I thought this was supposed to be solved with PP1, but some brilliant genuis decided server backup should be manual-only, not running on a schedule, and that it shouldnt include the OS partition. The backup feature they added in PP1 is completely and utterly useless.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: BD2003
I would think it'd be obvious why - the server is always on.

Why is that? I can configure a file server to sleep just as well as clients, and it can also be woken up by remote access. It wouldn't make sense to have a file server waking up and going to sleep every few minutes, but even a trigger of a couple of hours of non-activity can be enough to have it sleep overnight and into the next day.

Of course this depends on your usage pattern, and preferences, but is an option.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: BD2003
I would think it'd be obvious why - the server is always on.

Why is that? I can configure a file server to sleep just as well as clients, and it can also be woken up by remote access. It wouldn't make sense to have a file server waking up and going to sleep every few minutes, but even a trigger of a couple of hours of non-activity can be enough to have it sleep overnight and into the next day.

Of course this depends on your usage pattern, and preferences, but is an option.

Tried that, and it didnt work too well.

Mapped network drives on the clients would disconnect if the server wasnt up and running 24/7, and that caused major issues with my HTPC especially.

The server also likes to do a lot of maintenance on its own, running the disk balancer even though I only have one disk...and if it cant do it at night, itll do it as soon as it powers back up, so it goes about grinding at the same time Im trying to access, and that slowed it down a great deal.

The backups happen overnight, thankfully it fairly reliably wakes and put back to sleep most of my PCs.

Also, I run itunes on the server to sync/charge my iphone, and it needs to be on to do so overnight.

And just having to wait a few seconds to access the files irritated me, and it didnt even reliably wake in the first place.

Its just not worth it...WHS was meant to be left on 24/7.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: BD2003
WHS was meant to be left on 24/7.

OK, add to my wish list: Remove the silly requirement that a file server be left on 24/7.

 

[coolVariable]

Originally posted by: loup garou

Originally posted by: coolVariable
LOL. You are funny. No need to get testy just because you seem hell bent on disagreeing but don't have any arguments.

#1 So you agree. WHS is too expensive!
#2 Still no argument from you. So you agree that having MCE and WHS combined into one would be better?
#2a "No one wants a bunch of boxes" So you agree! Currently you need to have a separate MCE and a WHS: 2 boxes ... merge MCE and WHS => 1 box! Yay! That wasn't hard, was it?
#2b We are talking home use. Don't give me any bullsh!t about fail redundancy because then I want to see off-site file server backup built into WHS. Adding MCE capabilities to WHS would add a negligible risk of the whole system failing. (BTW - do you even have an MCE? If you don't maybe you shouldn't be arguing this point?)
#2c Remote connectivity - Have you heard of something called Remote Desktop? You should check it out. Otherwise, there is also live mesh and approx. 100 other, very simple to usem utilities like it.
#3 No arguement => you agree? What you are saying doesn't really make sense.

Once again, you completely ignored my responses. I'm done with you, you're nothing more than a troll.

That is funny coming from a troll like you who disagrees on principal (even without arguments).
I have given you argument after argument which you ignore and you don't offer any arguments back.

Debating doesn't seem to be one of your strengths ... neither reading.

 

[coolVariable]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: BD2003
WHS was meant to be left on 24/7.

OK, add to my wish list: Remove the silly requirement that a file server be left on 24/7.

I can wholeheartedly agree with that.
Why can't the balancing and other maintenance work be done on a schedule which wakes the WHS every night? (That works on MCE just fine.)
And any client connecting to the file server should seamlessly wake it up.
I would also argue that any balancing and other maintenance work should be suspended when a client is accessing the server or doing anything (unless that is a 24/7 situation).

 

[coolVariable]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: coolVariable
MCE already does everything WHS does with the exception of the nifty backup utility.

Which is why I'd prefer leaving out the MCE functions and concentrating on the unique things things that WHS does best:

Backup server
Web server
Remote Access server

Every single copy of Windows 7 will be capable of serving as a Media Center and as a file server (homegroups). Why do we need those features repeated in WHS, especially if they increase the cost of a WHS sysetm?

I would think it'd be obvious why - the server is always on.

I dunno about eveyone else, but I set my PCs to go into sleep after just a few minutes of idle to save power - if you actually do the math, its shocking how much money leaving even a single computer on all day costs, let alone several PCs.

Out here, electricity is 18c a kWh. My desktop uses about 150W on idle, my laptop about 30, my server around 45, my HTPC around 90.

If I left it on all day, just the desktop alone costs about 65c a day to power, almost $20 a month, or $240 a year! If I left all of them on, it would be $1.36 a day, $40 a month, or $480 a year....thats insane! By leaving only the server on and waking the PCs as needed, I save hundreds a year. At the energy rates around here, the server practically pays for itself after a year or two.

Totally agree with you BD2003.
The MCE has to be on 24/7 (ok it does go to sleep but I think so should the WHS if it is not busy and nobody is connected to it). Leaving to "servers" running 24/7 is just ridiculous.
Adding MCE functionality to WHS (or WHS functionality to MCE) would not add any software cost and you would only need a $50-$100 TV card to take advantage of the MCE functionality.
MCE performance is also severely hampered if you don't store the files locally, so it makes sense that the MCE acts as file server.
(not even gig-E helps with that, I tried, and I would venture a guess that 90% of homes are networked via wireless)

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: ViRGE
I can't possibly imagine a failure mode other than a multiple drive failure that would be an issue. WHS drive redundancy keeps files on 2 drives, which can be read as normal NTFS volumes. There should be no issue of reliability for files that have completed writing and have had a few moments to replicate.

I have no reason to think this isn't true. Especially after the major Drive Extender overhaul last year. Call me paranoid.

One other thing that could prove a lifesaver is that WHS should report a drive failure as a popup on every single PC on the network. I've seen offices that went for days or weeks with an impaired (failed drive) RAID array and didn't even know it. Until the second drive failed.

This is true, my one concern with WHS remains the non-redundancy of the boot volume. I have mine on a raid mirror and the rest of the drives in the NAS box single drives in the storage pool. But I do have to check the raid status since if a drive fails in the mirror I won't get notified like the drive pool.

 

[bsobel]

not OS images

In most cases that will be OS image not images since the deduping in backup works very well.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: coolVariable

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: BD2003
WHS was meant to be left on 24/7.

OK, add to my wish list: Remove the silly requirement that a file server be left on 24/7.

I can wholeheartedly agree with that.
Why can't the balancing and other maintenance work be done on a schedule which wakes the WHS every night? (That works on MCE just fine.)
And any client connecting to the file server should seamlessly wake it up.

Well, the less power the server uses in the first place, the less important it is that the server be put to sleep.

It seems like the atom might become the standard WHS processor. In that case, with a good, low power chipset, power usage can be brought down to under 10W before considering the hard drives. And those can be powered down independently of the entire system, especially if you could put the OS itself on solid state. It can be far more efficient than it is now if it was designed well.

Even if you could wake up the server over the network by just trying to access a file, theres still a several second delay. And I'm not sure if it could be done remotely over the internet at all.

I would also argue that any balancing and other maintenance work should be suspended when a client is accessing the server or doing anything (unless that is a 24/7 situation).

Agreed. Moving to the server 08 core will be a first step, with I/O priority. I'm not convinced I/O priority works as well as it should though.

Every now and then, I've noticed WHS grinding away from no apparent reason, and I've tracked it to a few separate processes. One that seems to really cause grinding at random times for long periods is wmccds.exe, which has to do with windows media connect cataloging. There's no reason that should ever occur while someones trying to access something - I've ironically seen it cause a choke up in network performance, causing dropped frames in a movie I was watching.

WHS is very first gen...I have a feeling theyll get it mostly right in 2.0.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: BD2003
Well, the less power the server uses in the first place, the less important it is that the server be put to sleep.

Sure, and the longer the server sleeps, the less that you care about the power it uses under load. There's also not much you can do about the HD power consumption once you've started to accumulate them, and especially in low-power systems, the HD power consumption could be the dominant factor. Putting the drives to sleep is of course a logical compromise, but the difference here is just the degree of sleepiness.

However, these are complementary, not exclusive goals. Putting a home server to sleep is a very reasonable goal, and only objectionable if ever when trying to defend such 1.0-ness. IIRC, MS's track record leans more towards version 3 as a minimum.

Whether or not you can tolerate a bit of inconvenience for the first shared file access of the day or couple of hours or whatever can also be seen as a measure of how much you value power efficiency.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: BD2003
Well, the less power the server uses in the first place, the less important it is that the server be put to sleep.

Sure, and the longer the server sleeps, the less that you care about the power it uses under load. There's also not much you can do about the HD power consumption once you've started to accumulate them, and especially in low-power systems, the HD power consumption could be the dominant factor. Putting the drives to sleep is of course a logical compromise, but the difference here is just the degree of sleepiness.

However, these are complementary, not exclusive goals. Putting a home server to sleep is a very reasonable goal, and only objectionable if ever when trying to defend such 1.0-ness. IIRC, MS's track record leans more towards version 3 as a minimum.

Whether or not you can tolerate a bit of inconvenience for the first shared file access of the day or couple of hours or whatever can also be seen as a measure of how much you value power efficiency.

Well, in either case, I highly doubt theyre going to go the route of putting the entire server to sleep. There's plenty of improvement left to be made in the efficiency of the server while on - making it constantly sleep and wake is going to seem a bit extreme if the server itself uses very little power, and that seems to be the way things are headed.

If its that important to you, and youre willing to tweak a bit, you shouldnt have too much issue pulling off what you want with the current WHS anyway.

 

[BD2003]

http://www.home-server-blog.de...tverwaltung/lightsout/

Give this add-in a try - it seems to be designed to do exactly what youre looking for.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: BD2003
making it constantly sleep and wake is going to seem a bit extreme if the server itself uses very little power, and that seems to be the way things are headed.

I agree that "making it constantly sleep and wake" is extreme, and is not what I meant. I meant that for many hours in the day (or night at least), a file server should be idle, and during those hours, it should sleep.

I've already ruled out the current WHS, so this would be something for the future, if other preferences are also satisfied. I think that WHS v2 would trend in that direction, as Vista's sleep improves on previous releases.

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

I'd be happy with a way to backup the system partition built into the OS, not relying on 3rd party software.

And more add-ons. Seems like there hasn't been any progress on this really. But WHs never really got that popular either, it seems.