A New Kind of Home Computer: Windows Home Server Preview
by Ryan Smith on September 4, 2007 1:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Systems
Initial Thoughts
In assessing the value of Windows Home Server, for even a "simple" product like it with only a handful of core functions, there are a number of variables that really need to be taken into consideration. We can't give a blanket recommendation on WHS as a result, as the decision to use WHS rests on the variables to take into account for each user/household that a server would be installed in.
The chief variable is cost, and even this is in several forms. WHS is a new product, not any kind of upgrade, so using it is a matter of either buying an OEM box, or building one yourself, which can dramatically affect the actual cost. For enthusiasts with suitable hardware practically collecting dust, WHS is the cost of the OS plus minor costs for additional parts such as a gigabit switch. For more normal home users or enthusiasts without the spare parts, WHS means making an investment in new hardware. WHS has very low system requirements, so high-end OEM configurations will be well below the cost of a high-end computer, but it will still be in the neighborhood of a low-to-mid range computer.
Then there is the issue of the price of the WHS software, which we don't have. We're confident it will be between $100 and $200, but that's a very large range. We do know what the pricing will be outside of North America, and after converting currencies we are seeing $175-$200 in most regions. Microsoft's software is seldom more expensive in North America than in other locations, so this is a solid cap, but as they do charge less in North America on some pieces of software, it's not a solid floor.
The final element in the cost equation is the number of computers in a home. If you count WHS solely as a backup suite, in a house with the maximum of 10 computers the per-computer cost for having a top-tier backup suite is at most $20. This is more than competitive with other backup suites sold at retail. And then there is everything else WHS can do too; what's the value of an easy to configure file server? A web server? Various Linux distributions come close in some features but don't offer an equal feature set overall, so we can say WHS is overpriced compared to a free operating system, but...
And then we need to ask if WHS is even ready for use yet. HP says no, and they're holding back the launch of their WHS products from a September ship date, towards November and later. In doing so they're citing their desire to wait on third-party add-ins, on which development started much later, to catch up to WHS. Furthermore the WHS team is already at work on some unspecified updates that HP wants to wait for.
As a matter of opinion - and we're not disputing HP on their own choices - we think it is ready, especially for the enthusiast crowd that is the main audience here at AnandTech. We haven't encountered any noticeable bugs in using a WHS server even with the release candidate (although undoubtedly there are some lurking beneath) and the interface is more than easy enough for any enthusiast user to deal with. WHS is ready for the enthusiasts that want it.
We're a bit more tepid on recommendations for typical users however, some of which is due to our own inability to measure what counts as "average" computer knowledge these days. WHS is not caveman-simple, then again neither is Vista if you go far enough off of the beaten path. A bare minimum amount of computer knowledge isn't enough to properly operate a WHS server if we're talking about how it comes in the default Microsoft configuration; OEMs will be adding their own spice to the out-of-the-box experience.
But on the other hand Microsoft has done a great job simplifying the controls for what is really Windows Server 2003, and someone doesn't need to be an enthusiast to use it. With a level of knowledge above the bare minimum it's very possible and easy to make a WHS server work. And frankly, actually using (as opposed to configuring) a WHS server is extremely easy once it's set up; this is something even users with minimal amounts of computer knowledge could handle if a big box electronics store set up the server in the first place.
The next issue then is the feature set, and if it justifies the effort and the price. WHS is a file server/NAS, it's a backup suite, it's a webserver, and more. We really, really like the folder duplication feature (even if it is really just a poor RAID 1 knock off) because of the excellent ability to select what does and doesn't get extra protection. Most of these features work quite well, and we have no problem justifying WHS when two or more features are going to be used, since other devices WHS is in direct and indirect competition with are limited to only one function. A critical mass of computers is still required, but a couple of computers that receive heavy use would but enough to reach that critical mass.
Finally, there are the issues that have cropped up in our time with WHS that are outright design/feature problems. We speak of course about the nagging integration between WHS and Media Center functionality. If you have a full suite of Microsoft products (Xbox 360, MCE, and normal Windows computers) and want to use WHS as a media repository, it's simply an ugly mess. It can be made to work for the most part, but it's not a smooth experience out-of-the-box, and should be a lot better. There's going to be a lot of people - ourselves included - taking a hard look at WHS 2.0 to see if Microsoft has done a better job at integrating MCE and WHS into one box. This isn't a problem that kills WHS, but it does present a problem.
Particularly as enthusiasts we like WHS and consider it a product that justifies the costs of adding an entirely new device to a home environment. It has its flaws, but what it does well it does well enough to overcome those flaws; Microsoft 1.0 products have a bad reputation (and not for the wrong reasons, either) but this is one product where Microsoft has come out and managed to get things right enough on the first try. Starting with WHS it can seem to be a schizophrenic product, but in the end it comes together once you know what you want to use it for.
Our only caveat here is that it will take some time for most people to figure out just what those uses are. Microsoft will be releasing a 120 day trial of WHS soon, and we'd highly recommend trying it out and discovering the variables for yourself before purchasing the software or hardware for a server; not everyone will find it useful enough to purchase. It's also worth noting that while Microsoft doesn't officially support this, as a server product WHS works particularly well in a virtual machine since there's no need for high graphical performance. A virtual machine can be a good way to go through a WHS trial without taking any other risks.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
128 Comments
View All Comments
mindless1 - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
Ok, but want kind of soft-raid "needs" windows? I've dealt with several different soft raid controllers and windows official "support" is not needed, except for a management utility application if desired, to show the state of the arrays. While the management utility could be used to rebuild arrays, assign spares, etc, (in some cases), this is only supplimental to what functionality is provided in any typical soft-raid bios.Remember, windows can be installed onto a soft-raided volume. Soft raid doesn't depend on windows. There might be something about WHS that I haven't considered yet that would be a limitation but in general I find the article's conclusion that "not supported" means "won't work" to be odd. I think it more like when a cable ISP tells you that your router isn't "supported" meaning you're just on your own if you do it, they make no guarantee your unique configuration will or won't work.
Let me put it another way, I am wondering if anyone has any example of a soft raid controller that can't be set up prior to OS installation, it's a pretty manditory feature if you want that OS on the RAIDed volume. What remains is a driver support for the controller in windows but any product with a Win2k3 driver should work unless MS has gone and deliberately castrated WHS. Likewise with a soft raid management utility, unless it's using a fancy installer which refuses to install due to not identifying the WHS OS.
What I suspect is that MS simply disabled the OS integral raid functionality which would be used with drives NOT in any kind of raid controller (soft or hardware), raid configuration. If this is the case, someone will probably hack it to regain that functionality, and it might not even be anything more than a registry change needed.
leexgx - Tuesday, September 4, 2007 - link
the idea if WHS is to be easy to useATWindsor - Tuesday, September 4, 2007 - link
And? The simple functions can be easy to use, while at the same time having more advance features available if one turns them on.leexgx - Tuesday, September 4, 2007 - link
i assume thats what the add-ons are for later on when thay get madeif an hdd failes or is about to on WHS it auto start balancing to an other disk thats Online and ok there is allways two copys if its turnd on (duplication)
not not sure how to degrade an disk but i assume it try and move the data off it i know it will if you remove the problem disk Useing WHS connector as its part of the wizard when removeing disks
the idea of WHS is for users who have limited lerning curves (Plug in expect it to work basicly)
nothing stopping you from making RAID 5 on WHS but it not work correctly in WHS connector
mindless1 - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
The problem is that it is not real-time mirroring, since it waits until later to make the second copy, odds are you would end up losing something if a drive fails.I don't understand when people claim the idea here is "easy". What's so hard about plugging in two hard drives, entering a bios menu and assigning the two to an array? That's an order of magnitude easier than becoming accustomed to a new OS, setting it up. If the idea is just plug it in and expect it to work, then you will NOT HAVE that redundant second copy of the data you're implying is sufficient. These are fairly important features on a fileserver, and then if you want dynamic virtualized volumes that would be yet another feature so you can pick what you want to do, just like it is now with other windows versions where it is easy if you just accept the defaults, most basic config., but you don't have to accept the defaults.
leexgx - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
ifas windows home server its an little lame that you cant use the Boot drive on hardware RAID 1 (boot disk for some resone Cant be SCSI drivers){Sata in raid or IDE RAID} as if the boot disk fails thats an big problem as there is no redundancy for it
it more likey work after windows has been installed but its gettings WHS to Boot off an raid array after its been ghosted over all i can see is getting the driver to load up
nope its stored on other disk that has been duplication as long as it has all ready been done if not you lose any new data thats just been put on (it have to be with in last 10secs to 1 min if it was an small file) unlakey that happen
you can take the disks out and mount them as each disk uses norm NTFS file system just needs an drive letter putting on
tynopik - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
> as windows home server its an little lame that you cant use the Boot drive on hardware RAID 1 (boot disk for some resone Cant be SCSI drivers){Sata in raid or IDE RAID} as if the boot disk fails thats an big problem as there is no redundancy for itthat is an annoyance for recovering the WHS, BUT if you were duplicating data, your data is still safe on another drive
> nope its stored on other disk that has been duplication as long as it has all ready been done if not you lose any new data thats just been put on (it have to be with in last 10secs to 1 min if it was an small file) unlakey that happen
it was very difficult to follow what what you're saying, but i think we both have the same understanding of how it works
note i said ALL 3 conditions have to be met
i agree losing primary drive alone will not mess up duplication, UNLESS condition 2 is ALSO met
condition 2 is what you said, it fails before it had a chance to copy to the secondary drive, which i agree is very unlikely
tynopik - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
> The problem is that it is not real-time mirroring, since it waits until later to make the second copy, odds are you would end up losing something if a drive fails.1. it doesn't wait that long, you wouldn't lose much
2. odds are you won't lose anything
don't forget this is the BACKUP system, even if the BACKUP fails, your primary should still be ok.
To lose data 3 conditions would have to be met:
1. Have to lose primary drive in WHS
2. (1) would have to occur in the narrow window between when it being copied to WHS and a duplicate is made onto another HD
3. Have to lose ANOTHER drive in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT system (the one the file was originally on)
personally i would be more worried about the time between when a file is created/modified on your system and it is copied to WHS in the first place.
Assuming backup runs at night and you create a file in the morning, that's almost a whole working day of exposure when the file is in ONLY one place
> What's so hard about plugging in two hard drives, entering a bios menu and assigning the two to an array?
having to limit yourself to the lowest common denominator of your drives
let's say you have a 200gb, a 200gb and a 400gb drive and you put it in a raid, you're wasting half the capacity of the 400gb. With WHS you could store a full 400gb with duplication.
mindless1 - Thursday, September 6, 2007 - link
Are you joking? I don't know what you think passes for reliable redundancy, but the idea that you're playing "odds" and then relying on a client not failing to keep your fileserver stores intact is crazy.This isn't a "backup", this is a "server", which for many people will be more important than their clients.
Let's say you don't put a 200GB, 300GB and 400GB in a Raid, since you seem to be trying hard to cause a problem then thinking WHS would bail you out of ineptitude. The only thing hard about a server is when people make excuses not to use the time tested proven reliable strategies then try to excuse it with examples of bad choices. It is a very trivial thing to set up a home file server, far far quicker and easier than even a typical desktop WinXP system tweaked for a particular user's preferred environment. Trying to suggest there are problems is a sign you just don't understand this.
For lower cost, any system can be made into a fully redundant fileserver that is more reliable, not in beta OS state, and has more storage until there is at least $360 more spent on drives. This 360 figure comes from 2x the initial $180 projected price of WHS.
WHS will be a good option once 3 things are addressed:
1) The price is too high for the small increase in functionality over what can be added as freeware or very low cost add-on to Win2k or XP.
2) WHS matures more. I didn't run anything mission critical on any MS OS when it first came out, that would be foolish for an important fileshare. That it is derived from Win2K3 bodes well for it, but the very features being suggested as important by some, are the very features that are new enough to still have some beta-release related issues and need patched later.
3) It is limiting in user choice of configuration. As OS is not supposed to tell you what to do, rather enabling you to do what you want to do.
tynopik - Thursday, September 6, 2007 - link
> This isn't a "backup", this is a "server", which for many people will be more important than their clients.if your only/main purpose in getting this is as a server, then yes, perhaps WHS isn't for you
it's most powerful/compelling feature is it's backup system. sure it can do other things, but if you aren't using that then there's not a whole lot of reason to use it
just because backup of clients isn't a big deal to you doesn't mean it isn't a big deal to others
just because WHS doesn't meet YOUR needs doesn't mean it's stupid, it just means it's not for you
for me backing up clients is very critical and WHS looks like a godsend
oh really?
please tell me where i can find a backup system as flexible and powerful as this at no cost
> For lower cost, any system can be made into a fully redundant fileserver that is more reliable, not in beta OS state, and has more storage until there is at least $360 more spent on drives.
tell me which free system provides ALL of the following features and i will gladly jump on board
- autocombine all physical disks into 1 volume
- disks can be any size
- disks can be added or removed at will
- yet still have physical redundancy of files on different drives
- automatically save single instance of identical files/blocks to reduce space wastage
- automatically preserve previous versions
- do live imaging of windows systems that can then be restored from bare metal with just a boot cd and a network connection
sure parts of it can be duplicated for free, but do tell how you would setup something that does ALL that
(just as a quick aside, a basic server just sitting there is going to waste a TON of space backing up multiple windows systems from all the redundant files. Oops, there goes all your extra space)