WHS as a Webserver/Gateway/Everything Else

The final major task of WHS is to act as a webserver and gateway computer to the internet. Many people want to be able to access their files outside of their private network and WHS offers the ability to get this done and more.

As we mentioned previously, WHS comes with a very locked down version of IIS 6.0 as the webserver software. Enthusiasts looking to use a WHS server as a full-fledged webserver will be disappointed to find that out of the box the webserver abilities are limited to a web interface of some of the previously mentioned features of WHS. While we'd imagine this is quite possible to work around, it's not something that can be done inside of the WHS console.

In this respect, most of the webserver abilities of WHS are mentionable for being unmentionable. When the remote access option is enabled (it's disabled by default) accounts that have been flagged as having the rights to use remote access and are using a strong password may log into the web server. The entire transaction is encrypted, which as of this point is actually problematic because the security certificate doesn't (and can't) match the server, throwing up certificate warnings when attempting to log in. Since we're using the release candidate, we're not sure how this affects the release version at this point.

Once logged in, a user is presented with a few options. The first and most useful of these is accessing all the shared folders that user has access to. This entails both uploading and downloading of files via an HTML interface, basically replicating the feature set available as if it were done via a Windows share. While this is a useful feature we also feel Microsoft has missed a massive chance to do more with webserver access of the shared folders. For example, why not make the Photos folder a special photo gallery folder where photos can be viewed and manipulated as they can with other internet photo gallery services? It would certainly make sharing photos with the relatives easier.

The other ability users gain when logged in is using the WHS server as a fully HTTPS-encapsulated gateway for RDP. With the right passwords, users can log into the RDP console interface for the server itself, or the server can relay RDP controls to any clients on the network that are connected to the server and capable of acting as an RDP server (some versions of XP and Vista). We're a bit at odds with this second feature because it's so strange. It makes sense to offer RDP access to the server itself for management of the server and the network, but we don't immediately see the utility of being able to RDP into everything else. Certainly it's a nifty feature and we'll keep it, but we don't see it being very useful to all but a handful of users. How many people actually run a version of Windows that's RDP-server capable, after all?

This also brings up the security aspect of the remote access feature, which is something that can't be easily dismissed. The fact that Microsoft is encouraging users to purposely expose a computer to the internet with an active service, while necessary to enable the features offered by remote access, troubles us all the same. As the only thing exposed (if everything is configured correctly) are the ports required for IIS and not the more vulnerable Windows sharing services, this is potentially very secure as IIS 6.0 has had very few problems over the years. But at the same time we're worried about how many servers and routers won't be configured correctly, and what may happen when the next IIS exploit is found.

Is the version of IIS 6.0 locked down enough to keep it from being a participant in the next Code Red worm? If Microsoft is successful with WHS, there's going to be a massive increase in the number of IIS webservers on the internet, and that opens the possibility for major trouble if any exploits are found right after a patch Tuesday. Then again, we don't have any idea of how many users would be able to even access their server from the internet; blocking ports 80 and 443 are popular activities with ISPs.

On a lighter note, Microsoft is offering their own dynamic domain names for WHS owners who do use remote access and want something easier to remember than an IP address. Microsoft recently picked up the homeserver.com domain, and WHS owners will be able to reserve a subdomain for themselves that the WHS software will keep updated. It's a small feature among the whole, but we'd call it important in making WHS more usable with the average home user. We're still not ready to call these remote access features more than an interesting side show, but it does tilt things slightly more in favor of WHS.

Finally, Microsoft has taken an interesting approach with WHS when it comes to dealing with the shortcomings of the product. Microsoft has included an SDK for WHS for developing a new class of applications Microsoft is calling add-ins. Add-ins allow the server to do new things such as new services for clients, for the remote access component, or a new GUI. Among those developed for the release candidate, we have seen add-ins for a BitTorrent client, connecting TiVos, and using wake-on-LAN for clients that are turned off.

This will be something that we'll definitely need to keep an eye on, as add-ins could potentially resolve a lot of our complaints with WHS. We should have a better idea of what these add-ins can do (and do well) once Microsoft's Code2Fame contest for creating add-ins comes to a close and the add-ins are released. It's unusual for Microsoft to be interacting with the development community on this level, so we're interested to see how things turn out.

WHS As A File & Media Server, Cont Performance Data
Comments Locked

128 Comments

View All Comments

  • leexgx - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link

    quote:

    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.


    i think you mean {with out duplication) as if you got 2x 200gb with it turnd on you only get 200gb any way

    i agree if raid fails it can be an problem some times getting the data off it
    With WHS just plug the disk into an other pc and goto disk manager and Give the disk an Letter or mount it as an drive folder and you see all the data on it
  • tynopik - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link

    > i think you mean {with out duplication) as if you got 2x 200gb with it turnd on you only get 200gb any way

    no, if you were duplicating EVERYTHING (which most people won't want to do) you will have 400gb*. 1st copy on the 400gb and half 2nd copy on one 200gb and other half 2nd copy on other 200gb
  • leexgx - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link

    darn miss read both posts i just read it like 200gb and 200gb a 400gb so assume last one was the 2 200gb put together to make 400gb

    ----other post
    i got you now on the 3 one if all 3 happend you lose data

  • tynopik - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link

    the other thing i forgot to mention is selective duplication

    what if you have 500gb of files but only have 5gb that need duplication?

    WHS is much, much more efficient in such a scenario. Only duplicating what needs to be duplicated and merging the remaining space

    i can't wait for MS to include this feature in regular windows, it's freaking fantastic
  • ATWindsor - Thursday, September 6, 2007 - link

    What if I want to have added protection on all my stuff? With raid 5 I loose 25% of the space, with WHS-duplication I loose 50% (and the performance is worse). Even people who wants an easy setup has diffrent needs.
  • tynopik - Thursday, September 6, 2007 - link

    > What if I want to have added protection on all my stuff? With raid 5 I loose 25% of the space, with WHS-duplication I loose 50% (and the performance is worse).

    that is only true if
    1. you have 4 drives
    2. they are all equal size

    consider a scenario that i mentioned elsewhere where you have (2) 200GB drives and a 400GB drive

    with raid5 you would only be able to use 200GB of the 400GB drive wasting half it's space right off the bat. So you are left with essentially 3 200GB drives. Then parity data takes up another drive leaving you with 400gb of space. Which is the exact same amount that WHS gives you.

    but i will tell you this, RAID sucks, especially RAID5

    you mess up one thing and you lose the entire volume

    even with raid 1 i had more problems than it was worth

    raid is just going to cause more difficulties and support calls, the exact opposite of what you want for a 'black-box' like this

    and i'm not the only one who feels this way

    http://www.pugetsystems.com/articles?&id=29">http://www.pugetsystems.com/articles?&id=29

    [quote]
    However, at the agreement of our support staff, I estimate that anywhere from 25% to 30% of our customers with RAID will call us at some point in the first year to report a degraded RAID array or problem directly resulting from their RAID configuration.[/quote]

    that sort of problem rate is simply unacceptable

    and what if suddenly you decide that there is a bunch of stuff you DON'T need to duplicate? there is no graceful way to handle that with raid

    WHS if simple, flexible, powerful and reliable (in the sense it's not likely to cause problems like raid systems do)
  • ATWindsor - Saturday, September 8, 2007 - link

    There is many ways to mess up a whole lot of dta, raid or non-raid, I'm pretty sure i can make the datapool disappear pretty easy in whs also. (it can be recovered of course, but so can i raid5-volume).

    If people use problem-prone onboard raid-options on mobos, I'm sure quite a few run in to trouble, that doesn't make raid5 a bad idea for everyone. Same with your example with diffrent-sized disks, i happen to have 4 diks of the same size. Thats the problem with lack of options, people with needs diffrent than the exactly the ones that happen to be included gets a worse product.

    AtW
  • ATWindsor - Thursday, September 6, 2007 - link

    What if I want to have added protection on all my stuff? With raid 5 I loose 25% of the space, with WHS-duplication I loose 50% (and the performance is worse). Even people who wants an easy setup has diffrent needs.
  • Gholam - Sunday, September 9, 2007 - link

    Performance of consumer-grade RAID5 controllers is EXTREMELY low. Sub-10mb/s typically, with a high CPU load, as they don't have a dedicated XOR engine. Server-grade RAID5 controllers will give you good performance, but they cost in the $600-1000+ range, and when you're using consumer-grade 7200rpm SATA drives, you can buy half a dozen extra drives for the cost of the controller.
  • ATWindsor - Sunday, September 9, 2007 - link

    Software-raid has good read-performance if properly implmented, much better than a single drive. If you are going to have many drives, you must buy additional controllers anyway, so the price-difference isn't that big.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now