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
Gholam - Sunday, September 9, 2007 - link
Cheap motherboard-integrated controllers corrupt and outright lose RAID arrays all the time due to driver bugs, and performance is atrocious. I won't trust a RAID5 array to anything that costs less that $500, and for that price, you can just stick a few extra drives for duplication.n0nsense - Sunday, September 9, 2007 - link
I did with LSI MegaRaid 500 with 128MB cache (originaly come with 32).I found it in second hand store for 50$ :)
actually you can buy new one scsi320 for ~300$
as for sata, there is IBM ServerRAID 7t, HP, adaptec and other controllers for ~300$
starting price of 150$ for 4 port SATA II controllers.
Personally, i prefer raid 10, but the problem is were to put the disks.
i already have 5 and only 1 empty slot left. (3x5.25 reserved for future water cooling)
n0nsense - Sunday, September 9, 2007 - link
I did with LSI MegaRaid 500 with 128MB cache (originaly come with 32).I found it in second hand store for 50$ :)
actually you can buy new one scsi320 for ~300$
as for sata, there is IBM ServerRAID 7t, HP, adaptec and other controllers for ~300$
starting price of 150$ for 4 port SATA II controllers.
Personally, i prefer raid 10, but the problem is were to put the disks.
i already have 5 and only 1 empty slot left. (3x5.25 reserved for future water cooling)
Gholam - Sunday, September 9, 2007 - link
A 5 year old controller that you pick up at a second hand store is not something that I - or an OEM - can base a line of products on. A new RAID5 controller which is not built by Promise or Silicon Image will run you $500+ - the ~$300 solutions are ZCR cards that are basically addons to $500+ motherboards. ServeRAID 8s costs around $700, HP P400/256 nearly $600, well over $800 for P400/512. A bigger case to store extra drives - or a few external USB/Firewire/eSATA enclosures - will run you much less.tynopik - Friday, September 7, 2007 - link
> power outage is not on option when we talking about some kind of server.don't tell me, that UPS is something you don't use.
1. ups is not something most home users will use, you have to design assuming it won't be there
2. even if you do have ups, what happens when the batteries die? often the only warning you will get is one day the power flickers and the system shuts off. do you replace all batteries every 2 years whether they need it or not?
3. even if you meticulously maintain your ups, the internal power supply can still go bad
> hardware problems will do the same to your system and its really does not matter what you running inside.
NOT TRUE
ntfs by itself is fairly fault tolerant. you yank the power you might lose a file, but everything else is fine
raid5, you yank the power you might lose EVERYTHING
that is why WHS file duplication is far safer and better
> of course i can give you examples of corporate Data Centers with 0 data loss, but we are talking about home.
of course i said it works if you're using ENTERPRISE LEVEL HARDWARE everywhere. Good raid cards start at $300. A $150 motherboard with onboard raid doesn't even begin to cut it.
> let's organize it from worth to best.
> no raid
> soft raid
> raid 1
> raid 1+0 or 0+1.
there is no such thing as 'best'
there is 'best for a particular set of requirements'
maybe your requirements are such that your best looks like that
my best would like
soft raid
raid 1
no raid
raid 1+0 or 0+1
(that's right, i would rather have no raid than 1+0 or 0+1)
> This press machines working at full load non stop 24/7/365. Year @ IT department, no problems with raid.
congratulations, you are one of the 70% who didn't have problems with their raid last year. Are you confident you won't be one of the 30% next year?
> for not very advanced user i will recommend Debian box with Bacula to manage backups, syncing, share etc.
not very advanced users aren't going to have a clue about Debian
not very advanced users are going to be setup up raid properly
n0nsense - Sunday, September 9, 2007 - link
Any UPS have connection to computer and will shut it down properly when configured to do so.As for controllers. I was surprised to find that almost all integrated raid controllers (including my), actually software and not hardware. So need to admit you were right about it. (I spent few hours to transfer my disks to Promise ST150 TX4 and rebuild the raid).
NTFS is the best in Microsoft's world. but since we can't run Windows on ext3 or reiserfs, or Linux on NTFS, we can't actually compare them in real world benchmark. Theoretically, NTFS is inferior. Actually any modern FS of all desktop systems is good enough.
So we still at the same point.
I agree with you that WHS is good for redundancy (if you enable this option) where you don't want to use real raid controller with "small" price tag.
But I just can't see justification to use it. Compared to alternatives it does not have something spacial enough to pay extra 180 USD. Yes I know that for most of users, Linux is something horrifying. But we are not talking about them, but about the WHS and alternatives. in this case about raid.
by the way, i'm very curious. what raid 1+0 or 0+1 did to you ? :)
that remind me to answer. shut down will cause you to lose open/unsaved files in any scenario. but it can also damage you entire HD. raid 5 will give you better redundancy then SINGLE disk(single data instance). but when duplicating, raid 1 is the best.
n0nsense - Thursday, September 6, 2007 - link
nForce (i'm not sure, but i think there is intel's chipset based MoBos with raid 5) raid still better in terms of stability, redundancy and performance then any soft raid.think what will happen if your WHS will crush unrecoverably.
how will you restore your data ?
n0nsense - Thursday, September 6, 2007 - link
Hello, if you have important things that you don't want to get lost or corrupted by some virus or anything else, do your self a favor and checkhttp://www.debian.org">http://www.debian.org
http://www.ubuntu.com">http://www.ubuntu.com
or any other user friendly distro.
you will find a way better solutions for home (and not only) server.
more exactly you'll find OS capable to be everything with more then proven stability and security.
and yes, it will work inside your MS environment. as for file server (and this is main purpose of home server), you will find much better performance.
You may want to extend it to be your media server. means really distributed one. server with tv card and clients on other boxes.
tynopik - Thursday, September 6, 2007 - link
> as for file server (and this is main purpose of home server)no, the main purpose of WHS is backup
if your main purpose is just a simple file server then yes, WHS probably isn't for you
mindless1 - Saturday, September 8, 2007 - link
Absolutely not. A server is not backup, it would be a very foolish thing to keep your back as an online windows box.