A New Kind of Home Computer: Windows Home Server Preview
by Ryan Smith on September 4, 2007 1:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Systems
WHS as a File and Media Server
The second major feature Microsoft is pushing with WHS is its use as a file and media server. This is a natural ability for WHS to have since file serving is a core component of Windows Server 2003, and we couldn't imagine Microsoft having not shipped WHS with this feature. As we'll see however, for a file server WHS is surprisingly hit and miss.
It's important to note that the connector software is not only a backup client, but it integrates the computer into the server on an account and file level. WHS does not do active directory domains (important because home versions of Windows can't connect to those) but instead offers a simpler level of integration. When a client is integrated into the server, the default action is to create accounts on the server that are related to the accounts on the client. Here WHS and the connector will copy over the account names and passwords (forcing the account owner to set a real password if they are not using one) and then give every account their own personal folder on the server. WHS will furthermore keep the accounts in sync between the client and the server, so that passwords remain the same on both, particularly important so that clients can access the server's folders without needing to log into the server separately.
By giving each account on each client a server account, this serves to simplify access controls on the server. WHS forgoes the full abilities of Windows' access control lists for a Unix-like read-write/read/none level of permissions for each shared folder for each account. Permissions can only be set at the shared folder level however, and subfolders can only inherit the permissions of the folder that contains them unless the administrator goes outside the bounds of the WHS console.
Besides the account folders, WHS comes with five public folders: music, videos, photos, public, and software, and all accounts automatically get read-write access to these folders. Additional folders can easily be created from the console, with accounts getting no permissions by default. The much loathed guest account also makes an appearance here, and while it's disabled by default it's possible to enable it and give it access rights to all the shared folders the same as any other account.
It's also with the shared folders that the folder duplication feature becomes available. Windows doesn't duplicate backup data (since the data is already at one place: the client) but can duplicate any of the shared folders, including the account folders. From having used WHS so far, the ability to select what folders to duplicate (e.g. photos but not videos) is proving to be incredibly useful.
WHS also offers a degree of local backup protection for these shared folders, besides the redundancy in case of a drive failure. Surprisingly, none of Microsoft's own manuals for WHS mention this, but the shadow copy service on WHS is by default used to also track changes in shared documents, meaning the Previous Versions feature is available to recover old documents should the current ones be damaged/destroyed. This currently is somewhat limited in availability since on the client side only Vista and some XP clients support this feature, but via RDP it's possible to log into the server, which can also use the Previous Versions feature on itself. The buffer for the amount of data shadowed here is fairly small, so these backups are not as robust as the backups done by WHS of whole computers. But since most media seldom changes, it's enough to recover files in the most likely situations.
Finally, all of these shares are offered as a normal Windows SMB share. This is worth noting since there are viable SMB clients available for all the major platforms, so WHS can easily be used as a server even in a mixed network. Furthermore the WHS development team has also been looking at other uses for the shared folders, going so far as to seriously propose using a WHS server as a back end for Mac OS X Leopard's Time Machine backups.
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.