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, Cont
Besides SMB, WHS also offers additional ways for smart devices that aren't full-fledged computers to connect. Windows Media Connect is supported, so devices and software implementing that can use the server as a source of media, the prime example being the Xbox 360 and numerous home audio receivers. However users with very new devices will be disappointed to find that it only supports the older version 2.0 of this standard, which means some devices won't work.
New to this specific version of Windows is support for the Digital Living Network Alliance's self-named DLNA standard, a competitor for Windows Media Connect. Smart home audio receivers that don't implement WMC support usually implement this standard instead, and by offering DLNA support in WHS they will be similarly able to read media off of a WHS server. In an amusing note, by far the most widespread DLNA receiver right now is the Playstation 3, which got support for DLNA in the 1.80 firmware. So not only can the Xbox read media off of a WHS server, but so can the PS3.
So with all of this praise for the file serving features of WHS so far, why did we call this feature hit and miss overall? The answer is integration with Microsoft's existing home entertainment package, Windows Media Center Edition (MCE).
Simply put, there is no integration between the two. By default WHS and MCE are completely oblivious to each other, and furthermore if WHS is used to backup an MCE box it will purposely avoid backing up recorded shows (which makes sense, but only highlights the disconnect). Even accessing media on a WHS server from Vista MCE is more trouble than it needs to be; Vista Windows Media Player can use WMC to find media, but Vista MCE can't, it must log into a server's shared folders and be told specifically where to look for media. This is a one-time setup issue, but it still shouldn't be occurring.
All of these issues are just greater symptoms of the bigger issue though, and that is all of the space that both MCE and WHS both cover. An MCE box needs to be on 24/7 to record shows; a WHS box needs to be on 24/7 to backup and offer data. The obvious question quickly arises: why isn't the WHS box also doing the TV recording since it needs to be on anyhow, and we let the MCE box sleep? Microsoft has for some time now offered the Media Center Extender feature for other devices on a network to integrate with and control a Media Center Edition computer, but ultimately we run into the problem of a Media Center Edition computer being unable to act as an Extender itself; it's really a server. Even the Xbox has troubles in this regard, as it functions a heck of a lot better as an Extender than a WMC device.
The fact that Microsoft doesn't have a clear solution to deciding which device is really supposed to be the server is the representation of the disconnect that existed between the Vista and WHS teams. WHS really, really, really should have been an MCE-server box along with being a file server, so that it could hold several TV tuners and serve up TV to Extenders in a house.
In Microsoft's defense, Windows Server 2003 is a poor choice as a TV tuner; it's a file server and doesn't even offer the kind of driver compatibility required to work with the slew of tuners on the market. Microsoft has been aware of this oversight for quite some time and there's a lot of talk about making sure WHS 2.0 includes this kind of functionality, but that will be at least 2 years away. In the meantime anyone owning a WHS box and an MCE box will be on their own in finding a way to best split media serving abilities.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
128 Comments
View All Comments
n0nsense - Thursday, September 6, 2007 - link
I really impressed by you responses.You might be right about set up mess and definitely right about need to read few pages in order to try something not microsoft.
It is a free world when you choose your platform, but far away of being free when you choose proprietary one.
while you talking, most of you did not try any *nix in last years.
If my parents, cousins and the rest of close persons were able to use it without calling me twice a week each, for some kind of support as they did in XP time and not to reinstall XP once a year for each box, then it's really indicates user friendliness and stability of non MS OSes.
And by the way, you can by preinstalled and configured Linux box from Dell, HP or Lenovo (not to mention other smaller OEM's) and not to waste your time on installation.
As for the growing take next example:
Online defragmentation
Although the extent based nature of XFS and the delayed allocation strategy it used significantly improves the file system's resistance to fragmentation problems, XFS provides a filesystem defragmentation utility (xfs_fsr, short for XFS filesystem reorganizer) that can defragment a mounted and active XFS filesystem. Note that xfs_fsr is usually part of xfsdump package, not xfsprogs.
Online resizing
XFS provides the xfs_growfs utility to perform online resizing of XFS file systems. XFS filesystems can be grown provided there is remaining unallocated space on the device holding the filesystem. This feature is typically used in conjunction with volume management, as otherwise the partition holding the filesystem will need enlarging separately.
read this to understand more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_systems">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_systems
there is no such thing as perfect software (OS is one of this). but there is definitely better and worse .
"Computers are like air conditioners. They stop working when you open Windows." (c)
imaheadcase - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
You are so wrong, it is geared towards everyone. The software it uses has been proven to be VERY reliable. As stated in the very article you are posting about. NTFS is also very reliable.Of coruse grandma won't care for it, but I already know many people who are getting it based on how easy it is to use. Even businesses are getting it i know of because of ease of backup it provides plus not having to hire outside help to set it up.
The fact that you completely don't understand the HOME part of the server is mind boggling.
n0nsense - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
I understand one thing.Can not find justification to pay for license when it can be done completely without cost.
NTFS compared to journalized file systems is bad in term of data reliability, performance etc.
Can not find reason to pay for new computer while very old one can do the job perfectly.
(P 4, 1.5GHz, 1GB RDRAM, ~1.3TB storage perfectly doing the job of File, Backup, Mail, DNS, FTP, Net Boot server all in one with uptime of 6 month (every 6 month i clean the dust inside my computers) where the HD and SATA PCI cards are only things that i needed to buy. Just for the price of license, you can add at least 500 GB of additional storage.
All you need is RTFM how to set up linux box. Easy way, binary distribution will take 2-5 hours to set up all this. Advanced way, source distribution (such as Gentoo) can take few days to compile (all done automatically and your attention needed not more then in ordinary installation) . took me 3 days to complete it on p2 400MHz laptop with 186 MB ram. which is now able to a nice balcony terminal with internet access and ability to view movies (that was impossible under very cut and optimized XP, maximum 6-10 fps for movies, and very close to impossible in binary linux. )etc.
I don't tell to replace your desktop (since i have dual boot on main computer to be able play some very new games that not yet supported in linux), but if you want stable server, working without your attention, and you don't need to wonder what to do with slow downs, dirty regestry etc after year (not to mention viruses etc). Not to mention the easiness of move the system to new hardware (when you want it), transfer the disks and power up.
I can continue and explain another 100 reasons why this WHS is useless, but the buttom line will be the Subject. This is another MS way to squeeze few mor bucks from you, and may be to grant need for MCSE and MCSA guys that will extra cost for your small business friends.
As for the HOME part -- i spent 2 years of my life working at tech support of ADSL provider. I know exactly what is average HOME users with a lot of computers. They will call some technician to do the setup and to fix their problems. exactly what they doing when they need to reinstall OS or clean up the mess. For advanced users (like you if you spending your time on this site) will be much more cost, time, and performance effective not to use it.
imaheadcase - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.neogodless - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
What makes me sad is that I did actually read it all the way through.Also... I don't understand why people argue so violently against some things.
I was able to try out the RC, others can download a 120 trial when it is available... you can find out for yourself. And you can also download Linux and try it. See which one is easier to set up.
Personally, I consider myself pretty advanced, and I tried Ubuntu 7.04 and still felt pretty lost when I wanted to do things. Yes, I'm sure I could learn it but time is valuable... I can spend half an hour setting up WHS... like I did, and just forget about it... nothing to learn, no need to tear my hair out!
leexgx - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
i agree that was an big rant i my self fix pcs all day and it takes me more then an hr ot day to do things on linux that should only take 6 clicks or some command line tool to do it as welllinux software makers do not think to much about useablty for any one who is not an linux guru
try and play an Mp3 or an stream, tell me how long that takes you to play it (i hate to try and play an xvid file)
i tryed to use it lots of times my self just get stuck at simple things that should be simple that it i should not have to type {chmod 2883 -d -w -u \file\sfd} (made up as i cant find any help for setting the securty of files for that command any more)
n0nsense - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
I understand one thing.Can not find justification to pay for license when it can be done completely without cost.
NTFS compared to journalized file systems is bad in term of data reliability, performance etc.
Can not find reason to pay for new computer while very old one can do the job perfectly.
(P 4, 1.5GHz, 1GB RDRAM, ~1.3TB storage perfectly doing the job of File, Backup, Mail, DNS, FTP, Net Boot server all in one with uptime of 6 month (every 6 month i clean the dust inside my computers) where the HD and SATA PCI cards are only things that i needed to buy. Just for the price of license, you can add at least 500 GB of additional storage.
All you need is RTFM how to set up linux box. Easy way, binary distribution will take 2-5 hours to set up all this. Advanced way, source distribution (such as Gentoo) can take few days to compile (all done automatically and your attention needed not more then in ordinary installation) . took me 3 days to complete it on p2 400MHz laptop with 186 MB ram. which is now able to a nice balcony terminal with internet access and ability to view movies (that was impossible under very cut and optimized XP, maximum 6-10 fps for movies, and very close to impossible in binary linux. )etc.
I don't tell to replace your desktop (since i have dual boot on main computer to be able play some very new games that not yet supported in linux), but if you want stable server, working without your attention, and you don't need to wonder what to do with slow downs, dirty regestry etc after year (not to mention viruses etc). Not to mention the easiness of move the system to new hardware (when you want it), transfer the disks and power up.
I can continue and explain another 100 reasons why this WHS is useless, but the buttom line will be the Subject. This is another MS way to squeeze few mor bucks from you, and may be to grant need for MCSE and MCSA guys that will extra cost for your small business friends.
As for the HOME part -- i spent 2 years of my life working at tech support of ADSL provider. I know exactly what is average HOME users with a lot of computers. They will call some technician to do the setup and to fix their problems. exactly what they doing when they need to reinstall OS or clean up the mess. For advanced users (like you if you spending your time on this site) will be much more cost, time, and performance effective not to use it.
Gholam - Sunday, September 9, 2007 - link
How long does it take to set up a "without cost" system? Now multiply that by $50/hour which I bill. And you still won't have single instance storage.tynopik - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
> Can not find justification to pay for license when it can be done completely without cost.oh really?
please tell me where i can find a backup system as flexible and powerful as this at no cost
- 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
wrong - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
WHS lacks the drivers to run tuner cards and other media center paraphernalia, so it can't act as a media center. However, its hardware requirements are quite standard - disk andnetwork card - so it should be feasible to run it under virtualization on your MCE box.
Ideally, you'd want to give it its own disks, rather than having the virtual machine's disks map to files on the host machine, but that wouldn't be mandatory.