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 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.
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.