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
n0nsense - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
Server does not need to be Media Center.If you want All-in-One OS, use Linux.
Your box will be exactly what you want it to be.
yyrkoon - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
I kind of view WHS as the latest WinME, but perhaps without all the software flaws that ME had. Meaning I think it *may* have been a good concept in theory, but fell short of being a true server OS. I was on the early beta program for this OS, and could not help but think this was a product for the less than technically inclined(IE Servers for dumbies).Right now, I do not think I would even consider WHS seriously, unless they made some radical changes. I mean why even bother, you have Linux(prefferably Debian in my case), or even WinXP which seems to be more technologically advanced by comparrison(in those areas that matter to me anyhow). Sure, the duplication of files for 'redundancy' on multiple drives may seem nice to those less than experienced users, but those of us who would likely use this product are already aware of rsync based *free* Windows appplications that do such a task already.
Just the next 'red headed step child' in OSes as far as I am concerned.
imaheadcase - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
You are completely wrong in every aspect. esp the winME part, that was completely wrong and in no way close.WHS appeals to everyone, including technically inclined, could care less about super advanced features. WHS has what everyone has been asking for in a server for a long time, simplicity and ease of use. The stuff you described is a SMALL fraction of people, even then those people see the appeal of WHS.
imaheadcase - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
You should of noted that the network throttling bug only effects certain users of vista. Lots of people, myself included, have not encountered such bug. Even then, its not worth saying "vista users should definitely want to hold off on doing so." since its not a drastic decline that would prevent such transfers. Especially since everyone is going to do these big backups when not at computer.That whole paragraph is misleading.
Jeff7181 - Tuesday, September 4, 2007 - link
If the prebuilt boxes are reasonably priced or the OEM licenses are reasonably priced I'm going to be buying one.I'm using the beta version of it right now, and in the past I have restored single files/directories with the backup utility and I actually just now got done doing a full restore of an NT volume because a family member filled the computer with viruses so I figured it would be the perfect time to try it out. I wiped out the partition, then put the Client Restore CD in the drive and a few clicks of the mouse later it was restoring all 25 GB of my primary partition over my LAN. Finished in under 2 hours... had to run scandisk to fix some orphaned files and whatnot, but it's working as if nothing happened now. And an unintended side effect is that it appears the MFT was completely rewritten and consolidated into a couple contiguous chunks on the hard drive if I Analyze the drive in Disk Defragmenter.
imaheadcase - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
They won't be reasonably priced if HP media center version is around the same as others are priced. They are around $500-700 with about 2x300gig hardrives (or 350gig i forget).The article mentioned they are going to offer better hardware that what is needed, so im sure that is going to make them more expensive than if you put something together on the cheap. Long as you can get the hardware for a cheap server off the internet that is required for the OS you are good.
AlexWade - Tuesday, September 4, 2007 - link
Have you tried file sharing in XP Pro or Vista Ultimate? It is less painful and a lot easier to give yourself a root canal. I've followed Microsoft's instructions step-by-step with no success. Then, come to find out, you have to modify a registry key to get it to work. But that only works on half the computers out there. Even if you turn the firewall off and every single service on, it still won't file share.Why is it so hard for Windows to get file sharing right? It worked flawlessly in 2000 and in XP Home? It is part of XP Pro's and Vista Ultimate extra security. Needless to say, if Microsoft would get it right the first time, a cheap computer would work just as well as Home Server.
Microsoft makes a broken product to sell you another product.
leexgx - Tuesday, September 4, 2007 - link
found windows 2000 best os for it as it has no 10 connection user limitsmindless1 - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
IIRC, Win2k Pro does have a 10 concurrent inbound connection limit which 2K Server raises.leexgx - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
win2k has no limits