locked
Running more than one version of Windows Home Server RRS feed

  • Question

  • I currently use the previous version of windows home server, but have installed the new version on another server I created for purposes of evaluation.

    However, it seems that you can only attach a computer to one instance of the Homeserver on the one network.

    This seems a limitation, as when a person eventually will move from old WHS to new WHS, I imagine, that they would like to keep their old one running in parallel for a while, just to ensure that the backups etc safe.  Since the old system is very reliable in this respect now, but the earlier release had issues with backup corruption when it went live.

    Users with that experience of having lost backups, might want to parallel run.  Is this something that Microsoft will allow us to do?

    It does seem a sensible precaution.

    Wednesday, May 12, 2010 9:56 PM

Answers

  • ...
    However, it seems that you can only attach a computer to one instance of the Homeserver on the one network.
    ...
    This is by design. The connectors for V1 and V2 can't be installed at the same time because of file version conflicts. Any successful attempt to have both installed at the same time will result in your client computer being in an unsupported state, probably not backing up to either server successfully, and most likely you will be unable to remove either connector without flattening the client. This is per Microsoft elsewhere in this forum.
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Wednesday, May 12, 2010 10:30 PM
    Moderator

All replies

  • ...
    However, it seems that you can only attach a computer to one instance of the Homeserver on the one network.
    ...
    This is by design. The connectors for V1 and V2 can't be installed at the same time because of file version conflicts. Any successful attempt to have both installed at the same time will result in your client computer being in an unsupported state, probably not backing up to either server successfully, and most likely you will be unable to remove either connector without flattening the client. This is per Microsoft elsewhere in this forum.
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Wednesday, May 12, 2010 10:30 PM
    Moderator
  • The shares on the V1 WHS are still available on the network so this may or not be of help to you. The process I am following at present is to manually copy changed docs, email PST file etc to a share on the V1 server with duplication turned on. Every few days I remove the vail connector and re-install the V1 connector and run a manual backup of my client PC's to WHS V1. Once completed remove V1 connector and re-install the Vail connector. With only having 3 PC's to worry about its not too of a big of a deal. The time taken is worth it to me, as it helps reduce the risk of losing important data. You cannot have too many backups. If you have 10 clients the headache is obviously somewhat larger :)

    With the exception of an issue on the first day I have had no issue's with removing and re-installing the connectors.

    Sometime in the next few days I will RDP to the V1 server and will use the share backup addin to backup the important data shares again to an external USB drive. It is a bit time consuming but enables me to safe guard important data that I am not willing to risk. Further down the track once I am happy the Vail client backups are reliable the frequency of fiddling like this will reduce.

    Thursday, May 13, 2010 9:29 AM
  • ...
    However, it seems that you can only attach a computer to one instance of the Homeserver on the one network.
    ...
    This is by design. The connectors for V1 and V2 can't be installed at the same time because of file version conflicts. Any successful attempt to have both installed at the same time will result in your client computer being in an unsupported state, probably not backing up to either server successfully, and most likely you will be unable to remove either connector without flattening the client. This is per Microsoft elsewhere in this forum.
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)


    This is actually not true. I have both connectors installed on my PC and backups are working just fine for both V1 and V2 Servers.

    The trick is to uninstall the V1 connector, Install the V2 connector and then reinstall the V1 connector again.

     

    Sunday, May 16, 2010 3:11 PM
  • Per Microsoft elsewhere in this forum (as I said above), this puts your client computer in an unsupported and unpredictable state, in which backups are probably not working correctly (no matter what's reported) and in which you can't remove either connector any more. So try a restore, both bare metal and single file. Try uninstalling either connector.

    Microsoft also implied that the only way to recover from this unsupported state is to flatten the client machine, or (I would guess) restore back to a point before you installed the V1 connector.


    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Sunday, May 16, 2010 3:20 PM
    Moderator
  • Yes, I have uninstalled and reinstalled both connectors with no issues.

    I have not tried a restore but, I have mounted the V1 backups and looked through them.

    All files appear to be intact.

     

    Monday, May 17, 2010 1:15 AM
  • Ken Warren and/or Microsoft Team-

    This is something that really should be addresses.  For testing Vail beta I have a test client setup without WHS1 connector.  But I truly see the original poster's point and AGREE.

    If it is "part of the design", the design needs to be changed.  You point is that both connector softwares are "Windows Home Server Connector, V 6.0.1800.0" and "Windows Server Connector V 6.1.4795.0" respectively.  This is not "part of the design", but instead poor design. 

    Why wouldn't folks who have paid good money want to make use of both softwares.  One perhaps using the NAS functionality and one using the backup and remote http access.

    I am not sure if this classifies as a "suggestion" or "bug" but think "Bug" might be more appropriate because it addresses not  an enhancement but rather a design flaw.  If one has a XP client and decides to by a new Win7 PC, should the XP PC loose functionality because I plugged a new PC into my home network?

    Whoever marked this as solved should be put before a wall and shot at!  Sorry, but to mark something as solved because that is the way it was designed, when we are still in beta, is wrong. 

    See Bug report 560840

    Certainly I or you would be royally PO'ed if we bought an Iomega Storecenter w/ Backup and it disabled WHS1 functionality

     

    Saturday, May 22, 2010 6:09 PM
  • I doubt that Microsoft will address this, but here's my take:

    It is not at all uncommon for any product to allow only one instance to be installed, and I don't see this as any kind of issue at all. Once Vail has been released to manufacturing, you will have the option of upgrading to Vail (in which case you will presumably decommission your V1 server) or staying with V1. There will be no need to install both connectors on any computer in a production scenario, and therefore no need to support this configuration in a beta. Closing a bug report on this as "By design" seems appropriate to me: the Windows Home Server Code Name "Vail" connector does not support, by design, installation in parallel with the V1 connector. There's a potential version incompatibility that will leave a client computer in an unknown and probably unstable state. So don't do it. Or do it and let us know what happens; maybe you'll be lucky. :) But don't expect Microsoft to support it, and if you have problems we may not be able to tell you anything beyond "Remember when we told you not to do that? I guess you shouldn't have gone ahead and done it anyway..."

    Now, what should happen when you install the Vail connector is it should automatically uninstall the V1 connector. Here's a suggestion to that effect. I don't see any need to change the V1 connector in any way.

    Microsoft has told us that Vail should not be used in a production environment, as it's still in beta and (rather obviously given the known issues list) not fully stable yet. That means to me that you should only install the Vail connector on those machines you're willing to take a chance with. If you want to install it in parallel with the V1 connector, presumably you aren't willing to take a chance with that machine, in which case I have to ask what the heck you're thinking?! That I'm running it "in production" is an indication of my willingness to take a risk with my data, and even there all of my important data goes first to my V1 production server, and from there to Vail (via a richcopy scheduled task). As a result, I have nothing but computer backups at risk, and as I've said repeatedly over a period of years, that's a non-issue for me, as I have never gone further back in a backup archive than "last good" to restore data. And I don't advise anyone else to run Vail in production.



    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Saturday, May 22, 2010 7:16 PM
    Moderator
  • I doubt that Microsoft will address this, but here's my take:

    It is not at all uncommon for any product to allow only one instance to be installed, and I don't see this as any kind of issue at all. Once Vail has been released to manufacturing, you will have the option of upgrading to Vail (in which case you will presumably decommission your V1 server) or staying with V1. There will be no need to install both connectors on any computer in a production scenario, and therefore no need to support this configuration in a beta. Closing a bug report on this as "By design" seems appropriate to me: the Windows Home Server Code Name "Vail" connector does not support, by design, installation in parallel with the V1 connector. There's a potential version incompatibility that will leave a client computer in an unknown and probably unstable state. So don't do it. Or do it and let us know what happens; maybe you'll be lucky. :) But don't expect Microsoft to support it, and if you have problems we may not be able to tell you anything beyond "Remember when we told you not to do that? I guess you shouldn't have gone ahead and done it anyway..."

    Now, what should happen when you install the Vail connector is it should automatically uninstall the V1 connector. Here's a suggestion to that effect. I don't see any need to change the V1 connector in any way.

     

    Microsoft has told us that Vail should not be used in a production environment, as it's still in beta and (rather obviously given the known issues list) not fully stable yet. That means to me that you should only install the Vail connector on those machines you're willing to take a chance with. If you want to install it in parallel with the V1 connector, presumably you aren't willing to take a chance with that machine, in which case I have to ask what the heck you're thinking?! That I'm running it "in production" is an indication of my willingness to take a risk with my data, and even there all of my important data goes first to my V1 production server, and from there to Vail (via a richcopy scheduled task). As a result, I have nothing but computer backups at risk, and as I've said repeatedly over a period of years, that's a non-issue for me, as I have never gone further back in a backup archive than "last good" to restore data. And I don't advise anyone else to run Vail in production.


     


    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)

     

    Ken-

    I agree with some of what you are saying.  And let me assure you that I am in a trial environment.  Vail is running as one VM on a Hyper-V Server and the test Win7 Client is another VM.  So via exports and snapshots I can mess around and report bugs, make suggestions but if something crashes I can revert – no harm done.  I am beta testing not playing.

    Allow me to counter the logic you put forward by asking the following question. “How does one upgrade a x86 1.0 GHz P3 to Vail?"

    WHS1 is XP based (Server 2003.)  Vail is Vista based and requires x64.  Almost nobody upgraded their physical XP machines to Vista/Win7 because of the hardware requirements. Just like many, many folks still have XP machines running on their home networks – many, many will still have WHS1 up and running alongside Vail and unfortunately UNhappy because the connector does not work.

    Think of all the folks who bought Atom based MediaSmart Servers from Microsoft's partner HP and the many who had read about taking an old machine and putting it to good use through WHS.

    I looked and did not find a way to PM to you.

    Saturday, May 22, 2010 8:17 PM
  • You don't present a compelling argument for parallel installation.

    Microsoft's plan is undoubtedly that users will upgrade when Vail is released, so they aren't going to have a lot of interest in supporting a dual installation. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. OEMs are in business to sell you new hardware, and if you read this forum you will learn that the current servers from HP and Acer (at least) are capable of running Vail. Your OEM may choose to offer an upgrade option (which will wipe the entire server, probably) or not; that is not under Microsoft's control. For the consumer, they will either upgrade to Vail or not. They won't, most likely, be running both versions for longer than it takes to transfer all their data to the new server. If they have 32 bit hardware today, they can either stay with V1 or replace their hardware to move to Vail. Again, no problem.

    ...
    I looked and did not find a way to PM to you.

    In my profile you will find direct contact information (please read carefully if you don't want to be the subject of an automatic spam report). I doubt there is anything to be said here that can't be said in public, though.
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Saturday, May 22, 2010 8:47 PM
    Moderator
  • Ken-

    Your advocacy of designed in obsolescence is somewhat disconcerting.  Back away from defending your original jugement and try to hear the other side a bit.  Pull your argument out of the homeserver arena and put it into the client arena for a second.  Then what you are arguing is that anyone who goes out and buys a Windows 7 machine should obviously be expected to immediately throw away all their XP machines.  Last time I looked, lots of people are keeping them around.  Sure the frontline machine is now the Win7 but there are lots of uses for those old XP boxes.

    I suggest that using the WHS1 machine for network storage might be nice.  And Vail might be a great fit for Media, backup and remote access.  But you obviously disagree.  So be it.

    So let us just assume for a brief moment someone comes up with a reason good enough for you that you agree they can indeed keep both the WHS1 they own and go out and buy a nice new Vail machine.  How then do you propose they administer the WHS1 machine?  Sure RDP will work, but that goes against the original concept of designing this (the Windows Home Server Family) for the home-use with less expertise.

    I politely but ardently disagree with your logic and have submitted a bug to that effect.  We (I’m a tiny part of the team now because I am giving my time to beta test) need to provide a home-user friendly way for folk who own WHS1 to continue to maintain it and still avail themselves of the nice features in Vail.

     

    Buy the way, last time I checked (2 minutes ago) HP is still selling the LX Series

    http://www.hp.com/united-states/campaigns/mediasmart-server/#/LXTechnicalPapers/

     

     

    Sunday, May 23, 2010 7:06 AM
  • Tom, if you want to continue using V1, you certainly can. Or if you want to upgrade your network to Vail, you can; the Vail connector will install on anything from Windows XP x86 to Windows 7 x64, so users can use their current client computers with Vail if they wish. You have, however, still not presented a compelling argument for Microsoft to deliver a solution which will allow the probably tiny fraction of today's V1 users who will want to have computers connected to released Vail and V1 simultaneously (same computer, two servers, backing up to both) for an extended period of time to do so. If you can present an argument for why even, say, 20% of current users would have a compelling reason to keep their V1 server around as a Windows Home Server computer for six months after they upgrade their network to Vail, I'd be interested. Vague "it still runs" type arguments need not apply; I have a Windows ME laptop that still runs, as of a couple of months ago, for some value of "runs" (it boots successfully), but I consider it an obsolete piece of ****. Likewise my MediaSmart server (EX47 series) is obsolete by the standards of my Vail testbed.

    Also, the "value" in a computer (any computer) more than a year old is entirely in the data, for most home users. So my recommendation to one and all will be to upgrade to Vail, copy your data to your Vail server, and (as you free up the large drives in your V1 server) move your drives to Vail as well, more because you've probably got a reasonable amount of storage to move over than because the drives are particularly valuable. I will also recommend repurposing the V1 server; for an OEM server by doing a factory reset and donating it to a charity that can make use of it, for a home-built server by turning it into an additional desktop for Mom and Dad, or a HTPC, or whatever it's suited for. If it started life as a Frankenserver, strip it for parts and throw away what has no further value.


    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Sunday, May 23, 2010 1:47 PM
    Moderator
  • Ken-

     

    Well at least I smiled when I saw your reply rather than a furrowed brow and a Grrrr.

     

    Clearly we are not going to see eye to eye.  I’ll suggest that there are several reasons for this:

    ·       You have a more limited view of the usefulness and/or uses that Windows Home Server can be tasked too than I do.  You apparently see Windows Home Servers only as originally envisioned.  Yet one of the powers of this product line is that Microsoft left a little side door open to users’ own ingenuity.  Heck the winner of the original Add-In contest was Whiist, a photo album website never originally part of what Microsoft thought Home Server was about.  Two of my circle of Home Server friends are photographers who each have two WHS1 in their network, one solely for the purpose of servering up photos.  The top two currently are a Home Security Camera Server and a purely NAS Package with RAID.

    ·       With the 65,000 points you have you must read and reply to many, many posts.  Perhaps because of that you don’t read each post thoroughly or at least not with full comprehension.  In two of my last three posts in this thread I have suggested that the old WHS1 would be used for functions other than backup.  Yet you insist on postulating the argument otherwise (“two servers, backing up to both”.)  We need to get beyond this sticking point.  I know and you know that it probably would not work well with backups from multiple parallel WHS1(s) and/or Vail(s).

    ·       I am guessing you live alone.  Because anyone who has a family household does not toss XP PC’s, nor WHS1’s nor in your example MediaSmart EX47*s.  There are spouses, children, parents of children’s friends all of whom can make good use of older XP machines or in this case WHS1 machines.

    ·       The real crux of our being able to see eye to eye is you can’t see but a “tiny fraction of today's V1 users” continuing to use it once they acquire Vail. So perhaps you are financially better off than most of us.

     

    Ken, your choice of ME as an example is a poor one.  ME was release September 2000 and currently has something like 0.03% market share.  My repeated use of the example of XP is more to the point.  As of last month XP still has about a 56% market share (estimates vary from 63% to as low as 51% but it is still “King of the Hill”.)  The point being that Microsoft has always allowed for a natural parallel migration from the older less feature OS to the current full featured OS.  Never in any product line, to my knowledge, has Microsoft designed in anything that would kill the ability to administer an older OS machine running on the same domain or workgroup or even made it more difficult to do so.

     

     

    Also note from the 63% - 51% statistics in the paragraph directly above that a whole lot of folks must not agree with you contention that "the 'value' in a computer (any computer) more than a year old is entirely in the data, for most home users."   The manufacture of computers with XP preloaded was discontinued 15 months ago.

     

    Please do not take any of the foregoing as anything other than my speculations on why an individual who is obviously intelligent and committed to Windows Home Server can and does see things so differently from another individual, myself, who is similarly intelligent and committed.

     

    One last parting shot.  Do you think sales of Vail will be more robust or less robust if it becomes widely known that you cannot gracefully continue to run your existing x86 based WHS1 on the same network?  Just pick one; more robust or less robust. 

     

     

    Sunday, May 23, 2010 5:28 PM
  • Ken-

     

    Well at least I smiled when I saw your reply rather than a furrowed brow and a Grrrr.

     

    Clearly we are not going to see eye to eye.  I’ll suggest that there are several reasons for this:

    ·       You have a more limited view of the usefulness and/or uses that Windows Home Server can be tasked too than I do.  You apparently see Windows Home Servers only as originally envisioned.  Yet one of the powers of this product line is that Microsoft left a little side door open to users’ own ingenuity.  Heck the winner of the original Add-In contest was Whiist, a photo album website never originally part of what Microsoft thought Home Server was about.  Two of my circle of Home Server friends are photographers who each have two WHS1 in their network, one solely for the purpose of servering up photos.  The top two currently are a Home Security Camera Server and a purely NAS Package with RAID.

    ·       With the 65,000 points you have you must read and reply to many, many posts.  Perhaps because of that you don’t read each post thoroughly or at least not with full comprehension.  In two of my last three posts in this thread I have suggested that the old WHS1 would be used for functions other than backup.  Yet you insist on postulating the argument otherwise (“two servers, backing up to both”.)  We need to get beyond this sticking point.  I know and you know that it probably would not work well with backups from multiple parallel WHS1(s) and/or Vail(s).

    ·       I am guessing you live alone.  Because anyone who has a family household does not toss XP PC’s, nor WHS1’s nor in your example MediaSmart EX47*s.  There are spouses, children, parents of children’s friends all of whom can make good use of older XP machines or in this case WHS1 machines.

    ·       The real crux of our being able to see eye to eye is you can’t see but a “tiny fraction of today's V1 users” continuing to use it once they acquire Vail. So perhaps you are financially better off than most of us.

     

    Ken, your choice of ME as an example is a poor one.  ME was release September 2000 and currently has something like 0.03% market share.  My repeated use of the example of XP is more to the point.  As of last month XP still has about a 56% market share (estimates vary from 63% to as low as 51% but it is still “King of the Hill”.)  The point being that Microsoft has always allowed for a natural parallel migration from the older less feature OS to the current full featured OS.  Never in any product line, to my knowledge, has Microsoft designed in anything that would kill the ability to administer an older OS machine running on the same domain or workgroup or even made it more difficult to do so.

     

     

    Also note from the 63% - 51% statistics in the paragraph directly above that a whole lot of folks must not agree with you contention that "the 'value' in a computer (any computer) more than a year old is entirely in the data, for most home users."   The manufacture of computers with XP preloaded was discontinued 15 months ago.

     

    Please do not take any of the foregoing as anything other than my speculations on why an individual who is obviously intelligent and committed to Windows Home Server can and does see things so differently from another individual, myself, who is similarly intelligent and committed.

     

    One last parting shot.  Do you think sales of Vail will be more robust or less robust if it becomes widely known that you cannot gracefully continue to run your existing x86 based WHS1 on the same network?  Just pick one; more robust or less robust. 

     

     

    Your ad hominem arguments ("... I'll suggest that there are several reasons for this ...") are out of place here. We're not talking about me personally, or you personally. We're talking about having two versions of the Windows Home Server Connector installed on a single client computer. Or have you forgotten the subject of this discussion? (Your ad hominem arguments are also wrong, as it happens.)

    Regarding that subject: You say 'Yet you insist on postulating the argument otherwise (“two servers, backing up to both”.)  We need to get beyond this sticking point. I know and you know that it probably would not work well with backups from multiple parallel WHS1(s) and/or Vail(s).' Thank you, that is precisely my point. The only thing the connector does for you that you can't get any other way is back your computer up automatically.

    Win ME: I chose my example carefully. I know people still using Windows ME. It's an obsolete (and wholly unsupported!) operating system, running on obsolete hardware, and it will fail them, probably some day soon. They continue to use it because "it still runs". "It still runs" is a false economy, because the eventual cost when you suffer a failure from which you can't recover may be enormous. If we're talking about Windows Home Server, the cost probably will be enormous, in personal terms.

    Running Vail in parallel with V1: Nothing stops you from doing so, just as nothing stops you today from having two or more servers running V1. You can't join the same computer to two or more servers as a client, but that's not an obstacle; if you have only a single home computer you don't need Windows Home Server, either. So you have a home computer joined to your V1 server if you want the connector to spin up the console for you, or you connect using Remote Desktop and run the console that way.


    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Sunday, May 23, 2010 6:58 PM
    Moderator
  • I am sorry you felt/feel that my half of the discussion degenerated into “against the man” and I apologize if you felt personally attacked.  I could have and perhaps should have rephrased my speculations into statements without the pronoun “you”.  My intent was not to erode the merits of the argument by suggesting defects in the arguer but rather my intent was to suggest a broader view of the product line, its uses and its user community.

    Monday, May 24, 2010 10:44 PM
  • I agree with the OP, I would want to do the same, run both in production in parallel for as long as it took to convince me to cutover.
    Tuesday, May 25, 2010 4:43 AM
  • Considering how much of my data WHS V1 destroyed, I most certainly would want to have a back up in 2 places for at least 6 months to make sure I the same thing didnt happen again, especially considering the changes in how the drive extender works.
    MCSE
    • Proposed as answer by garyarm Wednesday, June 9, 2010 2:24 PM
    Wednesday, May 26, 2010 8:59 PM
  • All of the connector arguments aside, my first name is CUSTOMER and I want to be able to run two or more servers at one time!  MS needs to listen more and dictate less!  Just my opinion.
    Wednesday, June 9, 2010 2:26 PM
  • There is enough choice for you as customer.  But you most probably did not choose the correct product.
     
    All of the connector arguments aside, my first name is CUSTOMER and I want to be able to run two or more servers at one time!  MS needs to listen more and dictate less!  Just my opinion.

    Have a nice day!
    Wednesday, June 9, 2010 4:00 PM
  • You can run more than one server at a time. There are some limitations on functionality, however, and it's not an expected configuration in the average installation of Windows Home Server. Remember that the average user is going to be someone without significant computer technical skills; they'll be a "user", not an "administrator". Also, these limitations are unchanged from V1, really, where they don't seem to have been much of an issue.

    Limitations:

    Configuring more than one server to allow remote access is not trivial (though it can be done), and is very specific to the particular environment, so it's not a supported configuration. There are a number of options here, as well, with varying degrees of usability and ease of configuration.

    Backups: You can only configure a client to back up to a single server. With the beta of Vail, you can only have one version of the client tool (the "connector") installed on a computer. This means that you will have to choose whether a given client backs up to Vail or to V1. This (the single version requirement) isn't unusual in the software industry, however. You can't have two versions of Acronis True Image, or any number of other programs, backup or otherwise.


    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Wednesday, June 9, 2010 5:26 PM
    Moderator
  • You can run more than one server at a time. There are some limitations on functionality, however, and it's not an expected configuration in the average installation of Windows Home Server. Remember that the average user is going to be someone without significant computer technical skills; they'll be a "user", not an "administrator". Also, these limitations are unchanged from V1, really, where they don't seem to have been much of an issue.

    Limitations:

    Configuring more than one server to allow remote access is not trivial (though it can be done), and is very specific to the particular environment, so it's not a supported configuration. There are a number of options here, as well, with varying degrees of usability and ease of configuration.

    Backups: You can only configure a client to back up to a single server. With the beta of Vail, you can only have one version of the client tool (the "connector") installed on a computer. This means that you will have to choose whether a given client backs up to Vail or to V1. This (the single version requirement) isn't unusual in the software industry, however. You can't have two versions of Acronis True Image, or any number of other programs, backup or otherwise.


    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)

    I find it amazing that a WHS V1 setup AND a released, production based version of VAIL will not be an expected configuration.  From my perspective this is crazy talk.  This SHOULD be considered to be a standard setup for early release.  Exactly who does MS or HP expect to purchase VAIL based servers except for current WHS V1 users?  Is there going to be some huge wave of NEW early adopters that are going to land from another planet?  No, the people who are going to use VAIL are many of the same people here.  Those with WHS V1 machines are going to be future V2 users.  Those users are going to expect to have, maybe not permanently but I would expect permanent in my home, at least 2 WHS machines running at my house simultaneously.  I have no anticipation that I will trash my V1 setup (it is less than the minimum spec of VAIL) which works just great to use a newer V2.  I EXPECT to have them operate in parallel.  I could see having to specify that machines with a V1 & V2 connector would have to manually specify to which server data would be backed up.  I would not necessarily expect to be able to backup to both although as a customer it would be nice to be redundant if I wanted to be so. 

    WHS is not Acronis True Image.  WHS is a server based OS with requirements of Server 2008 RC2.  Servers, even home ones, need to be able to play well together.  If WHS V1 does not play well with WHS V2, then this will seriously slow the adoption of V2.  V2 already has serious flaws for its intended market (the inability to read directly from the disk from any available NTFS accepting OS is a HUGE downside for the users, regardless of the technical reasons underlying this decision). 

    If WHS V1 and V2 connector software do not operate well together in the final production version of V2, then I seriously doubt that I will operate a VAIL based machine for quite some time.  Sad, as I am a customer that would otherwise purchase the product even with its clearly identified flaws.

    Friday, June 18, 2010 6:23 PM
  • My objective here is to test and see how things work.  Yes I have a test server running Vail and also have two v1 servers running performing specific tasks.  So the objective here is to test and yes I have the connector software for v1 and vail running on one desktop just to see what it will do and to allow me to play in both worlds from one client.  Should it compromise my backups its not a big deal I have a working backup of my client data using the BDBB Add-in should I have the need to fall back and restore.

    Will it compromise the integrity of that one client?  Maybe, possibly and maybe it will not time will tell.  Again I am testing and I am not relying on it 100%.  I can do this because that particular client is not my main front line client anymore but its the perfect unit for me to test if I can run two connector versions or not.

    Do I recommend everyone do it. Not really.  Do I argue its merrits no because I am testing it out with a client I can afford to lose and still can restore if need be should something happen.  So again I am testing to confirm if there are any real issues with doing this or not so that if there are I can inform others and if not then I can say hey its been working for me and let others form their own opinions.

    So I am a happy and willing end user looking to test things out thats it.  

    Thursday, June 24, 2010 1:48 AM
  • If the issue is being able to backup/restore from more than one server, then give me a tool that allows simple selection. 

    My expectation is that I will continue to run my V1 server, but rather than expand the V1 server I will install a Vail server along side.  New backups will go to the new machine but I would like to restore from the old if necessary.  As far as I'm concerned, I could run this configuration indefinately, and after moving the multimedia files, would probably set the machine aside intact as a backup.

    I might also choose to leave the V1 installed for my younger generation while moving my wife and myself to the newer version.  I do think that the need to be able to run in parallel is an important feature.

    Monday, July 12, 2010 1:41 AM
  • ...
    However, it seems that you can only attach a computer to one instance of the Homeserver on the one network.
    ...
    This is by design. The connectors for V1 and V2 can't be installed at the same time because of file version conflicts. Any successful attempt to have both installed at the same time will result in your client computer being in an unsupported state, probably not backing up to either server successfully, and most likely you will be unable to remove either connector without flattening the client. This is per Microsoft elsewhere in this forum.
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)

    I think What people care whether  use only either V1 or V2 or both V1 and V2 is cause they have large Home Network System at their house.

    For example, if you live in the house that worth more then few millions of dollar, it would be change that he/she/they are living in pretty big house that they have house workers for themselves.

    If that's the case, I don't think they would use just only one Home Server for themselves.

    They will/might wants to use several Home Server for t.heir family and their employees who stays and work at their house.

    Tuesday, July 13, 2010 1:36 AM
  • I would have to agree that both V1 and V2 should be able to be run at the same time. If I understand it correctly, most of the prebuilt V1 boxes probably won't be able to upgrade. And as stated, the target market is the early adoptor, who probably already has a V1 box.

    This may be the wrong place for it, but I would like to see some sort of load balencing between boxes using something like mesh or sync, if you had more than one box on a network.


    Steve
    Friday, July 16, 2010 6:08 PM
  • Why should you have more than one WHS?
    Could were well that, contrary to what you seems to think, more than one WHS is not the targetted market and the WHS
    is not the product that meets all your needs.


    .
    .
    .
    .

    "swattz101" wrote in message news:74d7c502-b264-4227-a001-200694c4a46d@communitybridge.codeplex.com...

    I would have to agree that both V1 and V2 should be able to be run at the same time. If I understand it correctly, most of the prebuilt V1 boxes probably won't be able to upgrade. And as stated, the target market is the early adoptor, who probably already has a V1 box.

    This may be the wrong place for it, but I would like to see some sort of load balencing between boxes using something like mesh or sync, if you had more than one box on a network.


    Steve


    Have a nice day!
    Friday, July 16, 2010 6:15 PM
  • Look up, where I posted about this on June 9th. You can run both on the same network. The limitations are relatively minor. Microsoft is unlikely to do anything to make them share data "out of the box"; if you want that, there are dozens of great tools for syncing folders between points A and B.
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Saturday, July 17, 2010 12:07 AM
    Moderator