In what universe is 2011 better than WHS v1? RRS feed

  • General discussion

  • This thing is worthless. I hope they sell an ass-load of SBS because they aint gonna sell this POS. I will be staying with WHS v1 I guess.
    Friday, February 4, 2011 5:48 PM

All replies

  • Faster for me, support for newer hardware, better website interface, etc.
    Friday, February 4, 2011 10:01 PM
  • Definitely faster, the web interface is great (and makes nice photo albums for the parents to see), computer backup better suited for Win 7 clients.

    I spent the last couple months setting up and tearing down linux, solaris, and freebsd alternatives.  ZFS is really awesome, but I kept finding myself missing the WHS client backup, and sharing files with Windows machines from nix systems just doesn't seem to work as well as keeping everything Windows based.

    I bit the bullet and bought a nice LSI RAID controller with a few 2TB drives.  Now I have WHS2011 setup on a small system disk with a single 4TB D: drive which easily holds all of my computer backups and other stuff with lots of room to spare.  The controller even does online expansion so I can add 2TB drives and expand the RAID 5 if I need to.  Yes this cost money, but I just couldn't find a decent alternative to having a Windows Server based file server / backup machine in my house.

    I think I will upgrade - I had trouble before PP1 with DEv1 and never really trusted it.  DEv2 was looking really good and I wish they would have continued developing it.  Maybe they will work on it for next release, seems they will be needing an answer to ZFS and btrfs at some point.


    Friday, February 4, 2011 10:48 PM
  • .. I kept finding myself missing the WHS client backup...

    Well, based on using a Windows 7 computer for storage, I've concluded the only reason to consider using WHS is for client backups.  Otherwise, everything else I use is there.  Sure Windows 7 can make image backups, but, it is not efficient in terms of hard drive space needed for incremental backups and no easy way to schedule.  There is third party backup software that can be used, for a price, that could replace WHS altogether.  With DE gone, WHS is a half a step or less above just using the regular OS.

    Saturday, February 5, 2011 12:57 AM
  • Pros:
    64 bit vs. 32 bit.
    Support for newer/better hardware.
    Better support for various audio/video formats.
    Better Web site

    No Drive Extender,  Home users should buy RAID 5 controllers?  LOL! Epic fail! :-(

    This is pure stupidity from M$.  Delay this product until you are able to release something useful.

    Saturday, February 5, 2011 1:39 AM
  • I couldn't agree more.  I've logged issues, had a telecon with the GM, dev lead and a few others, and decided to go another route.  Keeping in mind that WHS is geared for a non-tech audience, it simply doesn't fly for a techie.  The ONLY reason I've kept with WHS is the client backup, which turns out to be flakey on a good day.  Adios, WHS.  I wish you well.

    Cases in point:

    I have, on several occasions, continued to have file corruption issues.  Repro steps are: open a jpg.  Expected:  see the picture.  Actual results: bottom half of picture is grey blocks.

    Oopsie:  All your client backups are gone.  Sorry about that.  Solution: repair the backup database.  Results: no backup database, and no backups. Start over.

    What's this about a server backup?  Complete news to me, but if the underlying client backup system is corrupt, a server backup is useless.

    For a basic file/print server, linux ran fine on raid-5 for years, on cheap, throw-away pc's.

    The only thing that's a tough nut to crack is client backups, but there are ways to do that.

    I'm now running Server 2008R2 on a tri-core, 12Gb, dedicated hardware RAID solution that is also running a bunch of other software, SQL Server, etc.  WHS, based on what I've read lately, is probably going to be dropped. You'll either have to migrate to SBS, grow your own, or stick with WHS V1.

    BTW, Paragon software has a free client backup solution that works pretty well.  Pity that MSFT can't produce a decent client backup system.  Acronis, Ghost, and others managed it, although server 2008R2 has a decent backup built in.

    Saturday, February 5, 2011 2:02 AM