locked
Server re-install after Power Pack 1 RRS feed

  • Question

  •  

    Regarding all of the posts on server re-installation without losing data:  When Power Pack 1 is available and allows a full backup of shares and backup files, will it be possible to perform such a backup, wipe everything and start over with a clean WHS install, and then copy the shares and backups onto the new WHS installation, and then allow it to rebuild the tombstones to "regenerate" the original system?

     

    Friday, May 9, 2008 3:55 AM

Answers

  • As I've been saying for some time, Power Pack 1 will not provide a tool to back up your backup database. It was an announced feature, but it has been removed because it doesn't meet the quality bar. I know of at least half a dozen bugs submitted around that feature that left end users in a bad place with no obvious way back.

    You can still back up the backup database manually, using the steps in the Home Computer Backup technical brief.

    Friday, May 9, 2008 11:25 AM
    Moderator
  • @Myron and @K-Loader/

     

    We choose to publicly share disclosure of a possible data corruption issue when only a single person had reported the issue.  To this day, the bug as documented in KB 946676, while publicly criticized and discussed multiple times in the press / blogs, has been reproduced and seen by very few people.  The team purposely disclosed the issue and known workarounds to help people understand the issue and also protect anyone from every hitting the issue. 

     

    Backups of the files stored in the Shared Folders is coming in Power Pack 1.  The various press stories that got posted today are incorrect, misleading and bordering on ...

     

    I also love my home server, it backs up my home computers every night, I stream music from it to my Roku and view slideshows of my photos on my TV through my Xbox.  The team understands and is hard at work resolving the KB946676 issue and also continuing to listen to early adopters and the broader community to make Windows Home Server - as Myron desires "Microsoft's greatest software in a decade."

     

    best,

     

    todd

    Friday, May 16, 2008 4:08 AM

All replies

  • Power Pack 1 will not allow you to back up your backup database. The backup of the shares can be reloaded after a server installation, though.
    Friday, May 9, 2008 4:42 AM
    Moderator
  •  Ken Warren wrote:
    Power Pack 1 will not allow you to back up your backup database. The backup of the shares can be reloaded after a server installation, though.

     

    WHOA WHOA WHOA!!!!!  Hold on a minute!  When did that change?  That was most definitely an announced feature of PP1!!  Can you please confirm that, Ken?  Are you saying Power Pack 1 now will not allow you to backup your entire client PC backup database to an external hard drive?

    Friday, May 9, 2008 4:50 AM
    Moderator
  • As I've been saying for some time, Power Pack 1 will not provide a tool to back up your backup database. It was an announced feature, but it has been removed because it doesn't meet the quality bar. I know of at least half a dozen bugs submitted around that feature that left end users in a bad place with no obvious way back.

    You can still back up the backup database manually, using the steps in the Home Computer Backup technical brief.

    Friday, May 9, 2008 11:25 AM
    Moderator
  •  Ken Warren wrote:
    Power Pack 1 will not allow you to back up your backup database. The backup of the shares can be reloaded after a server installation, though.

    This is also new for me!

     

    This is REALLY REALLY REALLY bad!! Backing up the database manually is so simple, so I really don't understand the problem. For me the backup db (and it's integrity) is one of the most important parts of WHS. For that reason I have triple security on it:

     

    1. duplication turned on

    2. shadow copy (with snapshot every 6 hours)

    3. weekly copy to external location 

    Friday, May 9, 2008 12:41 PM
    Moderator
  • A feature isn't a feature until it ships.  And sometimes marketing gets things wrong ... by pre-announcing stuff at CES that ends up getting cut before it ships.

     

    The Home Computer Backup Technical Brief talks about how to backup, delete and restore the home computer backup database.  This is good fodder to a enthusiast add-in. 

     

    The feature had to be cut tue to the interplay with the connector install and the fact that consumers may hork their backup database by doing an incomplete backup or interrupting the restore processs.  The team will look to add this functionality in a future release after Power Pack 1.

     

    Friday, May 9, 2008 5:01 PM
  • I assume that similar problems do not arise when following the steps in the technical paper? That is, if this copying was interrupted, would it also 'bork' the database.

     

    Colin

    Friday, May 9, 2008 5:12 PM
  • Colin, yes it would. To give one (brute force) example, if you were to disconnect the drive to which you copied your backup database partway through the process of restoring it, you would have a partial, and therefore corrupt, backup database on the server. You would have to re-copy the entire database back to the server, not interrupting the copy process, to recover. Lest you think this is an unreasonable example, think about whether you've ever accidentially unplugged something while it was running...
    Friday, May 9, 2008 5:24 PM
    Moderator
  •  Ken Warren wrote:
    As I've been saying for some time, Power Pack 1 will not provide a tool to back up your backup database. It was an announced feature, but it has been removed because it doesn't meet the quality bar. I know of at least half a dozen bugs submitted around that feature that left end users in a bad place with no obvious way back.

    You can still back up the backup database manually, using the steps in the Home Computer Backup technical brief.

     

    I don't ever recall seeing you (or anyone else from MS for that matter) post that previously.

    Saturday, May 10, 2008 12:48 AM
    Moderator
  • kariya21, I would tell you to read the forum more, if I didn't think you read most of what comes by. I've posted that a number of times over the past 6-8 weeks. I'm pretty sure Todd has posted about it a couple of times too, though I'd have to go digging to be certain.

    Regarding "...or anyone else from MS..." please see my .sig. Smile
    Saturday, May 10, 2008 1:14 AM
    Moderator
  •  Ken Warren wrote:
    kariya21, I would tell you to read the forum more, if I didn't think you read most of what comes by.

     

    I usually do (which is why I can't imagine how I missed it if you posted it a number of times).

     

     Ken Warren wrote:
    I've posted that a number of times over the past 6-8 weeks. I'm pretty sure Todd has posted about it a couple of times too, though I'd have to go digging to be certain.

    Regarding "...or anyone else from MS..." please see my .sig.

     

    Yep, I know you're not officially part of MS.  It's just that you have so many posts/responses, it often feels like you are. Smile

    Saturday, May 10, 2008 1:22 AM
    Moderator
  •  Ken Warren wrote:
    kariya21, I would tell you to read the forum more, if I didn't think you read most of what comes by. I've posted that a number of times over the past 6-8 weeks. I'm pretty sure Todd has posted about it a couple of times too, though I'd have to go digging to be certain.

    Regarding "...or anyone else from MS..." please see my .sig. Smile

     

    Ken

     

    Todd hasnt posted about that before because that information was under our NDA

     

    Andrew

    Saturday, May 10, 2008 6:16 AM
    Moderator
  •  Andrew Edney wrote:
    Ken

     

    Todd hasnt posted about that before because that information was under our NDA

     

    Andrew

     

    Are you serious?  It's ok for MS and the MVPs to talk about PP1 and it's features since January, but it's not ok to mention the fact that "Oh yeah, by the way, one piece of the community's most-wanted (not to mention previously-announced) features got scapped some time ago due to low quality issues"?  I'd love to see someone from MS step up to the plate and explain that one.

     

    (Ken, as an aside, I couldn't find any post by you where you specifically said that that feature was pulled from PP1, only posts where you gave a somewhat generic response along the lines of "WHS doesn't have that ability".)

     

     

    Saturday, May 10, 2008 1:38 PM
    Moderator
  •  T. Headrick wrote:

     

    The Home Computer Backup Technical Brief talks about how to backup, delete and restore the home computer backup database.  This is good fodder to a enthusiast add-in. 

     

    The feature had to be cut tue to the interplay with the connector install and the fact that consumers may hork their backup database by doing an incomplete backup or interrupting the restore processs.  The team will look to add this functionality in a future release after Power Pack 1.

     



    I have been backing up my backup database for about a month now. It's not that hard to do, What ticks me off, if it's not that hard to do, I can't see why the team hasn't been able to fix this problem already. Future release of PP1..........in about 2 years......maybe, if it doens't have a problem with something else.........

    Todd, I know it's not your fault, Ken's either, but this is getting damned old. The corruption bug, now an incomplete backup program.... I've been fortunate, I've not had corruption problems, but I did recently switch to a single drive just to avoid issues, I do the database backup because I've had a uninteruptable power supply failure and lost my database, so I wrote a couple of batch files and use Second Copy to take care of that problem expecting a "cure" when PP1 ships. It is really disappointing to have this feature pulled from PP1. I find it hard to beleive that no one at Microsoft knew this problem existed when they started touting the features of PP1 and stating it was on the shelf waiting for the courrption bug cure, which has taken FAR too long to get cured. If MS is going to be serious about WHS, they need to put a lot more effort/resources into the probems and take care of the end user or sell it to some company that will!!

    Sorry for the vent, but this one really ticks me off! The add ins that are available basically are items that should have been included in WHS to begin with. Thanks to the guys and gals that have written them, but MS could do a lot better in the professionally written software and not depend on lay people to add the features that WHS lacks.

    I'm not trying to offend, but this one is a crock of sh*t!!

    Cruise
    Saturday, May 10, 2008 1:46 PM
  •  kariya21 wrote:
     Andrew Edney wrote:
    Ken

     

    Todd hasnt posted about that before because that information was under our NDA

     

    Andrew

     

    Are you serious?  It's ok for MS and the MVPs to talk about PP1 and it's features since January, but it's not ok to mention the fact that "Oh yeah, by the way, one piece of the community's most-wanted (not to mention previously-announced) features got scapped some time ago due to low quality issues"?  I'd love to see someone from MS step up to the plate and explain that one.

     

    (Ken, as an aside, I couldn't find any post by you where you specifically said that that feature was pulled from PP1, only posts where you gave a somewhat generic response along the lines of "WHS doesn't have that ability".)

     

     

     

    Karya21

     

    The whole point of beind under an NDA is that you cannot discuss it outside of the group that has the NDA. Yes, we MVPs have known for a short time that this was not included, we also know a lot of other things as I am sure you could guess, but being under an NDA means that we cannot, and should not discuss anything until such point as that NDA is lifted.

     

    As Todd said, things change for many reasons, and in this case, MS made the decision that for PP1, this element would not be included. This is not something they did lightly and it is only a recent decision. I dont think that they need to "step up to the plate" and explain their decision - Todd already stated what and why and unfortunately that will have to be sufficient.

     

    I can understand you being upset or disappointed - I am myself, and so is Ken.

     

    Andrew

    Saturday, May 10, 2008 2:13 PM
    Moderator
  • Cruise, the announcement at CES was made (if I recall correctly) before the first private beta had finished up. The issues in backing up the client backup database weren''t found until the second (or third, IIRC) round of private beta, As one of the people who filed multiple issues (including blocking issues, i.e. issues which IMO should prevent shipping if the feature is present in the product) against this exact feature, I assure you that it needs much work, if it is to meet an appropriate quality bar for the target audience.

    And no, I don't believe that the marketing people knew about the issues at the time they announced those features at CES, because almost all of those bugs were filed a couple of months later. I personally think that they were too specific in the announcement of features; I think Todd agrees with me. But I understand why; the file corruption issue had just created a media firestorm and they wanted some positive press. I'll note that there are things that weren't talked about in the team "blog" post, like performance improvements for writes with multiple disks in the server. It's my understanding that's a result of fixing the file corruption issue. So features are changing in both positive and negative ways as we approach the ship date.

    Since it sounds like you've got a strategy that works for you for backing up the backup database, you should stick with it. I'l note that I'm sticking with my robocopy tasks for backing up my servers, rather than using the PP1 backup. That's mostly because I have something that works, and I don't generally install pre-production code on production hardware. It's also because the server backup tool is more designed for interactive use, not scheduling to run at off-hours.

    It might also be helpful if you would write a brief post that gives people the knowledge they need to implement your solution on their servers, if they want to.
    Saturday, May 10, 2008 2:59 PM
    Moderator
  • Kariya, Andrew: regarding NDAs, features, etc. I'll point out the last paragraph of the team blog post that announced PP1. While posting publicly about bugs found in private betas is a no-no (and I've deleted a couple of such posts recently with a general format like "I found this bug in PP1 RC#; is there a workaround?") that paragraph makes clear that posting about features is not verboten. I took that to mean that once it was decided that a feature was being removed, it was also okay to post about that. If Todd wants, he can certainly castigate me for breaching my NDA. I'll take the correction with no dampening of my enthusiasm for the product (because it is a great product).

    As for whether I've stated clearly or not that the client backup database is not part of the server backup feature, how much clearer than "Windows Home Server Power Pack 1 doesn't have the ability to back up the backup database." could I have been? Wink I said that or the equivalent a number of times, starting at least a month ago, and I assure you I was not trying to be vague. And while I personally don't need to back up my home computer backup database, just my shares, I'm very disappointed that this feature had to be removed, becuase there are many enthusiasts who feel that they do have a need in this area.
    Saturday, May 10, 2008 3:12 PM
    Moderator
  •  Ken Warren wrote:
    Kariya, Andrew: regarding NDAs, features, etc. I'll point out the last paragraph of the team blog post that announced PP1. While posting publicly about bugs found in private betas is a no-no (and I've deleted a couple of such posts recently with a general format like "I found this bug in PP1 RC#; is there a workaround?") that paragraph makes clear that posting about features is not verboten. I took that to mean that once it was decided that a feature was being removed, it was also okay to post about that. If Todd wants, he can certainly castigate me for breaching my NDA. I'll take the correction with no dampening of my enthusiasm for the product (because it is a great product).

     

    Well, I certainly hope that doesn't happen (I, for one, am grateful that you Did the Right Thing™, no matter what the intent of the NDA is).  As far as I'm concerned, a previously publicly announced feature that ultimately gets cut should not be covered under an NDA (which was the point of my previous post and I think Andrew misinterpreted).  While I am disappointed that it got cut, my obvious disgust for this situation is not the fact that it got cut, it's the fact that it got cut and (if Andrew's interpretation of the NDA is correct) the MS employees and its MVPs aren't even allowed to say it got cut.  And, if Andrew's interpretation of the NDA is correct, I still challenge someone from MS to explain why!  (And to Andrew:  No, Todd didn't explain that, which is what I was referring to when I said "step up to the plate.")

     

    (As for WHS being a great product, I will wholeheartedly agree once all of the bugs are worked out.  Right now, I would call it a great concept.)

     

     Ken Warren wrote:
    As for whether I've stated clearly or not that the client backup database is not part of the server backup feature, how much clearer than "Windows Home Server Power Pack 1 doesn't have the ability to back up the backup database." could I have been?

     

    Yeah, I would say that's pretty clear. Smile

     

     Ken Warren wrote:
    I said that or the equivalent a number of times, starting at least a month ago, and I assure you I was not trying to be vague.

     

    Like I said, the only posts I could find when I searched were ones that were along the lines of someone asking "How do I do it?" and your response would be something like "You can't".  (I guess I just haven't found the right posts.)

     

     Ken Warren wrote:
    And while I personally don't need to back up my home computer backup database, just my shares, I'm very disappointed that this feature had to be removed, becuase there are many enthusiasts who feel that they do have a need in this area.

    Saturday, May 10, 2008 4:15 PM
    Moderator
  •  Ken Warren wrote:
    Colin, yes it would. To give one (brute force) example, if you were to disconnect the drive to which you copied your backup database partway through the process of restoring it, you would have a partial, and therefore corrupt, backup database on the server. You would have to re-copy the entire database back to the server, not interrupting the copy process, to recover. Lest you think this is an unreasonable example, think about whether you've ever accidentially unplugged something while it was running...

     

    IMHO this is really no argument, and I can't believe this is the true reason for leaving it out. It's VERY VERY VERY simple to make the whole copy process fool proof and even resume automatically after power failure or whatever, especially since the whole database consists of multiple files, max 4GB. Even if it was just one big file this would be fairly simple to implement. (Just think of all the download managers that are able to resume download after disconnect!!)

     

     

     Ken Warren wrote:
    kariya21, I would tell you to read the forum more, if I didn't think you read most of what comes by. I've posted that a number of times over the past 6-8 weeks. I'm pretty sure Todd has posted about it a couple of times too, though I'd have to go digging to be certain.

     

    Similar to Karyia21 I also read most of the threads, although I must admit I skip some of the very lengthy threads full of opinions. Also for me your first reply in this thread was the first time ever I read about leaving this feature out. Even when I search the software forum I can't find anything on this subject.

     

    I'm also a bit surprised to see mod's / MVP hijacking this thread to discuss NDA's and "technical" stuff not really intended to answer the OP's question. Why not split the thread?

    Monday, May 12, 2008 11:21 PM
    Moderator
  • Brubber, I was specifically talking about the manual process in the Home Computer Backup technical brief in that quote. If you interrupt that part way through, you start over. It's not at all robust in the sense that it won't "do the right thing" if it's interrupted. And no, that's not the only blocking issue that was filed, not even the only one I filed (though I did file a variant of that). There were simply too many ways that backing up/restoring the backup database could leave a non-technical user in a bad spot with no indication that anything was wrong, and with no obvious way back. I agree that a technical user can come up with a backup/restore mechanism that's robust enough for that level of technical sophistication to cope with any issues. What's not so easy is to take that and make it so robust that it will detect everything that goes wrong and deal with it so as to never leave someone who's not so technically sophisticated in a bad spot.

    As for the OP's question, I answered it in the first reply. I just didn't mark it as such; I figure the OP is welcome to do that of they wish, and I figured that there would be a bit of a tempest, so I thought I'd let it ride for a while.

    And regarding the hijacking, someone asked the question. I don't recall who, and I don't feel like reading back to figure it out. Chalk it up to topic drift. Smile
    Tuesday, May 13, 2008 2:45 AM
    Moderator
  • To backup the home computer backup database, you need to shut off the backup service.  The current notification does not explain to the user the reason the backup service stopped is because they are backing up their home server.  If someone tries to install the Connector software on a PC, with the backup service stopped, the error messages would need to be rewritten to let them know that a server backup is currently in progress, because the backup service needs to be running when a PC "joins the home server".  The code that was implemented to backup the backup database did not provide adequate fault tolerance and messaging to a user, to let them know that the backup succeeded and that they have to let the restore complete.  If a user did a restore and interrupted in mid-way then the home server should know that the backup database is broken because the user did a 'partial restore' and the user should be instructed to do another restore of the home computer backup database.  This feature as originally designed was for backing up the Shared Folder content to an external hard drive, backing up the home computer backup database was added late in the game, and the end-to-end scenario testing brought to light some issues that the team felt needed more work. 

     

    hope that helps.

    Tuesday, May 13, 2008 2:49 AM
  • Everyday I regret the decision of purchasing this software more and more.

     

    So now, instead of including the backup we need, it will be included in Version 2!  Look, version 2, now you can backup everything! 

     

    Right...

     

    Hopefully they will at least fix the gb issue when two or more drives are connected and the transfer drops off the map. 

     

    Even though one of the MS team replicated the issue, we still have mvps saying it is not an issue.  Maybe that is under NDA as well. 

     

    Whatever.....

     

    Seems like many forces at work... unfortunately, all have different agendas. 

    Tuesday, May 13, 2008 2:50 AM
  • theog,

    If you read the posts on here, Ken has mentioned that the apparent transfer speeds have improved considerably with PP1.

     

    I have two of my own servers running, plus over 20 servers built for Customers; all have multiple disks and not one of them have had a data corruption problem.

    All of them have a scripted solution copying off the backup  to a NAS drive, (each Customer has a NAS drive as security against the corruption bug,) and a few of them have embellished this to have an off-site back-up as well. These came about as a development of me mentioning I copy files each night to a remote NAS!

     

    I admit this isn't quite the normal Home Server user, but I have yet to see any problems whatsoever with WHS. Saying that, I hope I'm not tempting fate!

     

    Colin

     

    Tuesday, May 13, 2008 6:09 PM
  •  Ken Warren wrote:
    Brubber, I was specifically talking about the manual process in the Home Computer Backup technical brief in that quote. If you interrupt that part way through, you start over. It's not at all robust in the sense that it won't "do the right thing" if it's interrupted. And no, that's not the only blocking issue that was filed, not even the only one I filed (though I did file a variant of that). There were simply too many ways that backing up/restoring the backup database could leave a non-technical user in a bad spot with no indication that anything was wrong, and with no obvious way back. I agree that a technical user can come up with a backup/restore mechanism that's robust enough for that level of technical sophistication to cope with any issues. What's not so easy is to take that and make it so robust that it will detect everything that goes wrong and deal with it so as to never leave someone who's not so technically sophisticated in a bad spot.

     

    Clear. When backing up restoring manually this is a major risk. BUT THAT'S JUST THE REASON WHY WHS-Team should provide fool-proof solution, which IMHO isn't all that difficult.

     Ken Warren wrote:
    As for the OP's question, I answered it in the first reply. I just didn't mark it as such; I figure the OP is welcome to do that of they wish, and I figured that there would be a bit of a tempest, so I thought I'd let it ride for a while.


    And regarding the hijacking, someone asked the question. I don't recall who, and I don't feel like reading back to figure it out. Chalk it up to topic drift.

     

    Fair enough, not really a problem. What really worries me is that obviously WHS-team did NOT start with proper functional design:

     

     T. Headrick wrote:

    To backup the home computer backup database, you need to shut off the backup service.  The current notification does not explain to the user the reason the backup service stopped is because they are backing up their home server.  If someone tries to install the Connector software on a PC, with the backup service stopped, the error messages would need to be rewritten to let them know that a server backup is currently in progress, because the backup service needs to be running when a PC "joins the home server".  The code that was implemented to backup the backup database did not provide adequate fault tolerance and messaging to a user, to let them know that the backup succeeded and that they have to let the restore complete.  If a user did a restore and interrupted in mid-way then the home server should know that the backup database is broken because the user did a 'partial restore' and the user should be instructed to do another restore of the home computer backup database.  This feature as originally designed was for backing up the Shared Folder content to an external hard drive, backing up the home computer backup database was added late in the game, and the end-to-end scenario testing brought to light some issues that the team felt needed more work. 

     

    hope that helps.

     

    IMHO these "issues" are fairly easy to predict and fairly easy to solve, and thus should never appear in beta code (unless caused by unforeseeable  / unexpected issues) and as such I would qualify this is an example of poor design. Based on the post of T. the WHS-team just re-used a few lines of code that were not written for this purpose. What to expect now from the other features in the power pack? 

    Wednesday, May 14, 2008 10:45 PM
    Moderator
  • If I had to guess, I'd say that Microsoft developed the backup of the shares, putting significant time and effort into it, and then tried to repurpose that at the last second. The conversation probably went something like this:

    Dev A: "Well, it looks like backing up the shares is working pretty well. I wonder if we can use this code for anything else?"
    Dev B: "How about the backup database?"
    Dev A: "Hey, yeah! We could probably do that in a day or two!"

    And it devolved from there. (Okay, so I have a vivid imagination. So shoot me Smile )

    I think that we're on the same side in this, though. Microsoft could have done a better job with server backup. I think it's clear they know it, though.
    Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:59 AM
    Moderator
  •  Ken Warren wrote:
    If I had to guess, I'd say that Microsoft developed the backup of the shares, putting significant time and effort into it, and then tried to repurpose that at the last second. The conversation probably went something like this:

    Dev A: "Well, it looks like backing up the shares is working pretty well. I wonder if we can use this code for anything else?"
    Dev B: "How about the backup database?"
    Dev A: "Hey, yeah! We could probably do that in a day or two!"

    And it devolved from there. (Okay, so I have a vivid imagination. So shoot me )

    I think that we're on the same side in this, though. Microsoft could have done a better job with server backup. I think it's clear they know it, though.

     

    You may well be right. Dev A and Dev B however are likely not the persons that are supposed to decide, and even if they are things like this should not happen in a professional organisation. If something like this really happened how can I trust the final product? For me this is very similar to the backup database without a proper recovery function. The basic idea is OK, it works fine in most cases, however some essential features are missing (by design? or did they just forget to think about this?). Users should be able to revive or recover the database with a single mouse click.

     

    For my personal situation I don't really care to much about the backup and other features in the Power Pack. Most of these things are fairly simple to build. I do think however that basic features like this should be thorough, fool proof and easy to use for all WHS users.

    Thursday, May 15, 2008 2:36 AM
    Moderator
  • Wow, this is some seriously disappointing WHS news.  I’ve been sitting here for months rationalizing that not having the ability to use my WHS for network storage (corruption issue) was no big deal as it was worth the wait for the fix in SP1 along with the backup function.  I believe the backup functionality will prove to be the Achilles tendon of WHS making it prime time--the concept of off site storage is spreading like a brush fire.  I hope we have a whiz kid out there that can build us an add-in.  Did I already say how disappointed I am?

     

    Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:24 PM
  • It's sad watching Windows Home Server, which I consider Microsoft's greatest software in a decade, fail to meet its expectations. Not only did it corrupt data, which is an absolute no-no for a file server, but there was no supported way to make backups of files. And now, we are losing the promised ability to keep copies of backups off-site.

     

    I love my own Windows Home Server, and I have sold some of my clients on single or multiple WHS servers. But I'm really wondering if I can trust it to do what it claims to do.

    Friday, May 16, 2008 3:20 AM
  • @Myron and @K-Loader/

     

    We choose to publicly share disclosure of a possible data corruption issue when only a single person had reported the issue.  To this day, the bug as documented in KB 946676, while publicly criticized and discussed multiple times in the press / blogs, has been reproduced and seen by very few people.  The team purposely disclosed the issue and known workarounds to help people understand the issue and also protect anyone from every hitting the issue. 

     

    Backups of the files stored in the Shared Folders is coming in Power Pack 1.  The various press stories that got posted today are incorrect, misleading and bordering on ...

     

    I also love my home server, it backs up my home computers every night, I stream music from it to my Roku and view slideshows of my photos on my TV through my Xbox.  The team understands and is hard at work resolving the KB946676 issue and also continuing to listen to early adopters and the broader community to make Windows Home Server - as Myron desires "Microsoft's greatest software in a decade."

     

    best,

     

    todd

    Friday, May 16, 2008 4:08 AM