locked
Is WHS 2011 RTM really ready for prime time? RRS feed

  • Question

  • My most recent experience with WHS 2011 RTM would indicate that it is not. After having good success with WHS 2011 RC, cannot say the same is true of WHS 2011 RTM. I recently did a clean install of WHS 2011 RTM. The program was unable to recognize my Cisco router (WRVS4400N). As a matter of fact it continues to state the router is not working when as a matter of fact it actually is. The appropriate ports are open, the server has a static IP address, and I'm able to remote access WHS 2011 RTM yet it continues to report the router is not working. WHS 2011 RTM does not identify my shared folders for media streaming. Also WHS 2011 RTM connect failed to properly install on two out of three of my PCs. I didn't try the fourth PC. All I can say is thank goodness for TechNet subscriptions. I was able to test WHS 2011 RTM prior to actual deployment into my production setting. It might just be a bad iso file but my recommendation is to continue to use WHS 2011 RC until some of these bugs are worked out.

    By the way I'm still not sure what all the DE fuss is all about. I'm using one drive for the system, one drive for critical data, and a RAID 5 for non-critical data. My system and critical drives are backed up twice each day, and stored in a safe place. While all this is going on my WHS v1 continues to work in the background until the stable replacement can be found.

    Tuesday, April 12, 2011 10:32 PM

Answers

  • My most recent experience with WHS 2011 RTM would indicate that it is not. After having good success with WHS 2011 RC, cannot say the same is true of WHS 2011 RTM. I recently did a clean install of WHS 2011 RTM. The program was unable to recognize my Cisco router (WRVS4400N). As a matter of fact it continues to state the router is not working when as a matter of fact it actually is. The appropriate ports are open, the server has a static IP address, and I'm able to remote access WHS 2011 RTM yet it continues to report the router is not working. WHS 2011 RTM does not identify my shared folders for media streaming. Also WHS 2011 RTM connect failed to properly install on two out of three of my PCs. I didn't try the fourth PC. All I can say is thank goodness for TechNet subscriptions. I was able to test WHS 2011 RTM prior to actual deployment into my production setting. It might just be a bad iso file but my recommendation is to continue to use WHS 2011 RC until some of these bugs are worked out.

    By the way I'm still not sure what all the DE fuss is all about. I'm using one drive for the system, one drive for critical data, and a RAID 5 for non-critical data. My system and critical drives are backed up twice each day, and stored in a safe place. While all this is going on my WHS v1 continues to work in the background until the stable replacement can be found.

    Unfortunately I was not as wise and went ahead with RTM for a full conversion... I am finding many issues (same issue with my router but is an ActionLink... shows not working but not having any connectivity issues) and inconsistencies over RC and WHS V1. For sure WHS 2011 is not an improvement over V1 (I would say equal to a slight step back for the short term - as add-ins come to market I am confident this will change) and would recommend anyone who is looking to upgrade to hold off until at least the bugs are worked out.  Right now all my storage and configuration is moved will have to deal with some of the issues - most FOR ME are NOT show stoppers but are just very annoying as they were not apparent with V1.
    • Marked as answer by kwbaron Saturday, April 16, 2011 9:55 AM
    Wednesday, April 13, 2011 2:02 PM

All replies

  • My most recent experience with WHS 2011 RTM would indicate that it is not. After having good success with WHS 2011 RC, cannot say the same is true of WHS 2011 RTM. I recently did a clean install of WHS 2011 RTM. The program was unable to recognize my Cisco router (WRVS4400N). As a matter of fact it continues to state the router is not working when as a matter of fact it actually is. The appropriate ports are open, the server has a static IP address, and I'm able to remote access WHS 2011 RTM yet it continues to report the router is not working. WHS 2011 RTM does not identify my shared folders for media streaming. Also WHS 2011 RTM connect failed to properly install on two out of three of my PCs. I didn't try the fourth PC. All I can say is thank goodness for TechNet subscriptions. I was able to test WHS 2011 RTM prior to actual deployment into my production setting. It might just be a bad iso file but my recommendation is to continue to use WHS 2011 RC until some of these bugs are worked out.

    By the way I'm still not sure what all the DE fuss is all about. I'm using one drive for the system, one drive for critical data, and a RAID 5 for non-critical data. My system and critical drives are backed up twice each day, and stored in a safe place. While all this is going on my WHS v1 continues to work in the background until the stable replacement can be found.

    Unfortunately I was not as wise and went ahead with RTM for a full conversion... I am finding many issues (same issue with my router but is an ActionLink... shows not working but not having any connectivity issues) and inconsistencies over RC and WHS V1. For sure WHS 2011 is not an improvement over V1 (I would say equal to a slight step back for the short term - as add-ins come to market I am confident this will change) and would recommend anyone who is looking to upgrade to hold off until at least the bugs are worked out.  Right now all my storage and configuration is moved will have to deal with some of the issues - most FOR ME are NOT show stoppers but are just very annoying as they were not apparent with V1.
    • Marked as answer by kwbaron Saturday, April 16, 2011 9:55 AM
    Wednesday, April 13, 2011 2:02 PM
  • By the way I'm still not sure what all the DE fuss is all about. I'm using one drive for the system, one drive for critical data, and a RAID 5 for non-critical data. My system and critical drives are backed up twice each day, and stored in a safe place. While all this is going on my WHS v1 continues to work in the background until the stable replacement can be found.

    #1. The acronym WHS is for Windows HOME Server.
    #2. Being a HOME server, it must be easy to set up and use, as well as be relatively inexpensive.
    #3. RAID is NOT something your normal HOME user will be able to set up and use, nor is it inexpensive.
    #4. DE allowed the HOME user to use parts on hand (especially hard drives), rather than be required to go out and buy expensive parts for a RAID system.
    #5. Probably most important is that the HOME user doesn't have the disposable income of businesses (seems Microsoft is now slanting Windows HOME Server toward businesses), nor the expertise necessary to install and maintain a RAID system.

    I know there are some who think proponents of DE don't have the brains to install RAID and are cheapskates; however, that's just not true. Computing is all about choices and should not be arbitrary.

    Windows HOME Server is now an arbitrary solution (meaning we no longer have a choice of hardware), while DE gave us a choice. We could use what we had on hand and then when funds might be freer, we could go out and buy new hardware.

    Too bad . . . WHS v1 was and is a good solution. . . . WHS 2011 . . . well, that remains to be seen. I think you hit the nail on the head! ...until the stable replacement can be found...


    Nancy Ward
    Thursday, April 14, 2011 6:12 PM
  • WHS 2011 is Microsoft's entry-level server software. Therefore it will probably be easy to set up, use, and inexpensive. As Microsoft has found out your "normal home users" do not use WHS. As a matter of fact your "normal home users" are moving to touchpad devices to the tune of 50 million per year. The majority of WHS users build their own PCs. Software-based RAID has been part of Windows OS since XP. RAID 0 and 1 take two hard drives. RAID 5 takes four hard drives of the same size. 2 TB drives can currently be purchased for about $65. Maintaining a software-based RAID5 system requires you to replace the failing drive when you are warned to do so. DE is slow and was buggy. There are currently a least two add-ins under development to replace DE so we all will have choice. I believe I will stay with my setup which is much faster, more secure and not that expensive.

    Friday, April 15, 2011 11:20 AM
  • >As Microsoft has found out your "normal home users" do not use WHS.
     
    I agree with that, only geeks use WHS. One has to understand about
    servers and knowing backups are needed.
     
    >Software-based RAID has been part of Windows OS since XP. RAID 0 and 1 take two hard drives. RAID 5 takes four hard drives of the same size.
     
    Not great performance there either...
     
    >RAID 5 takes four hard drives of the same size. 2 TB drives can currently be purchased for about $65.
     
    That's a problem buying all new disks, even at just $65 each when you
    want to expand and you're using RAID 5.  :(
     
    >DE is slow and was buggy.
     
    Slower than hardware RAID, yes, definitely.  As for buggy I very much
    disagree, it's been stable for a long time now.
     
    >There are currently a least two add-ins under development to replace DE so we all will have choice.
     
    Not supported by Microsoft, and an extra cost.
     
    >I believe I will stay with my setup which is much faster, more secure and not that expensive.
     
    I will be staying with my WHSv1 setup for the foreseeable future I
    think, it's much cheaper and does the job I wanted it to do.
     
     

    Bob Comer - Microsoft MVP Virtual Machine
    Friday, April 15, 2011 1:18 PM
  • In my experience with software-based RAID 5 took a very long time to create the initial array (sometimes greater than 24 hours), but had performance gain of about 30% over DE especially with reads (less so with writes). This was with head-to-head comparisons of two systems both with SATA II drives. As a matter of fact the DE system used 7200 RPM drives while RAID5 system used 5400 RPM drives. I then purchased a Highpoint RAID card and saw a performance gain of over 100%. Using the card it only took about three hours to create the array.

    I believe you can build array using existing disks of different sizes, but size of the array will be 4 times the smallest disk. Dollar for dollar RAID 5 is considered one of the least expensive ways to duplicate and use data. I believe it uses no more than 30% headroom for duplication (more disks in the array the smaller the headroom). If the data is critical by all means back it up. In WHS 2011 I find this to be an ideal drive for storing high definition videos such as recorded TV. If I should lose one drive I replace that drive and keep the array running. If I should lose two drives simultaneously I lose all my recorded TV.

    If I remember correctly, DE was buggy. Even though I did not run into any initial problems as so many others did, I did experience some "time/date" errors with DE later on. As with so many new software products I think I will continue to wait until some of the new bugs with WHS 2011 RTM are worked out.

    Friday, April 15, 2011 4:06 PM