Sign in
Microsoft.com
 
Microsoft
 
 
 

locked
Will WHS ever be able to back up the C: drive? RRS feed

 > 

  • Question

  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    I was disappointed that PP2 did not add the functionality for WHS to back itself up.  Why can't WHS back up the C: drive of the WHS PC?

    And please don't respond "Just do a server reinstall" since I am running Sage for WHS and a half a dozen addins.  Even after the OS reinstalled and rebuilt all of the data drives it would still take a while to reinstall drivers, apps, etc.
    Thursday, March 26, 2009 1:09 PM

Answers

  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    wayner9 said:

    And please don't respond "Just do a server reinstall" since I am running Sage for WHS and a half a dozen addins.  Even after the OS reinstalled and rebuilt all of the data drives it would still take a while to reinstall drivers, apps, etc.


    its a feature massively wanted by the user base, yes. But not too easy to implement due to the methods Windows Home Server connects with the data disk drives. So you could register on Connect and vote for one of the suggestions there, if you want. Maybe it takes influence in the next version design then.
    But that you are using Windows Home Server out of its supported usage scenarios, cannot be a reason for Microsoft to consider such feature and is your own matter (besides the fact, that this may or may not be in conflict with the EULA).
    Best greetings from Germany
    Olaf
    Thursday, March 26, 2009 1:35 PM
    Moderator
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    This is why I believe there is no capability to back up the C: partition: The boot partition on the system drive contains volatile information, information which changes as the server is used and which is typically going to be out of date within a short period after any backup. So backing up the C: partition only captures a slice in time, and may not be usable at a later date. 

    Couple that with the basic design of the product (simple, easy to use, designed for non-technical individuals to take home as a hardware/software package and configure themselves), and server reinstallation is an obvious answer to the problem of system partition corruption. I happen to think it's great that people are extending their servers in so many different ways, but when you do so you choose to take additional risks, and accept additional annoyances, because of the basic product design.

    So while I understand and sympathize with the basic facts of your pain, and I agree with Olaf that if you really want to be able to back up the server's system partition you should submit/vote for a product suggestion on Connect, I'm not really terribly sanguine that you will ever see this added to Windows Home Server, and I feel that to an extent you walked into your current situation with your eyes wide open. And just so you're aware, I have "unsupported" customizations on my server which will take me some time to reconfigure if I ever have to do a server reinstallation, so I'm in the same boat. 

    If you need to have weeks invested in the system configuration on your server, you might well be a better-than-average candidate for an "unsupported" RAID 1 array for your system drive. that way you would be protected from drive failure (though not system partition/OS/configuration corruption).
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Thursday, March 26, 2009 2:58 PM
    Moderator

All replies

  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    wayner9 said:

    And please don't respond "Just do a server reinstall" since I am running Sage for WHS and a half a dozen addins.  Even after the OS reinstalled and rebuilt all of the data drives it would still take a while to reinstall drivers, apps, etc.


    its a feature massively wanted by the user base, yes. But not too easy to implement due to the methods Windows Home Server connects with the data disk drives. So you could register on Connect and vote for one of the suggestions there, if you want. Maybe it takes influence in the next version design then.
    But that you are using Windows Home Server out of its supported usage scenarios, cannot be a reason for Microsoft to consider such feature and is your own matter (besides the fact, that this may or may not be in conflict with the EULA).
    Best greetings from Germany
    Olaf
    Thursday, March 26, 2009 1:35 PM
    Moderator
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    This is why I believe there is no capability to back up the C: partition: The boot partition on the system drive contains volatile information, information which changes as the server is used and which is typically going to be out of date within a short period after any backup. So backing up the C: partition only captures a slice in time, and may not be usable at a later date. 

    Couple that with the basic design of the product (simple, easy to use, designed for non-technical individuals to take home as a hardware/software package and configure themselves), and server reinstallation is an obvious answer to the problem of system partition corruption. I happen to think it's great that people are extending their servers in so many different ways, but when you do so you choose to take additional risks, and accept additional annoyances, because of the basic product design.

    So while I understand and sympathize with the basic facts of your pain, and I agree with Olaf that if you really want to be able to back up the server's system partition you should submit/vote for a product suggestion on Connect, I'm not really terribly sanguine that you will ever see this added to Windows Home Server, and I feel that to an extent you walked into your current situation with your eyes wide open. And just so you're aware, I have "unsupported" customizations on my server which will take me some time to reconfigure if I ever have to do a server reinstallation, so I'm in the same boat. 

    If you need to have weeks invested in the system configuration on your server, you might well be a better-than-average candidate for an "unsupported" RAID 1 array for your system drive. that way you would be protected from drive failure (though not system partition/OS/configuration corruption).
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Thursday, March 26, 2009 2:58 PM
    Moderator
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    Olaf Engelke said:


    But that you are using Windows Home Server out of its supported usage scenarios, cannot be a reason for Microsoft to consider such feature and is your own matter (besides the fact, that this may or may not be in conflict with the EULA).
    Best greetings from Germany
    Olaf


    How so?  Are you saying that using WHS plugins written to the WHS plugin API which MS developed and published is outside of the supported usage scenarios, and may even violate the EULA?


    Thursday, March 26, 2009 8:18 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    Hi,
    WHS Add Ins not created by Microsoft are not supported by Microsoft, but (eventually) by the maker of that Add-In.
    Some Add-Ins implement also features, which may be seen as a violation of the EULA, especially such, which make usage of the Remote Desktop on the server for anything else than administrative purposes. And the comment was more meant generally, since you are not the only one, who will read this thread in the future. As far as I understand the SDK, the API is meant to provide the tools needed to integrate something into the console and install it as Add-In. What this "something" is, is only a matter of the developer.

    (I must admit, as I did read Sage, my first thinking was some Small Business software package, since this name stands here in Germany for a company offering such stuff.)
    But without business critical stuff its even less dangerous having to do a server reinstall eventually. I use also some different stuff on my server, which should not be installed on WHS (i.e. WSUS and SharePoint services), so I know it can be a plague sometimes having to reinstall. So it can help, to perform partial backups of the settings and data of such apps or take note of the installation steps.

    Best greetings from Germany
    Olaf
    Thursday, March 26, 2009 8:36 PM
    Moderator
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    FYI Sage (aka SageTV) is Media Center software that is a direct competitor to Microsoft Windows Media Center.  The nice thing about this app is that it runs on WHS so that you can use one server as your Media server/PVR and you don't have to have two PCs running 24/7.  I have four TV tuners connected to my WHS PC to record TV which is done to an unduplicated WHS share.

    The silly thing is that WHS is such a wonderful backup solution but now I have to run some other backup/copy software to backup WHS.  Right now I am using Synctoy to back up key folders on my server.
    Sunday, March 29, 2009 3:03 AM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    FYI Sage (aka SageTV) is Media Center software that is a direct competitor to Microsoft Windows Media Center.  The nice thing about this app is that it runs on WHS so that you can use one server as your Media server/PVR and you don't have to have two PCs running 24/7.  I have four TV tuners connected to my WHS PC to record TV which is done to an unduplicated WHS share.

    The silly thing is that WHS is such a wonderful backup solution but now I have to run some other backup/copy software to backup WHS.  Right now I am using Synctoy to back up key folders on my server.
    I agree with Ken.  I don't see a backup of C ever occuring either.  However, in your case, you are backing up a function (SageTV) that could possibly be added to the OS at some point in time (Media Center).  If it is added, you wouldn't need to backup C any more.  I know other users have requested/demanded/begged for Media Center to be added to WHS on Connect.  My suggestion for you is try to find one of those posts and add your request of that feature as well.
    Sunday, March 29, 2009 3:50 AM
    Moderator
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    This is why I believe there is no capability to back up the C: partition: The boot partition on the system drive contains volatile information, information which changes as the server is used and which is typically going to be out of date within a short period after any backup. So backing up the C: partition only captures a slice in time, and may not be usable at a later date. 
    True, but keep in mind that most of the functionality needed to bring the server up to date is already built-in and it is used when you do a server reinstallation. So it would not be impossible, after restoring an image type backup of the system partition, to manually or automatically trigger this update process.


    Couple that with the basic design of the product (simple, easy to use, designed for non-technical individuals to take home as a hardware/software package and configure themselves), and server reinstallation is an obvious answer to the problem of system partition corruption. I happen to think it's great that people are extending their servers in so many different ways, but when you do so you choose to take additional risks, and accept additional annoyances, because of the basic product design.
    This is something that kind of gets under my skin like a splinter. Previous versions of Windows are more open to the end user, be that a user who purchased the retail or OEM version and installed it and has an idea about what he did, or a user who just bought a computer with the OEM version and relies on the manufacturer for support (a user who is still looking for the "any key" key). With WHS Microsoft seems to have narrowed its target area considerably.
    Or maybe it is just about money. After all WHS is a very attractive package, very reasonably priced, based on Windows 2003 server, that requires very little attention, something that even an IT person might welcome after he/she had enough of it at work.
    Sunday, March 29, 2009 10:43 AM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    This is something that kind of gets under my skin like a splinter. Previous versions of Windows are more open to the end user, be that a user who purchased the retail or OEM version and installed it and has an idea about what he did, or a user who just bought a computer with the OEM version and relies on the manufacturer for support (a user who is still looking for the "any key" key). With WHS Microsoft seems to have narrowed its target area considerably.
    Or maybe it is just about money. After all WHS is a very attractive package, very reasonably priced, based on Windows 2003 server, that requires very little attention, something that even an IT person might welcome after he/she had enough of it at work.
    Windows Home Server is less open than a standard desktop operating system, yes. And that is by design. The primary way this software is reaching end users today is as OEM units like the HP MediaSmart Server line. These get taken home, plugged in, configured, and forgotten. Heck, my HP MediaSmart Server has been sitting under a desk for 18 months or so now, and I don't remember the last time I needed to log in to it using Remote Desktop for any reason other than to answer a question for someone. (Okay, I just did so a few days ago, but only to remove the prerelease PP2 bits to get the final version. :) )

    Windows Home Server isn't designed to be a "do anything" toolkit, or (as I've said a number of times before) to function as "Windows Server 2003 lite" in a business environment. It's designed to solve a small number of problems that modern high-tech families have.
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Sunday, March 29, 2009 1:29 PM
    Moderator