locked
Running WSUS on WHS RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hello,

    Will it be possible to run WSUS on WHS ?
    I never tried WHS, I have just applied for the beta so I don't know if this functionality is already there or not.

    Marc.

    Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:05 PM

Answers

  • Windows Home Server will not include Windows Server Update Services (WSUS) functionality. 

    Windows Update is working well servicing millions of PCs every day, and we felt that for our target market customers, it was better to let Windows Update continue to service these machines rather than to introduce a new technology that may prevent updates getting applied to one or more household PCs. 

    For example, what happens when a user goes on a trip with their laptop - how do the updates get applied?  With Windows Update that scenario is still supported.  With WSUS, that laptop would not get updated until the user returned home.

    Adding WSUS added a good deal of complexity to Windows Home Server, so we chose not to try to solve this scenario with version 1.

     

    Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:36 PM
    Moderator

All replies

  • Windows Home Server will not include Windows Server Update Services (WSUS) functionality. 

    Windows Update is working well servicing millions of PCs every day, and we felt that for our target market customers, it was better to let Windows Update continue to service these machines rather than to introduce a new technology that may prevent updates getting applied to one or more household PCs. 

    For example, what happens when a user goes on a trip with their laptop - how do the updates get applied?  With Windows Update that scenario is still supported.  With WSUS, that laptop would not get updated until the user returned home.

    Adding WSUS added a good deal of complexity to Windows Home Server, so we chose not to try to solve this scenario with version 1.

     

    Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:36 PM
    Moderator
  • With the like of us that have SBS at home and running WSUS 2.0. Is it possible to point WHS's WU to SBS WSUS instead?
    Friday, February 16, 2007 2:22 AM
  • Thanks for your answer.
    Friday, February 16, 2007 2:38 PM
  • I believe leaving out WSUS is the right decision.  Windows Update does the job that needs to be done, and it does it well.
    Tuesday, February 20, 2007 5:15 AM
  • Well, the reason I'd like WSUS on WHS is to simplify my Updates. Windows Update will go out and get all the Critical updates, but doesn't grab optional, or Hardware updates. For that, I have to go to each PC, go to Windows Update, select Custom, and then find the update I want in the Optional Updates menu.

    So, if say, I wanted to get the Optional Update to the North American DST changes, I have to do this on every single PC in my household, and for me, that's 3 times, which is annoying. I'd rather go into a control panel once, select the approved updates, and then find them waiting for me to install on the selected PC's.

    What Microsoft is assuming here is everyone leaves their PC's on at home all the time, and everyone has their PC set to to Automatic Updates. I don't leave my PC's on all the time (and people with enough PC's at home to need WHS probably don't either), it's a utter waste of energy, and irresponsible with the growing energy crisis.

    I also don't run automatic updates, well, on my Vista PC I allow it to download available updates, but I select when to install them. On my WinXP machines, I go out and select the updates to download. Microsoft has made the consumer wary of just accepting their updates (Service Pack 2 fiasco) and sometimes, finding IE7 has automatically installed on your machine might not be a good thing when certain sites you use IE for don't work with IE7.

    Either way, I like to have control over my updates. So, if I could setup WSUS on my WHS, at least as an option without breaking WHS, that would be great. It's something any "Sam" user would appreciate.
    Thursday, February 22, 2007 3:37 PM
  • I am in full agreement for having a central download repository.  I have 5 machines at home, and hate having to download the updates all the time.

    Maybe rather than a full WSUS, how about integrating a mini wsus into the server, and include the update functions into the client.  i.e. The client machines report back to home server on the version of Windows running. Home Server then downloads those updates to a repository and when the time comes, perform the required downloads.  When a laptop is on the road, not all people have an internet connection, however what about addidtion the function into the client that when it checks for updates, and it cannot connect to the home server, it will fall back to Windows Update?

    I certainly know for any home using more than 3 PC's here in NZ and the current broadband plans we have here, this would be a big bonus.  I know when I rebuild my XP machines, I have to go through around 150 / 300 mb of updates.  It also takes a while to download the updates and apply them.  Having them on the lan would be awesome and save me some trouble.

    Just my two cents.

     

    Thanks

    JiX

    Sunday, February 25, 2007 6:11 AM
  • This would be a great feature.

    For v1, why not simply use the attached machines list to download the appropriate updates, and update the update application on each client to check for the file on the WHS box first.  If it isn't there (for v1) just download as normal.

    You could allow the administrator to configure if they want to download updates automatically to the server ready for a local download to other PCs.

    To summarise, there are two things to do:

    1] WHS downloads updates for the machines attached to it.
    2] The windows update application gets updated to be aware of WHS and 'downloads' what it needs from there if available.

    For v2 this should be fully supported.
    Sunday, February 25, 2007 9:07 AM
  • I'm sure it isn't supported, but WSUS installs fine on WHS.
    Monday, February 26, 2007 1:59 PM
  •  JiXel wrote:

    I am in full agreement for having a central download repository. I have 5 machines at home, and hate having to download the updates all the time.

    Maybe rather than a full WSUS, how about integrating a mini wsus into the server, and include the update functions into the client. i.e. The client machines report back to home server on the version of Windows running. Home Server then downloads those updates to a repository and when the time comes, perform the required downloads.


    WSUS does already do this. You can configure WSUS to download updates for specified versions of Windows and languages already.

    In my opinion, WSUS is a very handy service for large company networks, not for home use. Leaving WSUS out of WHS looks like the right decision to me.

    René


    Tuesday, February 27, 2007 12:00 AM
  • I agree, this would be an excellent feature.

    I had WSUS installed but eventually had it removed as one of my personal computers it served (a laptop) was rarely at home.

    A WSUS client installed on all home computers would do the trick. Failing to contact WSUS@WHS it would fall back to Windows Update.

    I am not sure about this as I have not tested WHS yet, but I'm assuming that, like Windows Server 2003 and Shadow Copies, a small client application needs to be installed on every client computer. If so, them this seems easy to implement and above all, transparent and valuable to the final user.

    Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:02 AM
  • Maybe including some form of ISA Server's cacheing of Microsoft Update downloads so that each machine doesn't need to actually download the same data?

    Pluses:  easy

    Minuses:  lacks the control of WSUS in an AD environment

    But really, easy is the goal here. 

    Friday, March 2, 2007 4:29 AM
  • I am perplexed.  WSUS has really gotten very easy compared to previous versions (MS got this one right).  Where the complexity come in is the way WSUS is noted by a GroupPolicy and this might be hard in the Home work group design. 

     

    I hope to see centralized account maintentance for the home Domain comming soon.

    Sunday, March 4, 2007 8:11 PM
  •  jasemccarty wrote:
    I'm sure it isn't supported, but WSUS installs fine on WHS.

    So if it installs, and works then, technically supported or not, we could be good to go right?

    And when we are on the road, can't we still use Windows/Microsoft update anyway? Or is that disabled if you install the WSUS client?

    Sunday, March 4, 2007 9:19 PM
  •  Joel Burt wrote:

    Windows Home Server will not include Windows Server Update Services (WSUS) functionality. 

    Windows Update is working well servicing millions of PCs every day, and we felt that for our target market customers, it was better to let Windows Update continue to service these machines rather than to introduce a new technology that may prevent updates getting applied to one or more household PCs. 

    For example, what happens when a user goes on a trip with their laptop - how do the updates get applied?  With Windows Update that scenario is still supported.  With WSUS, that laptop would not get updated until the user returned home.

    Adding WSUS added a good deal of complexity to Windows Home Server, so we chose not to try to solve this scenario with version 1.

    WSUS allows for these situations. Otherwise it would be useless in a corporate environment. AD policies can currently allow, or disable, individual boxes to go out to MS update on their own. The same situation can be said of in your example.

    Now, while your example may not have been the best, I do see your point in the amount of possible complexity that can be added.

    Friday, March 9, 2007 9:03 PM
  • Hello,

    I am in full agreement with those who feel that WSUS, or a new variant thereof, should be part of WHS, especially when there are many machines in the house to update.  Yes, WindowsUpdate works very well for everyone and is transparent to the user (if configured that way, of course) but it is bandwidth hungry when you multiply that by the  millions of PC's out there.  Seems to me that the networked households would ease the burden on the net if only 1 machine  (the WHS) were to download and distribute the updates.  Then again, update patches are probably just a "drop in the bucket" compared to the rest of the traffic :)

    JAY
    Sunday, March 11, 2007 4:30 AM
  • Even if not full WSUS, it would be nice if WHS was at minimum a cache server for windows update... though eventually id like to see WSUS be avalible for WHS... even if it was a "Light" version .. Joe User could log into the console and see.. Oh i didnt do updates on this and this machine, or the reverse, the client would hit the server and go. Hey wait, i need updates...

    Nothing more bandwidth wasting than having to hit windows update 3+ times for the same update...

     

     

    Tuesday, March 13, 2007 4:26 PM
  • Another thought on this, quite a few people have capped ADSL, so if you have 3 or 4 (or more) PC's connected you would need to download the same files over and over, eating into your cap, whereas with WSUS just get it once. Windows XP SP2 or .NET 3.0 would be classic examples of this.
    Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:42 AM
  •  Joel Burt wrote:

    For example, what happens when a user goes on a trip with their laptop - how do the updates get applied?  With Windows Update that scenario is still supported.  With WSUS, that laptop would not get updated until the user returned home.

    If you tie WHS in with Live Custom Domains, this shouldn't be an issue.  WSUS talks over HTTP/HTTPS, so mobile users would still be able to get their updates, as long as WSUS was setup correctly.  Hopefully something that makes it into a future release!

    Wednesday, March 21, 2007 4:25 PM
  • I agree, WSUS or a variant of it would be a really useful tool to add. The capped DSL issue is valid. But there's more to it than that. Shouldn't MS want to save their bandwidth and reduce their costs too? It would benefit everyone, ISP's, users, MS.
    Monday, March 26, 2007 1:31 AM
  •  sector002 wrote:
    I agree, WSUS or a variant of it would be a really useful tool to add. The capped DSL issue is valid. But there's more to it than that. Shouldn't MS want to save their bandwidth and reduce their costs too? It would benefit everyone, ISP's, users, MS.

    I second that, being capped!

    Monday, March 26, 2007 9:57 AM
  • There would be huge advantages to an integrated centrailsed update service even if it is only to save on the download quota.

     

    Please make it happen! The sooner the better

    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:12 AM
  • Had this running for a while now with no issues to date, it's updating both my XP Pro machines and the server itself.

     

    Was easy enough to amend the group policies for each machine, but admittedly it should be added into WHS so that this can be setup automatically.

    Friday, April 6, 2007 3:35 PM
  • My opinion is leaving it out is fine, but having it as available/optional for those more tech savy is good.  I like that it updates office (which a lot of home users have) as well as windows and I can chose, plus the hardware and optional updates helps.  Keeping in step with the flexibility theme....
    Thursday, April 19, 2007 10:51 PM
  • I would like a kind of WSUS on WHS.

     

    I have 6 machines here that I will have updated. If there is an big update needed or need to install a SP my broadband connection slips.

    also for people that have a smal band but have some computers availibole would have some kind of advantige.

     

    in Belgium are some providers that has an download/upload limet. this would be great if there is a cashing availibole..

     

    Also a variant of ISA server to cach some websites would be an advantige.

    Tuesday, April 24, 2007 10:27 PM
  • Add my vote for WSUS....Not to save on bandwidth but to allow me to have control over what downloads/updates get installed on my computers. I run WSUS on my Win2K3 Domain at work and it is great....
    Thursday, April 26, 2007 5:55 AM
  • I run WSUS 3.0 RC1 on my WHS, and I don't have a domain.  Just join the clients up via gpedit.msc.  I use it as I don't like waisting bandwidth downloading the same update 5 times, and it saves me time if I fix/build PC's for friends.

     

     

    Friday, April 27, 2007 12:31 AM
  • I agree with the comments on here about some kind of central repository of Windows Update.

     

    WHS knows what OS you're using so the component, (WSUS or whatever) should be able to go out to the internet and collect the updates.

     

    I have a capped broadband connection so would appreciate only having the updates downloaded once which I could install manually, or are deployed automatically from WHS.

     

    This for me would prove benficial to me and Microsoft, (points already raised).

     

    C'mon Microsoft, you know it makes sense.

     

    D

    Friday, April 27, 2007 8:47 PM