WHS V2 - reports

[benogil]

As whs2 gets real world testing, I thought some people might like to hear what others are seeing. It is a bit confusing. Out of the box, some of it's features do not work , and some need workarounds . Mac backup does not work out of the box , and while there is a workaround , I would suggest extreme caution.
Remote access appears to have it's share of problems. Shares permissions can have " sometimes I work, sometimes I don't " fluctuations , and if you activate homegroup permissions this overrides shares permissions.
Win7 ultimate connector issues are reported, for some but not all.
Restore can vary between flawless , to complicated , to " network error ".
Positively,the third party Drive Extenders will be out this Summer, and then real world testing will see how they do. People do like the speed of the new OS , and the better network speeds. Oh , and the media database doesn't update after the first scan , so adding music or videos can be a bother.

 

[stevech]

hmmm. Are you commenting on the Release Candidate or a prior beta?
and what of the 2GB file size limit in the file system?
And one user commented "It apparently carries the same inability to properly address hard drives [partitions?] over 2TB as HS v1 did."

I've yet to find a trial/eval version to download. Promised for late April.

 

[Generious]

Get yourself a msdn account, I have been running the RTM release for the past month now.

And yes and its just as crappy as the beta version....

 

[stevech]

Years ago I had an MSDN subscription. Costs like $800/yr as I recall.

 

[claykin]

http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/...t-and-msdn-subscribers-to-download-today.aspx

 

[stevech]

Does that WHS 2011 blog continue past April 10?

 

[Generious]

My biggest problem with it is the 2TB limitation on the server backups.

here's some more info on it.
http://social.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/whsvailbeta/thread/d2fee148-15d2-4317-851c-19bd9d85a2f6

Network speeds is another one for me current WHSv1 copying a 4GB file onto it runs at 100MB/s over the network to 105MB/s ( using server nics here in all device that are bonded and a decent switch )

Copying the same file onto my WHS2011 system I'm getting between 70MB/s to 75MB/s
I have spent a fair bit of cash on my home network so I want to get full speeds out of it.
Also in case your wondering the disks in both systems are the same all Samsung F4 2TB drives.

Client connectors issues with initially installing them on the windows 7 ultimate systems fixed by cleaning the registry by hand..

I haven't tried to restore a system yet hope to do so when I have some spare time.

Also I'm not using the homegroup function as this does nothing but add overhead to the network transfers.

Yes it looks all nice and shiny but I still do not like it and don't trust it either, I'm waiting on Datacore to release there addin/app which will kinda do what DE used to do in V1, until then I'm not putting any data I consider valuable on it.

Added another NC360T nic into it yesterday and installed StarWind iSCSI Target on it and pointed the app to the new teamed interface, as I also want to be able to present storage to my ESX hosts ( doing this on WHS1 for the past year and a half works perfect so far )

 

[claykin]

Does that WHS 2011 blog continue past April 10?

Sure does, with the first WHS2011 device being released just a couple days ago. Its from a UK firm.

http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/b/windowshomeserver/

 

[stevech]

Sure does, with the first WHS2011 device being released just a couple days ago. Its from a UK firm.

http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/b/windowshomeserver/

at USD$1,111 for 2TB, single drive, it's a bit out of my league.
Interesting to read that in June, they will be using a 3rd party disk management product for drive pooling/mirroring, etc.

 

[Generious]

at USD$1,111 for 2TB, single drive, it's a bit out of my league.
Interesting to read that in June, they will be using a 3rd party disk management product for drive pooling/mirroring, etc.

You would be better off building your own one instead and you will get better performance over any of the vendor based solutions.

 

[stevech]

You would be better off building your own one instead and you will get better performance over any of the vendor based solutions.

My comment was w.r.t. earlier post.
As to DIY, I don't know how one could get all the media-serving, web serving features found in QNAP/Synology, beyond basic file serving, as a DIY. Maybe someone knows of a straightforward way to do this, rather than cobbling up pieces from here and there under Ubuntu.