A New Kind of Home Computer: Windows Home Server Preview
by Ryan Smith on September 4, 2007 1:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Systems
WHS as a Webserver/Gateway/Everything Else
The final major task of WHS is to act as a webserver and gateway computer to the internet. Many people want to be able to access their files outside of their private network and WHS offers the ability to get this done and more.
As we mentioned previously, WHS comes with a very locked down version of IIS 6.0 as the webserver software. Enthusiasts looking to use a WHS server as a full-fledged webserver will be disappointed to find that out of the box the webserver abilities are limited to a web interface of some of the previously mentioned features of WHS. While we'd imagine this is quite possible to work around, it's not something that can be done inside of the WHS console.
In this respect, most of the webserver abilities of WHS are mentionable for being unmentionable. When the remote access option is enabled (it's disabled by default) accounts that have been flagged as having the rights to use remote access and are using a strong password may log into the web server. The entire transaction is encrypted, which as of this point is actually problematic because the security certificate doesn't (and can't) match the server, throwing up certificate warnings when attempting to log in. Since we're using the release candidate, we're not sure how this affects the release version at this point.
Once logged in, a user is presented with a few options. The first and most useful of these is accessing all the shared folders that user has access to. This entails both uploading and downloading of files via an HTML interface, basically replicating the feature set available as if it were done via a Windows share. While this is a useful feature we also feel Microsoft has missed a massive chance to do more with webserver access of the shared folders. For example, why not make the Photos folder a special photo gallery folder where photos can be viewed and manipulated as they can with other internet photo gallery services? It would certainly make sharing photos with the relatives easier.
The other ability users gain when logged in is using the WHS server as a fully HTTPS-encapsulated gateway for RDP. With the right passwords, users can log into the RDP console interface for the server itself, or the server can relay RDP controls to any clients on the network that are connected to the server and capable of acting as an RDP server (some versions of XP and Vista). We're a bit at odds with this second feature because it's so strange. It makes sense to offer RDP access to the server itself for management of the server and the network, but we don't immediately see the utility of being able to RDP into everything else. Certainly it's a nifty feature and we'll keep it, but we don't see it being very useful to all but a handful of users. How many people actually run a version of Windows that's RDP-server capable, after all?
This also brings up the security aspect of the remote access feature, which is something that can't be easily dismissed. The fact that Microsoft is encouraging users to purposely expose a computer to the internet with an active service, while necessary to enable the features offered by remote access, troubles us all the same. As the only thing exposed (if everything is configured correctly) are the ports required for IIS and not the more vulnerable Windows sharing services, this is potentially very secure as IIS 6.0 has had very few problems over the years. But at the same time we're worried about how many servers and routers won't be configured correctly, and what may happen when the next IIS exploit is found.
Is the version of IIS 6.0 locked down enough to keep it from being a participant in the next Code Red worm? If Microsoft is successful with WHS, there's going to be a massive increase in the number of IIS webservers on the internet, and that opens the possibility for major trouble if any exploits are found right after a patch Tuesday. Then again, we don't have any idea of how many users would be able to even access their server from the internet; blocking ports 80 and 443 are popular activities with ISPs.
On a lighter note, Microsoft is offering their own dynamic domain names for WHS owners who do use remote access and want something easier to remember than an IP address. Microsoft recently picked up the homeserver.com domain, and WHS owners will be able to reserve a subdomain for themselves that the WHS software will keep updated. It's a small feature among the whole, but we'd call it important in making WHS more usable with the average home user. We're still not ready to call these remote access features more than an interesting side show, but it does tilt things slightly more in favor of WHS.
Finally, Microsoft has taken an interesting approach with WHS when it comes to dealing with the shortcomings of the product. Microsoft has included an SDK for WHS for developing a new class of applications Microsoft is calling add-ins. Add-ins allow the server to do new things such as new services for clients, for the remote access component, or a new GUI. Among those developed for the release candidate, we have seen add-ins for a BitTorrent client, connecting TiVos, and using wake-on-LAN for clients that are turned off.
This will be something that we'll definitely need to keep an eye on, as add-ins could potentially resolve a lot of our complaints with WHS. We should have a better idea of what these add-ins can do (and do well) once Microsoft's Code2Fame contest for creating add-ins comes to a close and the add-ins are released. It's unusual for Microsoft to be interacting with the development community on this level, so we're interested to see how things turn out.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
128 Comments
View All Comments
mindless1 - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
Ok, but want kind of soft-raid "needs" windows? I've dealt with several different soft raid controllers and windows official "support" is not needed, except for a management utility application if desired, to show the state of the arrays. While the management utility could be used to rebuild arrays, assign spares, etc, (in some cases), this is only supplimental to what functionality is provided in any typical soft-raid bios.Remember, windows can be installed onto a soft-raided volume. Soft raid doesn't depend on windows. There might be something about WHS that I haven't considered yet that would be a limitation but in general I find the article's conclusion that "not supported" means "won't work" to be odd. I think it more like when a cable ISP tells you that your router isn't "supported" meaning you're just on your own if you do it, they make no guarantee your unique configuration will or won't work.
Let me put it another way, I am wondering if anyone has any example of a soft raid controller that can't be set up prior to OS installation, it's a pretty manditory feature if you want that OS on the RAIDed volume. What remains is a driver support for the controller in windows but any product with a Win2k3 driver should work unless MS has gone and deliberately castrated WHS. Likewise with a soft raid management utility, unless it's using a fancy installer which refuses to install due to not identifying the WHS OS.
What I suspect is that MS simply disabled the OS integral raid functionality which would be used with drives NOT in any kind of raid controller (soft or hardware), raid configuration. If this is the case, someone will probably hack it to regain that functionality, and it might not even be anything more than a registry change needed.
leexgx - Tuesday, September 4, 2007 - link
the idea if WHS is to be easy to useATWindsor - Tuesday, September 4, 2007 - link
And? The simple functions can be easy to use, while at the same time having more advance features available if one turns them on.leexgx - Tuesday, September 4, 2007 - link
i assume thats what the add-ons are for later on when thay get madeif an hdd failes or is about to on WHS it auto start balancing to an other disk thats Online and ok there is allways two copys if its turnd on (duplication)
not not sure how to degrade an disk but i assume it try and move the data off it i know it will if you remove the problem disk Useing WHS connector as its part of the wizard when removeing disks
the idea of WHS is for users who have limited lerning curves (Plug in expect it to work basicly)
nothing stopping you from making RAID 5 on WHS but it not work correctly in WHS connector
mindless1 - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
The problem is that it is not real-time mirroring, since it waits until later to make the second copy, odds are you would end up losing something if a drive fails.I don't understand when people claim the idea here is "easy". What's so hard about plugging in two hard drives, entering a bios menu and assigning the two to an array? That's an order of magnitude easier than becoming accustomed to a new OS, setting it up. If the idea is just plug it in and expect it to work, then you will NOT HAVE that redundant second copy of the data you're implying is sufficient. These are fairly important features on a fileserver, and then if you want dynamic virtualized volumes that would be yet another feature so you can pick what you want to do, just like it is now with other windows versions where it is easy if you just accept the defaults, most basic config., but you don't have to accept the defaults.
leexgx - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
ifas windows home server its an little lame that you cant use the Boot drive on hardware RAID 1 (boot disk for some resone Cant be SCSI drivers){Sata in raid or IDE RAID} as if the boot disk fails thats an big problem as there is no redundancy for it
it more likey work after windows has been installed but its gettings WHS to Boot off an raid array after its been ghosted over all i can see is getting the driver to load up
nope its stored on other disk that has been duplication as long as it has all ready been done if not you lose any new data thats just been put on (it have to be with in last 10secs to 1 min if it was an small file) unlakey that happen
you can take the disks out and mount them as each disk uses norm NTFS file system just needs an drive letter putting on
tynopik - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
> as windows home server its an little lame that you cant use the Boot drive on hardware RAID 1 (boot disk for some resone Cant be SCSI drivers){Sata in raid or IDE RAID} as if the boot disk fails thats an big problem as there is no redundancy for itthat is an annoyance for recovering the WHS, BUT if you were duplicating data, your data is still safe on another drive
> nope its stored on other disk that has been duplication as long as it has all ready been done if not you lose any new data thats just been put on (it have to be with in last 10secs to 1 min if it was an small file) unlakey that happen
it was very difficult to follow what what you're saying, but i think we both have the same understanding of how it works
note i said ALL 3 conditions have to be met
i agree losing primary drive alone will not mess up duplication, UNLESS condition 2 is ALSO met
condition 2 is what you said, it fails before it had a chance to copy to the secondary drive, which i agree is very unlikely
tynopik - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
> The problem is that it is not real-time mirroring, since it waits until later to make the second copy, odds are you would end up losing something if a drive fails.1. it doesn't wait that long, you wouldn't lose much
2. odds are you won't lose anything
don't forget this is the BACKUP system, even if the BACKUP fails, your primary should still be ok.
To lose data 3 conditions would have to be met:
1. Have to lose primary drive in WHS
2. (1) would have to occur in the narrow window between when it being copied to WHS and a duplicate is made onto another HD
3. Have to lose ANOTHER drive in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT system (the one the file was originally on)
personally i would be more worried about the time between when a file is created/modified on your system and it is copied to WHS in the first place.
Assuming backup runs at night and you create a file in the morning, that's almost a whole working day of exposure when the file is in ONLY one place
> What's so hard about plugging in two hard drives, entering a bios menu and assigning the two to an array?
having to limit yourself to the lowest common denominator of your drives
let's say you have a 200gb, a 200gb and a 400gb drive and you put it in a raid, you're wasting half the capacity of the 400gb. With WHS you could store a full 400gb with duplication.
mindless1 - Thursday, September 6, 2007 - link
Are you joking? I don't know what you think passes for reliable redundancy, but the idea that you're playing "odds" and then relying on a client not failing to keep your fileserver stores intact is crazy.This isn't a "backup", this is a "server", which for many people will be more important than their clients.
Let's say you don't put a 200GB, 300GB and 400GB in a Raid, since you seem to be trying hard to cause a problem then thinking WHS would bail you out of ineptitude. The only thing hard about a server is when people make excuses not to use the time tested proven reliable strategies then try to excuse it with examples of bad choices. It is a very trivial thing to set up a home file server, far far quicker and easier than even a typical desktop WinXP system tweaked for a particular user's preferred environment. Trying to suggest there are problems is a sign you just don't understand this.
For lower cost, any system can be made into a fully redundant fileserver that is more reliable, not in beta OS state, and has more storage until there is at least $360 more spent on drives. This 360 figure comes from 2x the initial $180 projected price of WHS.
WHS will be a good option once 3 things are addressed:
1) The price is too high for the small increase in functionality over what can be added as freeware or very low cost add-on to Win2k or XP.
2) WHS matures more. I didn't run anything mission critical on any MS OS when it first came out, that would be foolish for an important fileshare. That it is derived from Win2K3 bodes well for it, but the very features being suggested as important by some, are the very features that are new enough to still have some beta-release related issues and need patched later.
3) It is limiting in user choice of configuration. As OS is not supposed to tell you what to do, rather enabling you to do what you want to do.
tynopik - Thursday, September 6, 2007 - link
> This isn't a "backup", this is a "server", which for many people will be more important than their clients.if your only/main purpose in getting this is as a server, then yes, perhaps WHS isn't for you
it's most powerful/compelling feature is it's backup system. sure it can do other things, but if you aren't using that then there's not a whole lot of reason to use it
just because backup of clients isn't a big deal to you doesn't mean it isn't a big deal to others
just because WHS doesn't meet YOUR needs doesn't mean it's stupid, it just means it's not for you
for me backing up clients is very critical and WHS looks like a godsend
oh really?
please tell me where i can find a backup system as flexible and powerful as this at no cost
> For lower cost, any system can be made into a fully redundant fileserver that is more reliable, not in beta OS state, and has more storage until there is at least $360 more spent on drives.
tell me which free system provides ALL of the following features and i will gladly jump on board
- autocombine all physical disks into 1 volume
- disks can be any size
- disks can be added or removed at will
- yet still have physical redundancy of files on different drives
- automatically save single instance of identical files/blocks to reduce space wastage
- automatically preserve previous versions
- do live imaging of windows systems that can then be restored from bare metal with just a boot cd and a network connection
sure parts of it can be duplicated for free, but do tell how you would setup something that does ALL that
(just as a quick aside, a basic server just sitting there is going to waste a TON of space backing up multiple windows systems from all the redundant files. Oops, there goes all your extra space)