Paul Thurrott: Serious Windows Home Server concerns

As is the case with my problems with the Xbox 360's Fall 2007 Dashboard Update, where I am having many issues that no one else seems to be having, I'm sort of hoping that what I'm seeing on Windows Home Server (WHS) lately is just me. But I'm concerned enough about these issues to at least just throw them out there and see what happens. Here's what's up. First, I've literally just completed my switch-over to WHS and have taken down my previous Windows Server 2003-based server. I'm using HP's Media Smart Server and have added two 512 GB drives for a total of 2 TB of storage. I really only need 1 TB but I do use WHS's data duplication functionality extensively, so what the heck. Plus it's backing up several PCs regularly. The point of all this is that I'm really using this thing. It's not a best test or an experiment. My data is all on this server.

The HP has had a troubling number of hard drive corruption issues. These issues seem to be occurring mostly on a single disk, but that's not necessarily true, so I will keep watching this. Occasionally, I will logon to Vista in the morning, see a red WHS icon and click it to discover that something's wrong with a hard disk. WHS lets you repair these problems, and it takes a long time but always seems to work. I don't have any offsite backup so this is troubling. I am experimenting with backing up to my old Firewire 800-based BiggerDisks over the network, but it's slow, and if the WHS-based data is corrupted, I'm screwed anyway. I'm not sure if it's my router or my home server, but three times now I've gotten an alert that the remote access feature had stopped working. Just navigating to the Remote Access tab of the Settings dialog triggers a re-configuration, and that does work each time. But what if I'm away when this stops working and thus can't access my files remotely? It sort of renders the feature moot, doesn't it?

View: Full Story @ Paul's SuperSite blog

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Alcohol 1.9.7.6022

Next Story

Five desktop Linux highlights of 2007

49 Comments

View more comments

Novaoblivion said,

Ummm maybe I am wrong but 512GB x 2 = 1TB no?

Actually I'm not aware the existence of any 512GB HD. If he'd said something like 465GB that's unusual too but at least it is understandable.

I wouldn't complain if I were him because its free hardware he got to review and making it sound like it came from out of his pocket.

Huh? If there's reason for complaints, he should as a good reviewer (and for the best of his readers) not allow that to influence his opinions. If those sending him hardware or software for review can't handle that, they shouldn't be sending him that. The worst I know is reviewers who just make things glossy and shiny in the review because they act like someone being bribed with it.

A personal blog of only one persons experience hits front page news...the mind boggles.

He hasn't called MS because they'd tell him the truth - faulty hard drive - and there isn't anything in that he can blame MS for, and thus no page views as a result.

I'm starting to feel the same way about the bickering over Paul as many of us have felt about the bickering over XP and Vista.

If you have a 500GB drive, it formats as 465GB. I understand he was rounding in a sense, to explain TB storage but he would get a lot less flaming for just calling them 500GB drives... anyways, this article and the hard drive stuff is fud. WHS works as reliably as 2003 Server from which its based when installed on proper hardware, the HP seems to be problem, not WHS.

I recently had to call Microsoft for a problem we'd been trying for weeks to fix. They announced that Windows 2003 Server was "working as designed" but that this behaviour would be corrected in Windows 2008 !? :suspicious:

Why are people jumping on Paul's case here?

He made a post on his blog. You know those things where bazillions of people post tons of useless crap that really doesn't matter to anyone outside of the small smattering of people who read them.

It's a blog people and blogs are tailor made for ****ing and moaning and that's exactly how he's using it. Nature of the beast you geniuses.

What you should be asking, if this is so truly useless to you, is why is Neowin posting blog entries as news.

Aahz said,
What you should be asking, if this is so truly useless to you, is why is Neowin posting blog entries as news.

Because it might actually be a serious problem? I'm glad I read it here.

Jeepers people!!

The poor guy made a review on how WHS/HP HS is treating him and his data!!

Give him a break! Given that he is not lieing, would you trust WHS after reading this?

Are you saying that just because someone has some issues it should go ignored and just flame against him...

Get a life people! Everyone is entitled to review and opinonate anything they want! If you find this review useless, go buy WHS, and end up having the same issues....don't say that someone didn't warn you!

I have been using WHS since the betas and not had any data corrupion or errors in the console that he mentions.

I don't think is what he is talking about is the issue but the way he is implying that WHS is crap and will loose data if you look at it wrong.

necrosis said,
With no x64 support WHS doesn't mean **** to me. MS really needs to get off their asses and fix this.

It's coming Q1 2008 as part of a WHS 'R2' release which applies to all current WHS sold as a broad update with some new server side features implemented as well and the x64 client introduction.

Why is he using WHS and their data replication service when he had an apparently perfectly functioning Win 2003 server? I like to try out new tech too but if your existing backup is working, don't just ship to a new technology just to try it out.

yeah... I couldn't understand this either. I don't think I'd move all my important files to something thats only really just came out, when my previous system was working fine. I'd maybe have it for my non important stuff so I could learn it and test it.

Besides, if he's putting all that stuff on one server he should have another backup as well.

There are online unlimited backup solutions for WHS available for subscriptions at $79/yr with promo code. If you want to keep a backup offsite it is the best solution for home users.

Commenting is disabled on this article.