Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 8th Jan 2007 23:34 UTC
Windows As part of his keynote address on Sunday at the annual Consumer Electronics Show, Gates showed off Windows Home Server (more info at Ars) - a consumer device to serve as a central storage place for digital photos, music and other media. The first products are due out later this year from HP and others. The goal is to get devices that can cost less than USD 500. In the first of a two-part interview, Microsoft's chairman talks about why the average person wants a server, why they won't need a degree in computer science to run it and what hurdles remain before consumers reach the true digital home.
Thread beginning with comment 199733
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Market?
by diegocg on Tue 9th Jan 2007 00:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Market?"
diegocg
Member since:
2005-07-08

The server can have multiple drives for redundancy, or the data can be both on the PC and the server ensuring the data exists in at least 2 places.

So? The client also can get multiple drives for redundancy - it can even become a "standard practice" when buying a pc - and it's way cheaper than a separate server. And local filesystems can also do internal backups and versioning and all that, without buying a extra server, you know.

And if you want to replicate your data...why replicate it in a "server"....when the other computers in your house could use their unused disk space? Vista could add techonoloy to enable other computers in your house to store encrypted backups of other computers in your home...*THAT* would be interesting

Aditionally, since the server needs to store backups from *ALL* the pcs it means it'll need to have enought storage capacity...your disks in your personal pcs may be half-void but hey, because WHS needs to do backups of the half-filled part for N different computers you may need to go to the store and ask for a extra disk for your WHS server. Weeeee.

Backup devices are certainly useful in many cases, I'd see why you'd want something like WHS in a office. But I don't understand why people would buy WHS for their homes at all, not even enthusiasts. The one useful idea behind it for homes seems to be the fact that you can access the files while the another pc is powered off. And frankly, I'm just not buying a separate and expensive server + pay a extra license OS for that.

Edited 2007-01-09 01:04

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Market?
by n4cer on Tue 9th Jan 2007 01:18 in reply to "RE[4]: Market?"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

So? The client also can get multiple drives for redundancy - it can even become a "standard practice" when buying a pc - and it's way cheaper than a separate server. And local filesystems can also do internal backups and versioning and all that, without buying a extra server, you know.

This is a possibility with Vista's Complete PC Backup, but this isn't as good a solution as maintaining the data on a server because you replicate the same steps per PC, and you waste storage space because you duplicate data that is the same accross multiple PCs.


And if you want to replicate your data...why replicate it in a "server"....when the other computers in your house could use their unused disk space? Vista could add techonoloy to enable other computers in your house to store encrypted backups of other computers in your home...*THAT* would be interesting.

Again, one of the reasons is wasted storage space due to the redundant storage of data that is the same accross PCs and devices on the network. Assuming that isn't an issue, another issue is that those disks are in use as much as you use your computers, so they're probability of failure is higher. There's also the question of what happens when one computer or multiple computers don't have enough reserved capacity to store backups for other PCs or devices.

Aditionally, since the server needs to store backups from *ALL* the pcs it means it'll need to have enought storage capacity...your disks in your personal pcs may be half-filled but hey, because WHS needs to do backups of the half-filled part for N different computers you may need to go to the store and ask for a extra disk for your WHS server.

WHS uses volume shadow copy services/single instance storage for its backups. Files that are common accross PCs and devices (OS and application files, etc.) will only be stored once on the server. Also, when changes are made to the files, only those changes (along with the original) are stored.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Market?
by diegocg on Tue 9th Jan 2007 01:44 in reply to "RE[5]: Market?"
diegocg Member since:
2005-07-08

another issue is that those disks are in use as much as you use your computers, so they're probability of failure is higher.

So? The "disk failure" is already happening in a replicated device in other computer in your home. Your data is safe, problem solved. Again, if you want to rely on "data replication" for doing backups in your home, the easier and cheaper idea (the idea that home users want) is to use unused space in all the pcs in your home to make encrypted replications, and save the 600$ that is going to cost you your "backup device". Dude, it's how P2P works, and it DOES work. If that's not enought for you, you aren't a normal user and you're considering proffesional backup solutions _anyway_. In fact, I don't know many people that has ever needed a "backup server". The recycle bin + the versioning build in vista is more enought for 99.9% of the rare home users that need "backups". And have I mentioned that hard disks just don't fail most of the time for most of the people?

This is a possibility with Vista's Complete PC Backup, but this isn't as good a solution as maintaining the data on a server

Sure. And Joe User has been able to buy complete and expensive backup solutions for a long time. I just don't think he is going to do it.

Guys, what I'm arguing is that I don't see WHY Joe User wants a backup server. I can see LOTS of uses for it - in offices and enterprises. You know, "backup" is not a new thing to the industry and lots of proffesionals use it because they actually need it. But WTF, do you really think Joe User is going to think "oooh, a backup device, i'm wasting 500$ on it just in case my hard disk breaks!"?? f--k, joe user doesn't _know_ that hard disks can fail, and he doesn't care.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: Market?
by Bryan on Tue 9th Jan 2007 02:13 in reply to "RE[5]: Market?"
Bryan Member since:
2005-07-11

Actually, redundent storage shouldn't be an issue. Home Server uses a technology called Single Instance Storage--SIS--which only stores one copy of each unique file. So if you have Office 2007 installed on three different machines, for example, the program files will only be back up once. Likewise, most of the things in the Windows directory shouldn't be copied more than once. Supposedly, this technology has enabled Microsoft to store as much as 19 TB of data in as little as 300 GB in some of there test data sets.

Perhaps a better description is here:

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/whs_preview.asp

Reply Parent Score: 2