Microsoft's dropped feature is Linux's gain

[zridling]

Microsoft's dropped feature is Linux's gain? Not sure why Microsoft would do this, but the coding complexity of making it work might not be worth the time?
http://www.networkwo...-feature-linux-gains



"Companies usually spend time and money developing new and interesting features to drive upgrades, but Microsoft is taking a different approach with the 'Vail' release of Windows Home Server (WHS): It’s dropping the popular Drive Extender feature that lets users 'pool' hard drives to increase storage. In response HP is kicking WHS to the curb and using WebOS for its MediaSmart systems."

Engadget has a short report, too:
http://www.engadget....der-support-ms-sugg/

[skwire]

As one of the beta-testers, and current user, of WHS, reading this announcement a few days ago really pissed me off.  The Drive Extender feature was the ONE thing that attracted me to WHS in the first place.  All the other stuff was gravy.  I'll just stick with the current version of WHS for the time being.  It's really a great product.

[Stoic Joker]

Damn that does suck, I had a ball playing around with it back during the original WHS beta testing.

[40hz]

Supposedly, it was primarily motivated by reliability concerns. I never encountered any serious reliability problems with WHS after they got the first batch of problems ironed out - but there ya go...

I think a large part of it is product differention. WHS is showing up in a lot of small offices where it performs admirably within it's intended range of functions. Unfortunately, Microdoft is discovering it's hard to sell a small office on the advantages of dropping semi-serious money on SBS or their stripped-down entry-level server products when you can score a tricked-out little gem like WHS for about $150. Network backups, storage media pooling, simple workable RAS, media server features, good system management tools that don't take an MS Certification to understand and use - what's not to like?

So it may be they were concerned about data/file integrity issues.  And who wouldn't with drive capacities now in excess of 2TB!? BUT... I still suspect it's at least partially motivated by the need to make WHS a little 'less good' than it currently is.

Just my tuppence anyway.  

[timns]

Does this mean that one day I'll auto-update my WHS and discover I've lost its most important features? 

[Stoic Joker]

Microdoft is discovering it's hard to sell a small office on the advantages of dropping semi-serious money on SBS or their stripped-down entry-level server products when you can score a tricked-out little gem like WHS for about $150. Network backups, storage media pooling, simple workable RAS, media server features, good system management tools that don't take an MS Certification to understand and use - what's not to like?

-40hz (December 02, 2010, 02:31 PM)

Ya gotta good point there - But Foundation Server 2008 is awfully cheap with entry level server hardware it's (approx) $600. The SOHOs that are jumping to WHS are workgroup/homegroup users that are actually upselling themselves to WHS by not using the (completely insane) working server model.

[40hz]

Does this mean that one day I'll auto-update my WHS and discover I've lost its most important features? 

-timns (December 02, 2010, 03:05 PM)

Probably not. Microsoft doesn't usually disable anything once it's installed, unlike say...an iPhone or a Kindle?

So updates shouldn't be a problem.

BUT it's a done deal that DriveExtender will disappear once you do an upgrade to a new version of WHS unless Microsoft rescinds its decision.
 

[timns]

Thanks for the reassurance. Who are these pinheads who make such idiotic decisions?

I've had a little 5TB backup thugummy running for about 18 months now and it's been rock-solid. I think I've only logged onto it directly a few times to fool around with the settings.

All my other PC's should be so reliable!

[40hz]

Microdoft is discovering it's hard to sell a small office on the advantages of dropping semi-serious money on SBS or their stripped-down entry-level server products when you can score a tricked-out little gem like WHS for about $150. Network backups, storage media pooling, simple workable RAS, media server features, good system management tools that don't take an MS Certification to understand and use - what's not to like?

-40hz (December 02, 2010, 02:31 PM)

Ya gotta good point there - But Foundation Server 2008 is awfully cheap with entry level server hardware it's (approx) $600. The SOHOs that are jumping to WHS are workgroup/homegroup users that are actually upselling themselves to WHS by not using the (completely insane) working server model.

-Stoic Joker (December 02, 2010, 03:32 PM)

Actually, the really big selling points I've seen for WHS-SOHO users are the network-based workstation backups and the slick implementation of remote access (where MS handles the DDNS part) if you don't have a fixed IP. I could sell a SOHO client on WHS with that alone.

The fact they could also stream music and video in the office with WHS was another big plus since most of these people effectively live in their place of business for the first ten years trying to make it a success.

So dumb as it may sound, you shouldn't overlook providing some 'entertainment' features for a smaller company network. SOHO businesses may even need such entertainment more than a home user would. I'd put this under the "mental health" heading on the requirements planning sheet. Right up there with realtime antivirus protection and automated backup.

It ain't just tunes, folks..it's Sanity Insurance!  

[40hz]

Who are these pinheads who make such idiotic decisions?

-timns (December 02, 2010, 03:48 PM)

Ultimately?

This guy.

Any questions?  

[superboyac]

Who are these pinheads who make such idiotic decisions?

-timns (December 02, 2010, 03:48 PM)

Ultimately?

This guy.

Any questions? 

-40hz (December 02, 2010, 04:11 PM)

Holy crap.  That's pretty crazy.

[40hz]

But Foundation Server 2008 is awfully cheap with entry level server hardware it's (approx) $600.

-Stoic Joker (December 02, 2010, 03:32 PM)

Agree. But when you get right down to it, it's little more (more?) than a glorified NAS. (Hello! Can you say Linux?) 

You could also run WHS on comparable hardware (especially now that Vail requires 64-bit) and get a whole lot more bang for the buck unless you see a looming need for what active directory can provide. For most small offices, AD is overkill. (And if AD glitches, it won't be something they'll be able to fix for themselves.)

Then there's the issue of needing CALs, which comes as a nasty shock to most first-time business server owners...

[40hz]

That's pretty crazy.

-superboyac (December 02, 2010, 04:22 PM)

Yes. 

[zridling]

Losing such a feature would be rough on Linux boys like me who prefer to keep their own data on one drive and the OS and apps on a separate drive. Upgrade the OS all day, data still intact. I even did that with Windows since the 90s!

[Stoic Joker]

But Foundation Server 2008 is awfully cheap with entry level server hardware it's (approx) $600.

-Stoic Joker (December 02, 2010, 03:32 PM)

Agree. But when you get right down to it, it's little more (more?) than a glorified NAS. (Hello! Can you say Linux?) 

-40hz (December 02, 2010, 04:29 PM)

I think you're missing my point regarding the target market. 90% of the SOHO's run either a straight workgroup (no server), or play Russian Roulette with the Working Server configuration. I'm sure you've seen these train wrecks; the boss's workstation is referred to by everyone in the office as the "server" ... and you usually get called there because it went tits up (on a Monday morning). Their "networks" are a kludge of off the shelf media machines and other misc. junk from BestBuy.

For these people (a real server is a complete nightmare/impossibility, but..) to get WHS, is an easy (price-point as you mentioned) upsell. They won't be anywhere near getting a real server until business/staff size increases...or their first catastrophic disk failure.

You could also run WHS on comparable hardware (especially now that Vail requires 64-bit) and get a whole lot more bang for the buck unless you see a looming need for what active directory can provide. For most small offices, AD is overkill. (And if AD glitches, it won't be something they'll be able to fix for themselves.)

-40hz (December 02, 2010, 04:29 PM)

Absolutely, but that's the difference between SOHO and SMB. SMB's have gotten large and complex enough to need the more advanced services like AD, DFS, and a real hardware RAID array. That's where Foundation server shines because you can have a reasonably solid domain controller/file server on minimal (way less money) hardware. As opposed to SBS which must be 64-bit and comes with Exchange which is a world of issues (most folks don't need/can't handle), and therefore requires much more substantial hardware to not completely suck.

On a side note, on a small network, if DNS is configured properly, the chance of AD glitching is extremely close to zero.

Then there's the issue of needing CALs, which comes as a nasty shock to most first-time business server owners...

-40hz (December 02, 2010, 04:29 PM)

That issue has pretty much been killed in Server 2008. If someone forgets to get their extra CALs (they do all come with 5), they'll never know the difference (unless they're audited). The whole license service/install licenses/event logs filling with CAL deficiencies errors crap has been completely removed.

[40hz]

@SJ- I think I may have failed to convey what I was trying to say.

I am very much in support of WHS as a SOHO server solution over using workgroups. I also meant Foundation was a glorified NAS if used exclusively in it's base role as a file/print server. That being said, any dedicated 'real' server is a far better choice than trying to run even the smallest business network without one.

I won't even start to comment on SBS since I feel it's a generally mis-marketed product. Don't know if it's true where you are, but from what I've seen it's not a good choice for about 75% of the businesses I've seen that bought it. Most would have been far better off with the standard server product
.

-///-

Re: AD

I agree if DNS is set up properly. But half the server issues I get called in on are the result of DNS configuration mistakes  So from my perspective, that's a pretty big if. I'm sure you've had your share of calls for that. Why so many company "computer gurus" feel the need to muck with DNS settings on a Windows server will always remain a mystery to me.

[Stoic Joker]

@SJ- I think I may have failed to convey what I was trying to say.

-40hz (December 02, 2010, 06:58 PM)

Not really, I think we're just trying to debate this from the same side (e.g. we agree)

I am very much in support of WHS as a SOHO server solution over using workgroups. I also meant Foundation was a glorified NAS if used exclusively in it's base role as a file/print server. That being said, any dedicated 'real' server is a far better choice than trying to run even the smallest business network without one.

-40hz (December 02, 2010, 06:58 PM)

Got that part, have not problem with it/agree.

I won't even start to comment on SBS since I feel it's a generally mis-marketed product. Don't know if it's true where you are, but from what I've seen it's not a good choice for about 75% of the businesses I've seen that bought it. Most would have been far better off with the standard server product.

-40hz (December 02, 2010, 06:58 PM)

Yepper, there too we are totally on the same page. I just hate seeing SBS shoehorned onto a single processor box with 2GB of RAM and a software RAID1 array, trying to run Exchange (in even a limited capacity) without exploding. Easily half on the machines potential is wasted on services nobody knows about, needs, or can use...But it's a catchy name that sells well if the sheep is properly (scared) primed.

That being said... The point I was originally driving at is that WHS being such a perfect fit for SOHOs doesn't need to be pulled away from, or made less atractive to the SOHO segment as it's the only really practicle (MS Product) for them.

Granted I could be completely daft, but... You seemed to be saying (originally) that DriveExtender was being pulled out of WHS to make it less atractive to the SOHO market that's what I've been driving at. Anybody with a budget desktop server budget (SOHOs...) is either going to with a straight workgroup *Shudder*, WHS, or a Linux flavored NAS box. So MS would be shooting themselves in the foot if they pushed SOHOs away from WHS.

I agree if DNS is set up properly. But half the server issues I get called in on are the result of DNS configuration mistakes  So from my perspective, that's a pretty big if. I'm sure you've had your share of calls for that. Why so many company "computer gurus" feel the need to muck with DNS settings on a Windows server will always remain a mystery to me.

-40hz (December 02, 2010, 06:58 PM)

Amen to that, if I ever find one of these people I'm going to tape that chapter of the manual to a brick and beat them with it. It's not that I mind picking up new clients who are astonished by how their network sprung to life when it was finally configured properly. It's just that AD is a freaking decade old now... Am I really expected to believe that none of these clowns had time to pickup and crack open a manual in ten years time?!?

Quotes I just know you've heard (that make me cringe too):
Why does the DHCP server keep shutting down and deactivating itself?
Why does it always take 10 minutes to get to the desktop from the logon screen?
Gee the server is really fast first thing in the morning, but after I check my webmail it gets really slow or doesn't respond at all.

And my all time favorite from the ones that think they know:
But the Primary DNS server (as listed in TCP/IP settings) is always checked first...Right?

[40hz]

 So MS would be shooting themselves in the foot if they pushed SOHOs away from WHS.

-Stoic Joker (December 02, 2010, 09:46 PM)

That, or pushing them towards 365 when it finally comes out.

For some reason, I keep getting the nagging feeling that MS ultimately wants to go over to a "software as a service" model of business for everyone but enterprise clients.

It would make sense. For one thing, it would effectively eliminate casual piracy. And it would also reduce support to requests on how to use an app as opposed to how to also get it (and the OS) to run correctly.

Lots of my clients are very interested in getting out from under supporting their own computing infrastructure. Several are actively exploring the viability of  "cloud" solutions for their desktop and data storage needs. Maybe they're a bit premature and buying into the industry buzz for where we currently are. But I'm sure it will all become very doable in the relatively near future.

Most have already outsourced their web hosting. About half have done the same with email and purchase transaction processing. So it's only a short psychological hop to the notion of pushing their servers and office apps up to a virtual world.  

In some respects this has parallels with the history of the personal computer. When PCs first came out, the old mainframe crowd dismissed them as unsuitable for 'real' computing. Quarter of a century later and the same thing is happening to the PC and local server world as web apps, virtualization, and clouds offer up a new vision of how to get things done.

And this time around, we already know how to do it. So it's just a matter of agreeing on "standards & protocols" - and getting enough infrastructure in place to make it happen. And where there's money to be made, the necessary investments will follow.

Gonna be an interesting five or so years coming up, that's for sure.  

----

P.S. Thanks for those quotes. ROFLMAO!   Especially that last one, which I actually heard a few weeks ago!

[Deozaan]

Who are these pinheads who make such idiotic decisions?

-timns (December 02, 2010, 03:48 PM)

Ultimately?

This guy.

Any questions?  

-40hz (December 02, 2010, 04:11 PM)

Yeah. Didn't he leave Microsoft a while back to go work for EA or something like that?

[40hz]

Who are these pinheads who make such idiotic decisions?

-timns (December 02, 2010, 03:48 PM)

Ultimately?

This guy.

Any questions? 

-40hz (December 02, 2010, 04:11 PM)

Yeah. Didn't he leave Microsoft a while back to go work for EA or something like that?

-Deozaan (December 03, 2010, 12:42 AM)

Nyet.

http://en.wikipedia....g/wiki/Steve_Ballmer     

[f0dder]

It's never good to see features go away, but is DriveExtender basically RAID JBOD? It sounds pretty alluring to just pop in a disk and have your pool extended, but ugh... JBOD is bad for your health. MS might actually be doing people a service here

[Stoic Joker]

 So MS would be shooting themselves in the foot if they pushed SOHOs away from WHS.

-Stoic Joker (December 02, 2010, 09:46 PM)

That, or pushing them towards 365 when it finally comes out.

For some reason, I keep getting the nagging feeling that MS ultimately wants to go over to a "software as a service" model of business for everyone but enterprise clients.

It would make sense. For one thing, it would effectively eliminate casual piracy. And it would also reduce support to requests on how to use an app as opposed to how to also get it (and the OS) to run correctly.

-40hz (December 02, 2010, 10:19 PM)

Damnit, much as I hate to I can easily see the logic there. SMB teetering on the brink of needing a full-time IT staff could put it off by shifting responsibility to cloud control, and SOHOs would be completely off-the-hook.

I'm not so sure about the casual piracy thing tho as it might actually make it easier for a time. No more registration or activation hassles, just share your login info with a few trusted friends and a whole office can run on a single account. Support...Now that one I gotta give you hands down.

Lots of my clients are very interested in getting out from under supporting their own computing infrastructure. Several are actively exploring the viability of  "cloud" solutions for their desktop and data storage needs. Maybe they're a bit premature and buying into the industry buzz for where we currently are. But I'm sure it will all become very doable in the relatively near future.

-40hz (December 02, 2010, 10:19 PM)

Mine too, but they're outsourcing it to us. However ironically We're using a cloud based solution to maintain it for them. Mind you the (totally brilliant) Kaseya solution we're using is hosted on our own internal servers - So It's My Cloud - But it is a cloud none-the-less.

Most have already outsourced their web hosting. About half have done the same with email and purchase transaction processing. So it's only a short psychological hop to the notion of pushing their servers and office apps up to a virtual world.

-40hz (December 02, 2010, 10:19 PM)

We've got one client (SMB doctors office) that is hosting their Email domain with Gmail. While it is nice given the free hosting of mail@your-domain it has so far proven to be about half as reliable as a coin toss. The web development company that did their site, and recommended the Gmail solution said that it worked fine for many of their clients. So I'm trying really hard to reserve judgment ... But it's becoming difficult (aliases fail, MX record lookups fail, etc.).

In some respects this has parallels with the history of the personal computer. When PCs first came out, the old mainframe crowd dismissed them as unsuitable for 'real' computing. Quarter of a century later and the same thing is happening to the PC and local server world as web apps, virtualization, and clouds offer up a new vision of how to get things done.

-40hz (December 02, 2010, 10:19 PM)

Well if PCs go boot to web thin client we'd pretty much be full circle back to the (neo-retro) cloud mainframe.
 

Gonna be an interesting five or so years coming up, that's for sure. 

-40hz (December 02, 2010, 10:19 PM)

*Shudder* Yep... 

[Stoic Joker]

is DriveExtender basically RAID JBOD?

-f0dder (December 03, 2010, 06:52 AM)

No, it has built in redundancy and deduplication features so you can "safely" blow and replace a drive without losing any data. Granted to the end user it behaves like JBOD but it's much more under the hood.

[f0dder]

is DriveExtender basically RAID JBOD?

-f0dder (December 03, 2010, 06:52 AM)

No, it has built in redundancy and deduplication features so you can "safely" blow and replace a drive without losing any data. Granted to the end user it behaves like JBOD but it's much more under the hood.

-Stoic Joker (December 03, 2010, 07:06 AM)

Ah, OK - might be a loss after all, then

[40hz]

One thing I find very amusing is how cavalier Microsoft is about dropping Drive Extender when they still have this page (Aug 2008) up on TechNet. There the HS Team extols the virtues of their approach - and argue that RAID is not a "consumer technology."

Last weekend I found some blog posts by a blogger who calls himself "Fear the Cowboy" discussing some of the more severe technical limitations that RAID (especially RAID 5) has compared to Windows Home Server Drive Extender.  Check out his posts here.

His posts got me motivated to write this one, which I've been meaning to do for quite some time...

When we were thinking of building the Windows Home Server product and doing focus groups we'd ask consumers "what do you know about RAID".  Uniformly the answer was (at least in the U.S.) "Oh, that's a insect repellant".

Geeks & IT professionals know RAID stands for "Redundant Array of Independent Disks" and is a storage technology widely used in the corporate IT world.

Those same geeks, when encountering Windows Home Server for the first time, often ask the question "Why doesn't Windows Home Server use RAID?".  The simplest answer is RAID sucks as the basis for a consumer storage product.  But, my PR team would rather I not say it in such a negative way. Instead, they want me to say something positive like:

    "Windows Home Server is a consumer product that provides an amazingly powerful yet super-simple to use solution to centralizing a mutli-PC household's storage. Windows Home Server includes a new, revolutionary storage technology we call Windows Home Server Drive Extender that kicks RAID's butt."

Or something like that.

Which raises the question: If it so "kicked butt" back in 2008, why is it getting its butt kicked out in 2010? ("Enquiring minds want to know...")

Better read it before the page disappears!   Link here.


----

On a mildly hopeful note: Endgadget reports Steve "Monkey-Boy" Ballmer has indicated he will "look into" the issue in light of all the complaints now circulating. And while there's a good chance this will mean about as much as a diplomat's smile, at least it serves to show that the Big Guy is aware of the issue. Read it here.

Hey Steve! This is for you:

Spoiler

Microsoft's dropped feature is Linux's gain

Onward!