WHS Vail

[mmanville]

Thanks for the reply, st[r]anger.

OK, I think I finally get it, the issue seems to be missing files to enable media playing "desktop experience." However I wonder if there won't be a workaround for this for Vail, as it is based upon 2008 R2. There is an entire site/community at www.win2008r2workstation.com that has already figured out how to get the "Desktop Eperience" (including Media Player) working on the two current versions of Windows Server 2008.

[sic0048]

I guess only time will tell since there is no SageTV for WHS Vail yet.

[stanger89]

If you don't want to user your machine as a Server, ie if you want to run "desktop" or media apps on it, then a server OS is just not the right choice, simple as that.

You may be able to get it working if you screw with enough stuff, but IMO it's not worth it.

[mmanville]

Originally Posted by stanger89

If you don't want to user your machine as a Server, ie if you want to run "desktop" or media apps on it, then a server OS is just not the right choice, simple as that.

You may be able to get it working if you screw with enough stuff, but IMO it's not worth it.

You're entitled to your opinion. But the link I gave in my last post above is to a whole community of people who disagree with you, concerning Windows 2008 Server, and actually did something about it.

[stanger89]

And their entitled to their opinion as well, but I've watched a friend fight Server 2008 (not sure if it's R2 or not), trying to get Sage and a Hauppauge tuner to work and I don't know if he ever actually succeeded. IMO it's not worth it when you can just install Windows 7 instead and be done with it.

What functionality are you looking for that you think you need to run a Server OS in a desktop/HTPC environment.

FWIW, I run Server 2003 for my Sage server, but it's headless and doesn't play a thing. From what I've seen it's gotten worse with Server 2008. My friend had troubles just getting the tuners to work that I never did. So I'd say Server 2008/Vail will make things harder rather than easier.

[PGPfan]

I absolutely agree with Stanger! The site you linked shows lots of examples of 'jury-rigging' the OS to behave as a workstation. Nobody here said it couldn't be done, same as nobody here recommends it. At best, you 'could' get it to work, but then you get to 'enjoy' maintaining it every time MS releases a service pack or update that 'repairs' everything you've spent hours jury-rigging to work. It's up to you to decide if your time is worth that hassle.

-PGPfan

[mmanville]

Thank you all for your advice. I think you are missing my point though stanger, which is limiting the usefulness of the discussion. I am not trying to "run a Server OS in a desktop/HTPC environment." I am trying to figure out how to occasionally run a HTPC client app on a Server OS ("environment").

Look, the answer may be to just drop another $200 and plop and HD200 right on top of my server box so I can occasionally watch something on that basement HDTV. Or the answer may be that we just don't watch much anything on that HDTV because I won't do it enough to make it worth the $ to me to add that capability (that's the state I am in right now, it only has xbox (w/dvd player) connected to it, it only gets used for DVD playback and gaming. If two of us want to watch something at same time, one has to go to the bedroom and watch on a smaller screen there). But since I'll have a box right there and already running, it doesn't seem that unnatural to wonder "can I get the services installed to enable media playback on this box too? Has anyone else done that?"

Questions I have now pursued, and gotten clear answers to. Thanks all for your time, the feedback was helpful!

[WarlordBB]

mmanville: I'm with in spirit on the "can't we just answer the question" situation, sometimes we all want to swim upstream just to see if we can. I'm glad you got your answers to your questions.

For future viewers considering the same thing as mmanville, I thought I'd share my experience real quick because I've done exactly what that site suggested for the last several months on my work system.

I can tell you this, knowing what I know now, and the fact that Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 are so much alike, for SageTV use, install Windows 7 and get on with your life. Trying to use Windows Server 2008 R2 like mmanville was explaining is not swimming upstream, it's _trying_ to swim upstream with no arms and with a cement block tied to your ankle. There's just no sense in:



Having said that, I am planning to use Windows Server 2008 R2 as my SageTV _server_. However, I plan to do so by installing Hyper V and running WHS and "Vail" (WHSv2).

[mmanville]

Originally Posted by WarlordBB

Trying to use Windows Server 2008 R2 like mmanville was explaining is not swimming upstream, it's _trying_ to swim upstream with no arms and with a cement block tied to your ankle. There's just no sense in:



Having said that, I am planning to use Windows Server 2008 R2 as my SageTV _server_. However, I plan to do so by installing Hyper V and running WHS and "Vail" (WHSv2).

LOL. Or maybe it's cruel to laugh, I should cry on your behalf. Reports from the front was exactly what I was looking for!

[stanger89]

What Server 2008/WHS functionality are you looking for? I'm still trying to figure out why you don't want to just run Windows 7.

[SWKerr]

I am about to upgrade the main server in my house to something a little more robust. After seeing the list of changes set for WHS I am not sure why I just don't use Windows7 with the new build.

I don't use duplicate because I backup everything to a disk that is not in the pool using Sync toy.
I liked the idea of having a disk I could easily read in any other PC if necessary but it appears that is going away.
WHS does not support a Raid 1\Mirror setup for my boot disk. Appears it still wont.
Still no MCE integration (Not sure I really cared but why not. I mean automatic copy of my recording to the server?)

I can't see anything Vail will have that I can't add to Win7 with cheap available software. Win7 supports RAID and has network shares which is all a really need.

What is the compelling argument for WHS over Win7 except for it is setup to run headless.

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by SWKerr

What is the compelling argument for WHS over Win7 except for it is setup to run headless.

My limited understanding of server software is that it is meant to be running 24/7 where desktop os's aren't. I could be completely wrong though. I've never had any trouble running XP or server 2k3 on my server so I'm not sure how much truth there is to that.

I've given up on WHS. I don't like the idea of a drive pool that may or may not work in a new version. That is a very good way to make all of you happy customer very unhappy. That, and I've read that the automated backup of connected computers isn't all that reliable.

I just want a server to be stable, backup my connected computeres, store all of my files (which is where raid 6 will come in), and run all of the applications I need it to run without any problems. Is that so much to ask?

[bialio]

What is the compelling argument for WHS over Win7 except for it is setup to run headless.

I'm not sure if these are compelling or not but WHS allows :

1) Manages backups of all computers at home
2) Allows remote access to files on the WHS shares
3) Allows remote RDP access to any computers at home that support RDP

I am using Vail currently for all the above, plus it hosts most of my imported sage video library (BD, DVD, etc). I don't know that it is any better than WHS v1 yet at serving up media files, but for accessing my home network from the outside world it's very slick.

btl.

[Skirge01]

Originally Posted by panteragstk

My limited understanding of server software is that it is meant to be running 24/7 where desktop os's aren't. I could be completely wrong though. I've never had any trouble running XP or server 2k3 on my server so I'm not sure how much truth there is to that.

I'd agree with this. I'd much rather have a stripped down OS running reliably 24/7, so that it's drawing as little power as possible when not much is going on. My other reason for wanting a server OS is because I'm less likely to mess with it. For example, it doesn't easily play back video, so I won't be lazy and play something back on the server simply because I don't want to switch to the real PC.

I've given up on WHS. I don't like the idea of a drive pool that may or may not work in a new version. That is a very good way to make all of you happy customer very unhappy.

For that very reason, I'd be surprised if MS doesn't release some sort of tool to migrate your drive pool. We're still early in the beta cycle, so I'm not shocked that there's no talk of it yet. The tech may still change dramatically enough to make such a tool useless at RTM time.

That, and I've read that the automated backup of connected computers isn't all that reliable.

I've been running WHS for quite some time now and the automated backup works beautifully on my XP box, and both my Windows 7 machines. I've also restored from backup (full computer, as well as just files) several times. If WHS wasn't reliable, I wouldn't be running it.

I just want a server to be stable, backup my connected computeres, store all of my files (which is where raid 6 will come in), and run all of the applications I need it to run without any problems. Is that so much to ask?

Nope... and there's an OS for that (save for your RAID6 sidenote): WHS.

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by Skirge01

I've been running WHS for quite some time now and the automated backup works beautifully on my XP box, and both my Windows 7 machines. I've also restored from backup (full computer, as well as just files) several times. If WHS wasn't reliable, I wouldn't be running it.

The backups are reliable? That is good to know. I really like the ability to view files over the internet. I had forgotten about that.

I think I'd use WHS if there is a way to disable the drive pool on select drives. I could see myself using old drives for backups if there was a way to do it. I remember reading about not adding drives to the pool.

I'll install XP on my future server build (like in two weeks) until vail comes out. I know people have had success with the current whs, I just want MS to not mess things up as far as drive extender are concerned. That, and I've been reading a lot about RAID and RAID6 seems to be the most reliable. Provided that you can migrate the array if your raid card dies.

There are just too many what ifs for me. Why must everything be so complicated?

[bialio]

The drive pool only includes the drives you tell it to. The only thing you have to really do which is a pain is unplug everything but the system drive when you install because WHS doesn't always use the drive you think it should.

btl.

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by bialio

The drive pool only includes the drives you tell it to. The only thing you have to really do which is a pain is unplug everything but the system drive when you install because WHS doesn't always use the drive you think it should.

btl.

Thanks for the info. I try and unplug everything but the os drive when installing just to make sure I don't do something stupid. On paper WHS seems awesome, I just worry about losing data. After seeing what other's have had to do to get their data back I am leaning toward a nice hardware raid setup. I've lost lots of data before so I know how that feels. I'm getting to a point to where I have to do something to back up all of my stuff or I will really regret losing my data. Granted, everything is backed up on discs, but that is the failsafe. Unless I lose them they are there.

Have you tried to see how sage reacts to vail? Vail seems to be exactly what I'm looking for so I'm going to get as much info as possible before making a commitment.

[Skirge01]

Based on my experience with both RAID and WHS, I'd say your chances of losing data are practically the same for both. Each has their own nuances which need to be taken into consideration when you do something with the setup and each are equally as likely to cause you to lose data. Due to that and WHS being cheaper to implement (versus a very costly RAID6 card), WHS wins hands down in my book.

[bialio]

I agree. If you decide to use Vail, I wouldn't put the only copy of important data in the storage pool yet - just to be safe. I would feel safe putting important data on the storage pool in WHS v1.

btl.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Skirge01

Due to that and WHS being cheaper to implement (versus a very costly RAID6 card), WHS wins hands down in my book.

Might be cheaper to get started, but if redundancy is your goal, Duplication (ala the WHS Pool) gets quite expensive very quickly, and before you get too many drives it easily begins costing more than even a rather expensive RAID controller. Not to mention the logistics of managing the extra drives.