backtop


Print 63 comment(s) - last by bgm063.. on Mar 14 at 1:12 AM


The Windows Home Server continues to eat up files, but it appears that this product's very hungry bug isn't going to turn into a butterfly and fly away anytime soon.  (Source: Microsoft)
The very hungry Windows Home Server continues to whet its appetite on unfortunate users files as the scope of the problem grows and grows

Like the children's book, The Very Hungry Caterpillar, the scope of the Windows Home Server bug simply grew and grew as it ate its way through users' files.  Although Microsoft promised that a solution would be made available to resolve the current issues, a full fix will not be available until at least June 2008.

What was once an attractive home service solution with a wealth of hardware partners has, in essence, become an unsightly pest for many.  Until a solution is found, use of WHS brings with it serious risks of data corruption -- something many consider to be a cardinal sin of networking hardware or software.

One DailyTech reader, Tim Slocum from Roscoe, Illinois, contacted us a couple weeks back with a rather incredible personal story of data loss, which he hoped would serve as a warning to others. 
Slocum was an eager WHS user and states that he copied 16,000+ family pictures and videos to the system.  Around Christmas he discovered that many of these files had become corrupted.  He rebuilt and reformatted the system, only to experience unpleasantly surprising results.

Slocum states in an email to DailyTech, "I then reformatted and rebuilt the system with NO ADD-INS or extra software. Copied all photos to the server, setup PC backups, and let the system sit with no usage because of the lack of trust. This weekend I again noticed photos are now corrupted."

Slocum acknowledges that a family member who works for MS as a consultant has had no issues that he knows of, though he planned on emailing him to verify this.  Slocum adds  that while not a "real techie" he is fairly knowledgeable.  He states, "I have been a developer for over 20 years ... last 2-3 have been moving into VB.NET.  So I have some knowledge of testing and have built PC's in the past."

Having worked hard to stabilize his system,
Slocum plans to continue his efforts with a third build, turning off file duplication, which reportedly may affect the likelihood of occurrence.  Tim feels that WHS is a promising product, but Microsoft is failing to take its issues seriously enough. 

The really surprising part of
Slocum's story at the time DailyTech received it was that he did not edit the files.  While some users had alleged corruption on transfers in unverified reports floating around the internet, previously, Microsoft stated that corruption only occurred when editing files.

Now Microsoft says the problem is that the underpinnings of WHS are broken, and that a fix is required at a very low level.  This will take a good deal of time to develop and validate, according to the WHS Team at Microsoft.  The WHS Team hopes to release beta versions of a patch over following months, but states that June is the soonest a finished patch might appear.

The WHS Team also warns that some users are mistaking other problems for the issue.  Says the Team, "Some of the instances that were initially attributed to this issue ended up being something else, such as a faulty network card/driver, old routers with outdated firmware, or people incorrectly testing the limits of their home servers."

However the Team did not rule that the WHS may have other problems causing trouble on a low level, though they state that they feel very confident that they understand the underlying issue that’s currently causing the main known problem.

And it turns out that
Slocum was correct -- the knowledgebase article has just been updated to encompass file transfers.  The new knowledge base article also has additional information on the cause -- how the NFTS file system, the cache, and the memory manager can get out of whack and beginning eating up user data.  The article explains it thusly:

Windows Home Server uses a file system mini-filter driver in addition to the NTFS file system to implement Shared Folders storage technology. File system mini-filter drivers are an extensibility mechanism that is provided by Windows to enable storage scenarios. For distributing data across the different hard drives that are managed by Windows Home Server, the Windows Home Server mini-filter driver redirects I/O between files that are stored on the main hard drive and files that are stored on other hard drives. This redirection mechanism is enabled only when Windows Home Server is managing the Shared Folder storage of multiple physical hard drives. A bug has been discovered in the redirection mechanism which, in certain cases, depending on application use patterns, timing, and workload, may cause interactions between NTFS, the Memory Manager, and the Cache Manager to get out of sync.

A link to a full technical page on the situation can be found here.

While the Windows Home Server Team is working hard to have a fix ready by summer time, in the meantime WHS users are left with the unpleasant reality that editing or storing files on the server may lead to corruption.  And with the scope of the flaws in WHS's low level file handling growing weekly, like a certain hungry caterpillar; it leaves one to wonder whether there are more aspects of the problem yet to be discovered.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

QC Anybody
By scoprio487 on 3/12/2008 12:04:24 AM , Rating: 3
How in the heck did a "bug" this big get past QC? This is supposed to be a sever os, doesn't software used in a sever have to go through more rigorous testing and validation? Sombody needs to really wake up and smell the coffee.




RE: QC Anybody
By noirsoft on 3/12/2008 12:16:59 AM , Rating: 3
Because the bug is extremely rare and happens almost never to almost nobody? It sounds like you have to get to a really special-case scenario in order to enact the bug. From the reports, MS had not even been able to replicate the bug. Perhaps they have now, and the extended report.

I use my WHS all the time (with replication across 2 drives) and have yet to see the problem. That is as valid as the one reported failure above.


RE: QC Anybody
By hopsandmalt on 3/12/2008 2:06:04 AM , Rating: 3
This is what I thought as well. I run WHS with 7 computers throughout my house. I never had any problems until one day when I logged in to do bills and found that my Quicken files were corrupted.

Now I do have about 70 gig of music on my WHS and with teens in the house it is streamed constantly. We have never had any problems with that at all.

So... It appears that it doesnt like Quicken. Thats for sure.

Andrew


RE: QC Anybody
By OpaqueBubble on 3/12/2008 6:40:16 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft has clearly stated since December that no files should be directly edited on the server, and specifically mentions Quicken. You were warned!


RE: QC Anybody
By mindless1 on 3/12/2008 10:57:28 PM , Rating: 3
Unless I missed a memo or something, Dailytech is not a distribution point for MS bugtracking to end users.

MS should have IMMEDIATELY set up a patch that warns users and limits the potential for corruption, even completely locking acess to the files if that's all they can get done on a moment's notice, rather than allow a potentially damaging access.

What MS is doing appears to be closer to treating your data as if it's an acceptible loss, leaving it in jeopardy every day, after week, after month. Were WHS boxes and license sales pulled from shelves and vendors? What exactly is MS doing to limit further data loss from existing and future customers henceforth until the problem(s) are fixed? I'd be pretty pissed if I bought a product already known to corrupt files using the advertised feature sets, if that's not clearly defective and grounds for a lawsuit then what would be?


RE: QC Anybody
By JustTom on 3/12/2008 4:00:13 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
MS had not even been able to replicate the bug.


Well actually they have replicated the bug. This was reported on back in December. They even have a pretty good handle on what is causing it.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946676/en-us

This has happened to me. My clumsy workaround is I just don't edit files on the server. When I am done working with a file I then copy it over. This is a little bit of a hardship since my wife and I work on the same files all the time, so we are back to thumbsticks and sneakernets.


RE: QC Anybody
By TheDoc9 on 3/12/2008 11:24:40 AM , Rating: 2
Never make excuses for a company, this is a HUGE issue and could cause serious problems for people. It's more likely that managers were over pressured, likely having too small of a testing team and decided to put green checks on all the test case scenarios to meet their deadline. Happens all the time in many software companies.
What people don't understand is how late that these development and test teams might stay every day and they still can't get these things under control without more time, but the deadline remains the same.


RE: QC Anybody
By cochy on 3/12/2008 11:32:58 AM , Rating: 2
If this bug is extremely rare and happens to almost nobody why do all the headlines state that WHS is "broken". Broken to me means unusable. Either the headlines are blowing this problem way out of proportion or this isn't as rare a bug as you say.


RE: QC Anybody
By BMFPitt on 3/12/2008 1:19:56 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Broken to me means unusable.
The primary purpose of the product is to store your files. It cannot be trusted to do so. This makes it unusable as a file server.


RE: QC Anybody
By Gholam on 3/12/2008 4:43:55 PM , Rating: 3
The headlines ARE blowing this out of proportion, read the real story here:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=348

It's just that Microsoft is given less slack than, well, pretty much any company out there. Sun, for instance, can ship a data corruption bug in OS meant for highest-end datacenters, and it'll only get a passing mention in very specialized sites. Microsoft, it'll get blown all over the internet.


RE: QC Anybody
By BMFPitt on 3/12/2008 9:41:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sun, for instance, can ship a data corruption bug in OS meant for highest-end datacenters, and it'll only get a passing mention in very specialized sites. Microsoft, it'll get blown all over the internet.
DailyTech is a specialized site. 90% of people have never even heard of WHS, and I'm sure far fewer know about his issue. And that's for a consumer product. People who get tech news from mainstream sources have never heard of Sun.


RE: QC Anybody
By Shoal07 on 3/12/2008 12:03:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Because the bug is extremely rare and happens almost never to almost nobody?


Correct. Also, if you only have one drive IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GET CORRUPTED DATA. I shut my 2 drive system down to 1 until June. Guess what, I can edit on the server all day long with any progam and never worry. YOU MUST HAVE MORE THAT 1 DRIVE.

FYI - I was running two drives until yesterday and never had an issue. I only shut down to one, honestly, because sensationaist articles like this by half-baked bloggers like the above.


RE: QC Anybody
By OpaqueBubble on 3/12/2008 6:37:41 AM , Rating: 3
The majority of users do not have any problems with WHS - the conditions for this to occur are rare. This article is way over the top and overblown as usual from this "writer"


RE: QC Anybody
By PAPutzback on 3/12/2008 9:59:35 AM , Rating: 1
It is an OS not a shareware app. It can't be overblown. If Amazon's database became corrupt because the OS messed up would you think that was a non issue. You have to be on the WHS team to be so blind to such a critical flaw.


RE: QC Anybody
By OpaqueBubble on 3/12/2008 12:30:11 PM , Rating: 3
Nobody said it was a non-issue - it is definitely way overblown and MS has given workarounds.


RE: QC Anybody
By deeznuts on 3/12/2008 1:05:11 PM , Rating: 1
OpaqueBubble,

so how long have you been on the WHS team and how bad are you guys getting reamed over this right now?


RE: QC Anybody
By PAPutzback on 3/12/2008 1:56:52 PM , Rating: 1
Not to mention file corruption when the server does its automated updates, issues with Avast Antivirus, failed backups via wireless pcs.

I understand they had to release the O.S. at some point in time to get the bugs reported from the larger audience but loss of data is not a bug. This O.S. is crippled.


RE: QC Anybody
By OpaqueBubble on 3/12/2008 3:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry to disappoint you but I have nothing to do with MS. I am just a very happy user of WHS.
I have not had any corruption problems, or problems backing up wireless PC's. In fact my WHS has performed perfectly. I have used it on more than one occasion to recover from some accidents (self made) on client PC's (3 Vista PC's).
I am a software developer, myself and I suppose I sympathize more than perhaps I should, but I feel that the WHS team will fix this bug and if it's done in June then that's fine as long as it's done right.
When I got my EX475 in November I did not put all of my jpg's or music library on the WHS without ensuring that I had other backup means for all "precious" files. This was even before this bug was uncovered. This just seemed like common sense to me.
I do sympathize with folks who lost their files, but I feel that MS gave valid workarounds and "not to do"'s to avoid the bug.


RE: QC Anybody
By bhieb on 3/12/2008 11:36:53 AM , Rating: 2
Is it? How many issues of this scope, regardless of rarity, would be ok for a server OS? Would it be ok if this happened on Server 2003/2008? Just because it is for home use does not make the data less valuable, nor does it make this somehow not a server. This is a server and failures of this kind (even if rare), should not be tolerated.

That said the article does come off a little alarmist.


RE: QC Anybody
By encryptkeeper on 3/12/2008 8:54:46 AM , Rating: 2
For years people in the tech community have been saying that MS rushes products to the market and uses the public as free beta testers, and I think this is probably proof of our suspicion. Over time, they've probably gotten to be more and more half-assed when it came to rigorous testing.

"Some of the instances that were initially attributed to this issue ended up being something else, such as a faulty network card/driver, old routers with outdated firmware, or people incorrectly testing the limits of their home servers."

Wait a minute. How often is old, outdated equipment used in office buildings, homes, schools, and government facilities and it does NOT lead to data corruption?


RE: QC Anybody
By darkpaw on 3/12/2008 10:25:55 AM , Rating: 2
Not that I'm defending MS for this big of a bug, but considering this product was designed for controlled pre-built systems it is different from a typical OS. The OEM version wasn't even going to be released initially, they did it due to demand and it was pretty much clear that you were on your own with it.

WHS is not designed to be a general purpose OS that runs on any old hardware.

That said, I'm of the opinion that any data corruption bug (even if only 1% of users are effected) should be a very high priority to be fixed.


RE: QC Anybody
By bhieb on 3/12/2008 11:43:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
WHS is not designed to be a general purpose OS that runs on any old hardware.


Acutally it is specifically designed to do just that. Why else would you have a suedo-raid that can dynamically expand and collapse with different size/speed drives (heck even different interfaces). The hardware requirements are very loose, and it really is desinged to run on any old machine.

However if your argument is true then they never should have realeased it, thus proving the "rushed to market" theory.


RE: QC Anybody
By Gholam on 3/12/2008 12:20:23 PM , Rating: 2
Wait a minute. How often is old, outdated equipment used in office buildings, homes, schools, and government facilities and it does NOT lead to data corruption?

Not that rarely. I've personally seen an HP Smart Array 5i controller eat a RAID5 array on a server used by a government agency - and latest backup they had was 4 months old because that was when the tape drive broke down.


RE: QC Anybody
By ToeCutter on 3/13/2008 2:33:58 PM , Rating: 2
More importantly, how is it that MS is looking at old equipment causing the bug instead of their broken code.

Says volumes about MS attitude towards coding:

"It can't be our code that's causing problems, check everyone else's first!"


RE: QC Anybody
By GreenEnvt on 3/12/2008 9:41:55 AM , Rating: 2
As other have said, it's pretty rare.
I have been running since the day it was released, and the only issue I've had is some bittorrent downloads are corrupt. We stream video's off of the WHS to our Media center every day, and no issues there. We have a blogging site hosted on our server, it's also been rock steady.
Webguide running too, no problems.


RE: QC Anybody
By Gholam on 3/12/2008 4:40:57 PM , Rating: 2
You can run BitTorrent (uTorrent client) on WHS in service mode, and there's an add-in that plugs its interface into the console. Only thing you have to do is to put the temp files folder outside the duplicated shares.


RE: QC Anybody
By Gholam on 3/12/2008 4:39:13 PM , Rating: 2
You might want to present that question to Sun, who shipped ZFS with a data corruption bug present:

http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2008/J...


RE: QC Anybody
By ToeCutter on 3/13/2008 2:39:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You might want to present that question to Sun, who shipped ZFS with a data corruption bug present


Why? No one mentioned Sun's ZFS bug here because no one here is using Solaris to store their pics, movies, music, etc!

WHS is targeted towards non-technical users; you can buy them at B&M retails stores.

I'm still astonished at how many here have a "don't worry about it" attitude towards this issue. If those folks can live with it, fine.

But it's certainly no reason to defend WHS as an excellent storage platform to entrust your data with. That suggestion is simply reckless and ignorant.


Have no fear WHS users!
By phatboye on 3/12/2008 3:01:36 AM , Rating: 2
To all of those affected by bugs in the WHS software never fret. You can still get your home server up and running using a free (free as in beer) operating system. Just point your browser over to www.distrowatch.com and pick from the many capable Operating Systems that are available, at least until MS gets the bugs ironed out of WHS.




RE: Have no fear WHS users!
By phatboye on 3/12/2008 3:11:17 AM , Rating: 2
opps It appears I said that wrong. I should have said Free as in Freedom.


RE: Have no fear WHS users!
By darkpaw on 3/12/2008 10:28:43 AM , Rating: 2
Yah, except the target audience for WHS would never be able to setup linux in a way that gave them similar functionality.


RE: Have no fear WHS users!
By phatboye on 3/12/2008 10:40:15 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah I guess you are right, I've never been able to corrupt data on my nix machines.

Those who wish can use broken software all they want, for the others who value their files I'd suggest switching, at least till MS fixes their software.


RE: Have no fear WHS users!
By kkwst2 on 3/12/2008 11:47:17 AM , Rating: 2
Don't you mean nux?

It's actually not broken if you only use one drive. Admittedly, that's a huge limitation for a server system. I was planning on building a WHS machine, but will now wait until this is ironed out. All the stuff I want to put on it won't fit in 1TB.

Can you set up your Linux server to backup all your systems automatically but not duplicate identical files? I suspect not. This to me is a big feature.

Can you seamlessly stream your entire media collection to an Xbox? You probably can, but it's not built in and certainly not trivial to do.

I've used Linux a fair amount. My cluster runs Linux. It's still not for the everyday user, especially trying to set up a server.

That's great if it works for you. But suggesting it as a solution for the masses is either naive or trollish.


RE: Have no fear WHS users!
By kzrssk on 3/12/2008 11:25:09 AM , Rating: 2
Editing text files all day and stopping, starting, and restarting services with cryptic terminal commands is not my idea of streamlined PC experience. Once a Linux distribution can wizard and GUI-ize everything to just work with a few clicks, I think Linux will be ready for prime-time.

Case in point (Windows): I know how to set NTFS and share permissions, set up accounts, restrict them to logon only from the network, etc. I hate doing it. Simple File Sharing is the best thing ever for the home. There are, what, two checkboxes to deal with? It would take me a few minutes to do it the long way. Simple File Sharing lets me do it in a few seconds.

I want to see this kind of ease-of-use in Linux.


RE: Have no fear WHS users!
By phatboye on 3/12/2008 12:33:37 PM , Rating: 2
You are correct in that setting up and using nix boxes just aren't as easy and straight-forward as is the case with windows boxes. There is a compromise to be made when dealing with servers in this case: using a product that is easy to use, or just using a product that works. To be honest I really don't understand why any of you can sit here and defend MS for releasing a product that violates the first rule of server software, to keep the files intact.

Also I never advertised in my original post as using *nix software as a total replacement to MS software. If you read my post you can clearly see that I am only advertising the software as a temporary solution, at least until MS gets their software fixed.

I do agree there is quite a steep learning curve to learning to deal with *nix OSes, it's really not as bad as people make it out to be. And the fact that we are talking about people who use WHS, we are probably not talking about complete noobs, but people who may have at least a little (maybe even more) knowledge about how computers work in general. I honestly don't think they will have a hard time adopting to a new environment if they are open minded and have the desire to learn new things. Hell, I'm in no way the brightest star in the sky and if I can figure it out I'm sure anyone can.


RE: Have no fear WHS users!
By BMFPitt on 3/12/2008 1:31:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just point your browser over to www.distrowatch.com and pick from the many capable Operating Systems that are available, at least until MS gets the bugs ironed out of WHS.
So a few questions...

How do I go about streaming videos to my XBox 360?
What menu sets up the remote file access without having to deal with any DNS info for my dynamic IP?
Is there a tool that runs in my Windows system tray that keeps me updated of the status of my automated nightly backups?

I'd also prefer that the setup for all of this functionality take less than 5 minutes.


ALso
By TomCorelis on 3/12/2008 12:00:43 AM , Rating: 2
Also, a heads up: if families with WHS have a student in the house, or know a student, period... have him/her sign up for Microsoft Dreamspark. They get a whole bunch of goodies for free, including Windows Server 2003 Standard. I'd suggest using that instead of WHS, at least until its fixed.




RE: ALso
By Crucial on 3/12/2008 12:54:19 AM , Rating: 3
Server 2003 isn't really useful for anyone looking to replicate the functionality of WHS. The only thing you'll be using it for is to store data and you can do that with any windows xp or vista box.


RE: ALso
By wetwareinterface on 3/13/2008 4:47:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Server 2003 isn't really useful for anyone looking to replicate the functionality of WHS. The only thing you'll be using it for is to store data and you can do that with any windows xp or vista box.


why isn't it useful?
spanning hard drives? that's data storage related so what elese is there that's all that important on whs?
access to your files across the internet?
IIS and there are templates for accessing user files for asp you can download and use.
incremental backup?
server 2003 can do incremetnal backup or re-backup all files period whatever you want.

or you could step it up a notch from whs and ...
act as a domain controller and use active directory
run a web server
run an email server
do clustering
do a distributed file system among several server 2003 boxes and add drives based on how many ide/sata ports you can keep adding using cheaper consumer level add in cards and use old freebie motherboards and less expensive power supplies to do it cheaper than mega upgrading a single machine to do whs and be able to add 20 drives if you need it.
etc...

server 2003 has it's own advantages too. the whole spanning drives thing always seemed like a negative to me anyway. if i start running out of room on my win 2003 server i just add another server to the domain and put all the new storage there and that adds my storage on the fly for me and adds data redundancy. there is a cost associated with this in hardware and os but i have a volume license that was provided for work purposes and so i just add away. for a home user you'd be better off adding a linux distro that speaks samba and doing sym links to new storage volumes inside linux to avoid the server 2003 cost issues. but the same principle applies as far as adding more cheaper hardware to handle more drives for mega high drive counts.

and if you're wondering right now my storage network is around 14 terrabytes in size across 5 machines. i have a lot of video i recorded in media center and a huge dvd backup library as well as a lot of other material to store as i do a lot of backups for people as it's part of what i do. whs has some good ideas for easy home usage but the same level of expertise it takes to manage home server can manage server 2003 as a domain controller with a few linux / samba simple file sharing storage boxes


RE: ALso
By imaheadcase on 3/12/2008 2:57:13 AM , Rating: 2
Well it only effects a SMALL PORTION of WHS users, the article acts like its a big deal.

It even only effects a small portion of people that use the programs listed..most of zero problems using said software.


RE: ALso
By encryptkeeper on 3/12/2008 9:02:55 AM , Rating: 2
So since it only affects a small number of users we should just ignore it? You can't just say that since it only affects a few people it's not something to worry about. If it affects a large number of people but not a serious error, shouldn't they correct that as well? Or will you just say, "Oh your valuable information isn't being destroyed, so you can just wait." People pay good money for the software and they should get their money's worth. Plus it's in MS's best interests to get this fixed in a hurry (June?????WTF?) after a string of problems with the 360 and Vista.


RE: ALso
By deeznuts on 3/12/2008 1:09:26 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't matter how many people it affects. If it's not user error, it's broken. Plain and simple.

Next thing you know these same people defending WHS is going to tell us RROD is a myth, because it hasn't happened to them.


unbelieveable
By TomCorelis on 3/11/2008 11:58:11 PM , Rating: 2
WHS is built on Server 2003.

Server 2003 does not have this problem, otherwise millions of businesses would be in big trouble. In my previous job, I administered a handful of Win2003 servers, and consider the OS to be fairly solid+stable.

What the heck did MS do to break an otherwise rock-solid OS? Why did they have to mess with it in the first place? Is it really so hard to strip out all the business stuff and repackage the product as a consumer OS?




RE: unbelieveable
By StormEffect on 3/12/2008 1:42:01 AM , Rating: 2
The problem probably stems from their revamped storage system, which is really the main selling point of WHS.

The extendable array system is fantastic in theory, and it is a much better option for home users compared to standard server systems (you might as well install Ubuntu or XP and run it as a server).

The problem is that this main selling point is the cause of the issue. Without it, there really is no killer feature of WHS that draws my attention.

I am glad they didn't "strip out all the business stuff and repackage the product as a consumer OS." In that case you still might as well use XP or Ubuntu as a server.


RE: unbelieveable
By eye smite on 3/12/2008 2:02:09 AM , Rating: 2
Does anyone remember the days when no one trusted MS updates for win98, ME, NT4, and 2k? The follow up question to that is, with all the issues MS is having with Vista and now WHS, are we or are we not heading for basically that same thing if not worse for the lovely MS? hehe


RE: unbelieveable
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/12/2008 8:56:26 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The follow up question to that is, with all the issues MS is having with Vista and now WHS

Vista issues are mostly the fault of the software companies taking short cuts for years when the rules were not enforced. Notice even Starcraft will install and function properly on Vista? Yet modern games out of EA, and some other companies fail to install or run on Vista? Yea.

As for WHS, Jason is blowing this problem out of proportion, the problem affects about 1% or less and even then only under very very strict circumstances with certain apps. It would be statistically more likely to encounter a bug that doesn't allow you to download windows updates automatically in Vista than encounter this bug in WHS.


RE: unbelieveable
By encryptkeeper on 3/12/2008 9:12:26 AM , Rating: 2
OK, so maybe he's making it sound like it's more widespread than it is, but it's still a serious error, and MS needs to fix it if they want to sell it. You can't edit files from the server? If that was always true, then why didn't I just pay less money for a NAS device? Are you trying to say NO ONE at MS went into the WHS and played around with files?


RE: unbelieveable
By fic2 on 3/12/2008 4:05:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
As for WHS, Jason is blowing this problem out of proportion, the problem affects about 1% or less and even then only under very very strict circumstances with certain apps.


Yeah, not a big problem - unless you are one of the affected ones. Kind of like the Ford Pinto blowing up. Lots of people never had it affect them, but the one's that did thought it was a big problem (ok, not them, but their families).

And, yeah, comparing an exploding car to a data server is over the top, but the two problems probably affected roughly the same % of users.


Good ol MS
By Aloonatic on 3/12/2008 10:28:33 AM , Rating: 3
Before I start, I'm not a MS hater, I think they (generally) do a good job and if Bill makes a lot of money then so be it. They've changed the way many of us work and use our home PCs for the better by far.

The problem is...

First, xBox 360 rushed out and a lot of people suffered.

Then, Vista was rushed out and is just about usuable by the general public. I know, geniuses never have any of the problems reported, it's just the people using their DVD trays as cup holders, but there are far more of them than their are computer geeks who are willing to work around problems.

Now this, admitedly small but very potent flaw.

MS are playing with their reputation and the way in which they are pecieved by the public cannot have been helped much by these problems.

How many more problems (real or simply percieved) can their reputation take?




RE: Good ol MS
By enlil242 on 3/12/2008 11:45:20 AM , Rating: 2
I am not an MS apologist either. I agree about the Xbox. It was meant to be the first out to gain market share, which it did at a cost and cost MS a billion dollars to rec9ify it. (which they bent over backwards doing ... Even I had the RRoD)

I also agree that the WHS bug should be fixed and I feel bad for anyone who may have lost data. (For me there still is no better backup than hard media). And as far as I can tell, it will be fixed.

However, MS is not the only vendor that release buggy software / hardware. Apple has released a lot in the past few years. First they had a bad batch of iMacs that froze. Plus the bugs in leopard are well documented. Plus the numerous bugs or "glitches" apparent in the iPhone. (The genuis bar response is always to swap out the phone and not exlplain or document the problem... I know I experienced it first hand.) Plus, Apple has a closed platform.

All companies try to deny wide-spread issues until they can get a handle on the source of the problem ... However, it is importnat that a solid fix is released in a timely manner.

I am still waiting on a bug in the iPhone / Vista compability to be addressed where my videos wonk out after syncing to my iPhone ... Months of posts on Apple's discussion board go unanswered...

XP was blasted after it's inital release. I think people forget that, or they weren't into computers then. Now you would think that it's the next best thing since sliced bread.

quote:
Vista was rushed out and is just about usuable by the general public.


My parents are on vista and they can do [what I think the general public does] just fine. I had a couple driver gotchas, but mostly from vendors who refused to release proper drivers becuase the didn't want to pay MS to "sign" them. However, I am pretty much good to go, without any issues.

I realize the XP is faster. But it's 7 years old for crying out loud. Mac OSX 10.1 is faster since it runs on my G3 just fine, but my poor little iBook barely runs 10.4. Am I supposed to cry to Apple becuase they made a slower OS?


RE: Good ol MS
By Aloonatic on 3/12/2008 1:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
I take your point on vista, and when I finally get round to building a new PC I'll have no problem putting vista on it, nor would I have for the last few months.

I was really just trying to make the point that whether anyone has had that many problems or not with Vista, the general perception by most people (the general public) is that vista is buggy and problematic and something to steer clear of if they have the choice.

It's hard to see why they "rushed out" the release of Vista seeing as operating systems are their core business after all.

It's not like the xB360 situation where they made a gamble on gaining a bit of market share at the expense of taking a hit on their reputation on reliability, which seems to have paid off.

They had to fight Sony and Nintendo in the Console market.

They just didn't need to with Vista.

I can't remember hearing too many people saying that what they really wanted was a replacement OS for XP.

This Home Server thing does seem like a rather odd ball anomaly though, which on it's own wouldn't affect their reputation anywhere near as much as it does when recent 360 and Vista "problems" are taken into account.

And I'm aware other software is buggy and problematic (You should try using the software I've written :D ) it doesn't excuse MS's problems however.

<joking>

As an EU citizen (well, I'm a subject, I live in the UK) I am concerned about MS and the money they make. Who are we going to sue every couple of years and milk the cash from if they stop doing so well and dominating the market?

We'll only have Intel left :-s

</joking>


RE: Good ol MS
By BMFPitt on 3/12/2008 1:38:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then, Vista was rushed out and is just about usuable by the general public.
None of Vista's problems have anything to do with it being "rushed out." It has to do with software relying on flaws and sloppiness in previous Microsoft OSes to run. No amount of time developing the OS would have changed this, they either had to release it and let the 3rd party developers adapt to doing things the way they always should have been - or leave everything the way it was. I'm sure many Vista haters would be in here complaining about that, as well.


Rocks,
By mindless1 on 3/12/2008 4:15:09 AM , Rating: 5
for brains, is what you have if you're still relying on WHS to store anything of value. Yes you paid for it and deserve to be able to use it but to those who claim "oh but my files are ok", well what exactly did you think those who lost files were thinking until they discovered corruption?

Here's how it works- Everything seems A-OK then all of a sudden you don't have the thing which was the whole point of the fileserver - the intact file. A not so similar problem but similar result was seen on home PCs back in the Via 686 southbridge days and nobody tried to defend Via on that but now if it's MS, well let's make excuses? Sorry but it doesn't wash, if more people buy products and they have more revenue, they should be doing more testing enough to catch these bugs becauses even a bug that only effects a small percentage of people is still a heck of a lot of people.

Then there's the infuriating part, that the WHS team is actually trying to diffuse the bug by making a claim like:

"Some of the instances that were initially attributed to this issue ended up being something else, such as a faulty network card/driver, old routers with outdated firmware, or people incorrectly testing the limits of their home servers."

No, dear WHS team, data doesn't get corrupted because of outdated router firmware, the checksums ensure it gets to the WHS box and back. People incorreclty testing limits? So WHS team are you saying there's also ANOTHER bug? Apparently so, there is no "limit testing" that should corrupt data without yet another bug. Either it works or doesn't support what someone is trying to do and won't do it, never ever ever corrupting data as a result.

Surely someone will come along and think I'm a MS basher. Yes in this case it's true because of the product. MS is in the best position to deliver a home server product and that is something some of you obviously feel you can't do without MS, so MS should be the one to develop and sell one, they are certianly entitled to make a profit doing so, if/when it works properly. It is really amazing that after Server 2K3 had been tested so much that they didn't put due diligence into the testing of the added features.

They couldn't have done much testing as the described flaw is not that unlikely to occur. They really didn't test that using the virtualized volume strategy worked ok when this ever growing list of mainstream applications edited or transferred a file? If not, what in the world DID they test?




RE: Rocks,
By kkwst2 on 3/12/2008 12:04:37 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with most of what you're saying. The comments about "pushing the system" and out of date firmware are ridiculous. Outdated firmware shouldn't make you lose data or corrupt files.

A couple points:

The errors do not occur with a single drive system. The error does not occur all the time, even with multi-drives and the affected programs. These types of bugs can be tough. However, apparently the bug was reported before final release. It was minimized at first, blamed on hardware, and could not be reproduced in-house. So they went ahead and released it.

Certainly in retrospect that was a big mistake, but these decisions are usually not made by the people in the trenches that are working to solve problems. As to how much testing was actually done is only speculation. They're finally recognizing the problem and fixing it. I still think it will eventually be a good product.

It seems like something should be done to compensate the early adopters who were screwed by this bug. I would at least refund them for the software.


So Far...So Good...
By gambit6259 on 3/12/2008 7:35:17 AM , Rating: 1
I have been using WHS since it was in beta and have not seen any issues with data corruption. So far I have been pretty pleased with it.




RE: So Far...So Good...
By Chosonman on 3/12/2008 9:34:24 AM , Rating: 2
That's great till you lose your files.

First Xbox now WHS. MS has some issues with QC.


RE: So Far...So Good...
By kkwst2 on 3/12/2008 12:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
Is yours a single drive system? If so, I wouldn't add another drive before June!


WOW
By ratn9ne on 3/11/2008 11:55:35 PM , Rating: 3
This is an unacceptable bug in a SERVER OS.




RE: WOW
By mondo1234 on 3/12/08, Rating: 0
Power pack 1 delayed as well ?
By WT on 3/12/2008 9:49:48 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder if this will delay the release of Power Pack 1 for WHS ? I was looking at buying an HP470 at the end of this month, but it seems waiting a few months would be a prudent decision at this point.




By PAPutzback on 3/12/2008 10:05:18 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.datarobotics.com/

I have the drobo and it has been flawless. I share it out via my Proxyserver box so it is up all the time but eventually I plan on getting the Droboshare to act as a NAS.




cop out
By tastyratz on 3/12/2008 3:13:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
or people incorrectly testing the limits of their home servers


oh give me a break, its a file server - Guess people were mistaken to think they could.... save files on it




The Easier Alternatives
By bgm063 on 3/14/2008 1:12:31 AM , Rating: 2
After reading the last thread about this situation and just looking at the topic of this one ... An external hard drive never looked so good. Definitely cheaper than buying another PC... :)




"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki