backtop

Software Windows Home Server Data Corruption
Jason Mick (Blog) - December 28, 2007 12:05 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 52 comment(s) - last by HrilL.. on Jan 2 at 11:28 AM
Microsoft issues a dire warning that its Home Server product may irreversibly damage pictures, torrents, and other files

Microsoft just announced a big bug that many users of its Windows Home Server users may wish to take note of.  Microsoft warned users not to edit files stored on their Windows Home Servers.  Editing and saving files on a home computer connected to Windows Home Server can lead to data corruption within a week it has been discovered.

Microsoft describes the problem, stating, "When you use certain programs to edit files on a home computer that uses Windows Home Server, the files may become corrupted when you save them to the home server. Several people have reported issues after they have used the following programs to save files to their home servers."

Microsoft details that the following file types are among those affected:

  • Photos
  • Office Outlook files (2007)
  • Office OneNote files (2003/2007)
  • Microsoft Money files
  • Quicken files
  • QuickBooks files
  • Torrent files

Microsoft has not yet announced a concrete schedule for the release of a patch to fix the problem.  It blames the current bug on an internal glitch with Windows Home Servers' shared folders code.  Microsoft is currently trying to reproduce the bug and better understand it.

An anonymous blog was posted on Microsoft's developers pages stating that Microsoft's Windows Home Server Team is working full-time through the holidays to try to fix the problem, so obviously it is a relatively significant issue.

Windows has aggressively tried to market its Home Server products and grow a business in consumer backup storage.  The Windows Home Server software retails for $189.99, while a number of partners produce the physical hardware.  Among these is the HP 500GB EX470, which retails for $599.99. 

So for a total of about $790 you can have a working home server set up for backup operations -- you just probably don't want to back up your pictures, emails, or torrent files on it for now.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
HP's Home Server Includes the OS
By Digobick on 12/28/2007 12:25:13 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
So for a total of about $790 you can have a working home server set up for backup operations...

HP's EX470 already includes Windows Home Server. So for $599.99 + tax (shipping is free) you can have a working home server.

Here's a direct link to the the specs: http://www.shopping.hp.com/store/product/product_d...




RE: HP's Home Server Includes the OS
By LostInLine on 12/28/2007 12:41:51 PM , Rating: 5
That depends on your definition of "working," which from the article is not what WHS is doing.


By ImSpartacus on 12/28/2007 2:39:34 PM , Rating: 2
Regardless, he is pointing out that the hp home server comes with whs preinstalled (like any other os). I do see the irony there though, lol.


RE: HP's Home Server Includes the OS
By kkwst2 on 12/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: HP's Home Server Includes the OS
By DigitalFreak on 12/28/2007 3:21:35 PM , Rating: 5
You shouldn't save files to a file share on a file server... Wow, that's a new one to me.


RE: HP's Home Server Includes the OS
By saiga6360 on 12/28/2007 3:38:32 PM , Rating: 3
That's what I thought this was about. One of the features is file serving which is typically used for file sharing. I guess this only applies to some apps otherwise this would be very much a big deal.

Well, at least it also serves as a backup server so you can have it restore whatever it messes up.

Yikes.


By HrilL on 1/2/2008 11:28:26 AM , Rating: 2
It is a back up server for other computers on your network. No one is going to back up files that are stored on a given drive to the same drive so I think your point is moot.


RE: HP's Home Server Includes the OS
By aharris on 12/28/2007 4:13:25 PM , Rating: 3
Wow... Yeah I'm pretty sure Microsoft marketed it as a File Server. What they're saying is that if you use the system which hosts the files to make changes to the files (which users shouldn't do.... but then again these are home users), that is when the corruption begins to appear. Modifying the files from your client desktop while connected to the server via mounted share shouldn't cause this corruption.

...

...and people gave Apple a hard time because "Leopard deleted files" when it first came out.

"You mean I shouldn't CUT/paste files from a mounted server volume because if I lose my connection I might lose the files in the process? Gee, why didn't I think of that to begin with?!"


RE: HP's Home Server Includes the OS
By kkwst2 on 12/28/2007 6:26:17 PM , Rating: 2
That is in fact not what I said. If I'm understanding how the folder share is implemented, you have a local copy and the server copy. It apparently allows you to directly access the server copy and save over it and this causes the corruption.

Should it allow this? Probably not, and as I said in my post it certainly shouldn't cause your files to be corrupted. But should you be saving over the server copy? No. You should be saving it to you local copy and let the server do it's thing - which is to synchronize the files.

It is possible that I'm not understanding how the shares are implemented or am not understanding the bug. Based on what I read in the links, though, that is my understanding of the problem.


RE: HP's Home Server Includes the OS
By mindless1 on 12/29/2007 12:16:10 AM , Rating: 3
It's not that you aren't understanding, it's that you have this arbitrary idea that there's a problem with editing files on a share and saving back to that share. This has worked fine and been done billions upon billions of times ever since the unix terminal days. Only now is this horrible flaw a problem in regular use scenarios.

There is not normally a need to save a local copy, edit that and resave it locally, then depend on the fileserver synchronizing. You've just made things 3X more complex than they need to be when others did what you disagree with fine for many years.

In fact, often users are not allowed to make local copies in the business environment and it is with good reason - you don't want 3 different copies of locally stored files floating around being edited independently, and then there's the increased security risk of multiple points of access to information.


RE: HP's Home Server Includes the OS
By kkwst2 on 12/29/2007 12:51:04 AM , Rating: 2
Well, the model I described has worked for a long time too. It is my understanding that this is the model that WHS is more trying to implement.

Neither is more or less complicated. Saving directly to the server has advantages and disadvantages. For instance, it depends on full-time access to the server, which may not always be practical.

You mention a business environment, which is entirely what this is not intended for.

At any rate, I agree it's a problem. My main point was that I'm not sure this is the way the product was intended to be used.


By rdeegvainl on 12/29/2007 2:45:41 AM , Rating: 2
Well if its a HOME server, full time access better be practical for HOME use. The point of having a server like this is that it is a media dump for your music, pictures and movies. The difference between this and business is that its predominately media instead of being predominately documents. Having multiple copies of something spread out over several machines is just a waste of space and like the previous poster said, a big synchronization issue. Have the one you use, and then your backups on a separate medium. I think that this problem directly affects it's intended use.


RE: HP's Home Server Includes the OS
By afkrotch on 12/31/2007 12:01:58 PM , Rating: 2
The model you described would be an utter failure if there were more than one computer in the network.

Let's say we have 4 computers and one WHS. There are 4 users each accessing file blah.bmp. Each have a copy of the file locally. Each make completely different edits to the file. Exactly what happens when WHS backs up the file? Who's copy gets backed up? Does it attempt to merge the files and corrupt them?

WHS is nothing more than a business product put into homes. WHS is Windows 2003 Server, stripped down of course. I have my own file server at home. It runs Win2k Pro and is on 24/7. I sometimes transfer files locally to the server. Other times I'll save directly to it. WHS is a home product and it should be built around what home users will do.


RE: HP's Home Server Includes the OS
By kkwst2 on 12/31/2007 10:38:40 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, no. It has nothing to do with how many computers are on the network, only how many potential simultaneous users there are. It all depends on the usage model and your goal. For a business share obviously this doesn't make any sense. However, it might make great sense for a home share.

If we're talking about a home product, how likely is it that 4 users are going to use it at once? For me, it would be almost never. My wife, my son, and I would actually never be editing the same file.

However, it is frequently the case that I would want to access a file when I don't have internet access - for instance when I'm on a plane with my laptop. I would want any changes synced to the file server when I get back. To answer the question, if there were multiple copies saved locally, both would be saved, with tags appended to the file name designating which user or computer edited it.

It is certainly based on Windows 2003 but it's not the same product.

At any rate, I guess my comments suggested that I somehow think it's OK that it corrupts files. That's not the case, just that it would not interfere with how I use the product. Of course a product that is designed to back up your files shouldn't corrupt them. While I did suggest that perhaps it wasn't how the product was intended to be used, I wasn't trying to imply that it was OK for files to be corrupted.

I have different ideas than you about what WHS should do and how it should operate. After reading about it, I think it will do what I want. In my original post, I was just trying to clarify what situations the corruption was occurring because I was planning to purchase it and didn't think it would apply to how I would use it. I still think I'll wait until these problems are resolved, but it doesn't look like the current bug would affect me.


RE: HP's Home Server Includes the OS
By mcnabney on 12/28/2007 3:22:26 PM , Rating: 3
That is in fact exactly what you should be doing. The point is to make all files available and versions synchronized. The server is not a backup, it is a server. The way it uses multiple hard drives provides backup. If you just want a backup device, get a NAS or a USB drive. This silly thing is based on Server 2003 so one of the core functions is reading and saving to.
But I guess that depends what your definition of 'is' is.

For example, I am editing video. I would not want to have to copy it back and forth to my local computer. I would instead manipulate it on the server and avoid making needless copies of the same file.


RE: HP's Home Server Includes the OS
By kkwst2 on 12/28/2007 6:19:06 PM , Rating: 2
Well, a file share can be implemented different ways. Often you have a local copy of the file that whenever you save that local copy, the file share sees the change and synchronizes it to the server. Other clients can then see that change and sync to the server. If another client has also changed the file, then some kind of reconciliation is done, often keeping both copies and changing the name of one. If you are allowed to edit the file directly, then usually only one user can edit the file at the same time and the file is locked as read only to other users. I don't know how it's implemented in WHS, but would prefer the former.

As I mentioned in my post, I'm not sure exactly how it's implemented. But my interpretation was that the problem was if you directly edited the server copy instead of the local copy. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the nature of the bug.

It seems to me that if you're editing video, you would want to modify a local copy and then sync it at the end, rather than keep saving it to the server. Either way, you're "copying it back and forth", but by editing it on the server, you're doing it multiple times instead of once.


By mcnabney on 12/28/2007 11:24:12 PM , Rating: 2
No, that is not how a server works. Being able to synchronize files is nice and all, but it really isn't a server function. It is a backup function.

The entire WHS platform is designed to hold lots of drives. This is where you dump all your pictures, your videos, and everything else people accumulate. This holds the gigabytes in one place so you don't have to buy extra hard disks for all of your computers to hold the terabyte of stuff you have accumulated. In that case the WHS is the primary location of this data and will be directly accessed from the various desktops. Why do you think gigabit Ethernet is supported?


RE: HP's Home Server Includes the OS
By mindless1 on 12/29/2007 12:28:46 AM , Rating: 2
No, by editing from the sever you read once, write once. By editing a local copy you read twice,write twice (one read and write to server and one locally).

I feel you shouldl give up on the idea that others are supposed to do things the way you think they should particularly when they had done so fine without this massive flaw in one product.


RE: HP's Home Server Includes the OS
By kkwst2 on 12/29/2007 1:04:23 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't say anything about reads and write, I was talking about transfers to the server which might be reduced by utilizing local files, depending on how it is implemented. By saving a video file to the server, the file is getting transferred across the network each time you save.

For big files, that could get slow depending on network speed and traffic.

I'm wasn't really suggesting that others do things like I think, just suggesting how WHS might be intended to be used. I was admittedly somewhat myopic in my original post. It might not be a big deal for how I want to use WHS, but might be for others.

I was originally trying to figure out if the problem was really as I understood, which would not preclude ME from buying it given my intended usage. Understood that others may desire a more traditional file server behavior.


RE: HP's Home Server Includes the OS
By mindless1 on 12/29/2007 1:17:17 AM , Rating: 2
For multipass editing, yes it would reduce network utilization to keep a temporary copy locally. Beyond this, either way the same amount of data has to pass to and from the server in a typical edit-once, save-once scenario most often seen. In a business environment we might consider the impact on network bandwidth but in a home environment it is seldom an issue.


RE: HP's Home Server Includes the OS
By JAB on 12/30/2007 6:14:18 PM , Rating: 2
Think about this kkwst2. You are saying a file server doesnt have to handle files without corruption. That is its main job though.

Sorry but if you are paying this much for something just to handle files it should do its job.


RE: HP's Home Server Includes the OS
By HrilL on 12/28/2007 1:32:43 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think anyone would be too happy with that. For the price it seems over priced still. I recently built a 4200+ 1GB ram 500GB with 8400GS 256MB for under 400 Oh I also got a DVD-/+RW DL and keyboard mouse all that for under 400. I know that doesn't count the cost of the OS but I already owned XP Pro and that works fine for me.


RE: HP's Home Server Includes the OS
By drebo on 12/28/2007 2:26:37 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, and if you add the cost of the OS in, you get the same price.

Plus you get warranty service and tier 1 oem support.

Most people don't care to build their own computers.


RE: HP's Home Server Includes the OS
By mcnabney on 12/28/2007 3:23:55 PM , Rating: 2
The first thing they ask for on the phone is for your credit card number, so I wouldn't be to keen to mention that as a benefit.


RE: HP's Home Server Includes the OS
By TomZ on 12/28/2007 8:19:20 PM , Rating: 2
I find it hard to believe that HP doesn't offer any support included in the purchase price, if that's what you're saying.


By HrilL on 1/2/2008 11:25:02 AM , Rating: 2
Yes you get the same price with the OS and a computer that is twice as fast.

Most parts have manufacture warranties...

True. And those are the same people that think a 1.8ghz sempron or celeron is just as fast as a 1.8ghz Athlon or core 2 because they are both 1.8ghz...


...
By wwwebsurfer on 12/28/2007 2:11:27 PM , Rating: 2
Not to be a fanboy... but how hard is it to download SAMBA on a Fedora Core install? Take an old box, spend an evening getting it tightened up and even an average user can do everything WHS does for free.




RE: ...
By TomZ on 12/28/2007 2:38:26 PM , Rating: 2
WHS is more than a simple file server. You might want to read up on what it can do:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Home_Server

You'd have to add a lot besides SAMBA onto Linux to do all that.


RE: ...
By Jack Ripoff on 12/30/2007 11:11:26 AM , Rating: 2
Centralized Backup: rsync, rdiff-backup;
Health Monitoring: snmp, clamav, snort;
File Sharing: samba, nfs;
Printer Sharing: cups, samba;
Previous Versions: rdiff-backup;
Headless Operation: webmin, ssh, xdmcp;
Remote administration: webmin, ssh, xdmcp;
Remote Access Gateway: netfilter, iptables;
Media Streaming: gstreamer, gnump3d;
Data redundancy: LVM;
Expandable Storage: LVM;
Extensibility through Add-Ins: httpd, php, perl, python, ruby... I could go on for a while.

Much lower system requirements. Doesn't corrupt your data. Oh, and here comes the best part: all this stuff you have to add onto Linux to do all that is free software. There is much more stuff available though, completely free as well.


RE: ...
By mindless1 on 12/30/2007 4:25:29 PM , Rating: 2
You have a good point, 'nix has established itself as the standard against which others are measured, but in this case we have a lot of irony:

Tech geeks proclaiming their geekiness by paying for a familiar (windows) interface instead of learning more about a different computer OS, how to use it, because let's face it most who are familiar with using 'nix wouldn't have given WHS a thought in the first place unless it were free. That's NOT to knock WHS, it's just a matter of practicality but also that someone who needed a home server and knew their way around 'nix, probably already had one that met their needs even if it didn't try to have line-item per line-item the same as some other product.


RE: ...
By TomZ on 12/31/2007 9:39:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Much lower system requirements. Doesn't corrupt your data. Oh, and here comes the best part: all this stuff you have to add onto Linux to do all that is free software. There is much more stuff available though, completely free as well.

Yes, and days and weeks later, finally get it all working together. Forget about it, WHS is a slam dunk. Just order a box from HP, plug it in, spend an hour or two configuring it, and you're done. To anyone who values their time at all, WHS is a no-brainer compared to a DIY solution.


RE: ...
By mindless1 on 12/31/2007 7:37:27 PM , Rating: 2
I believe we were talking about someone familiar with 'nix. Frankly it shouldn't be some topic to put a voodoo whammy on, even if someone likes windows more it would be a bit silly to just ignore having the skills to use what is in fact a widespread OS for servers.

WHS is clearly not a slam dunk. Note the issue upon which the news article is founded? As for an hour or two configuring, it does not take that much more time to configure 'nix, once you learn how. That is a reasonable argument against someone using 'nix if this is their only use ever, but on the other hand avoiding something new with that presumption of it only being a one-time use can tend to be a situation where once you knew how to use it well you found more and more uses. 'nix is here to stay for one important reason if no other - product costs can't support the windows price model in many cases.


RE: ...
By Jack Ripoff on 1/1/2008 11:57:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, and days and weeks later, finally get it all working together. Forget about it, WHS is a slam dunk. Just order a box from HP, plug it in, spend an hour or two configuring it, and you're done. To anyone who values their time at all, WHS is a no-brainer compared to a DIY solution.

Whoever takes that long to set up a Unix/Linux server box is either a beginner or in very bad-will to do so. To anyone who values their data and their investment at all, Unix/Linux is a no-brainer compared to a Microsoft "solution".


RE: ...
By SmokeRngs on 12/31/2007 12:30:18 PM , Rating: 2
As much as I prefer Linux over Windows these days (5 of 5 computers ranging from P3s to C2Ds running one distro or another of Linux)the setup that WHS does right off the bat (I assume as I have never messed with it) is completely different from setting up a Linux server to do everything that WHS does.

I agree that most if not all of the same things can be done, it's not a total package ready for you to use like WHS.

For myself, I would prefer to setup a Linux box for my specific needs rather than purchase WHS. However, it's unlikely I would spend the time to setup a box like that for someone else if WHS would actually do everything for them. In my case, it's a time vs money issue with regards to other people. I enjoy messing around with Linux for my own personal uses and an increase of my knowledge of the OS in the different distros I use.

Also, take what I say with a grain of salt. I'm still very new to Linux and currently can't setup a box to do what WHS does. However, that's not to say someone that does know what they are doing can't have it setup in a snap.

Each one has their own strengths and weaknesses. I see WHS as a product that is to be easy to setup and use. I see setting up a Linux box as a more versatile solution with better customization and easier expandability of capabilities. Neither one is perfect for everyone but they both serve their purposes.

As I understand this problem, I see it as a major problem. This is not supposed to be something you see in regards to a server. If I had a file server corrupting my files and it wasn't a hardware problem, I would be very annoyed.

Since I see WHS as a good solution for a lot of people, I would hope MS gets this problem fixed very soon. I normally don't care to suggest MS software to people, but this is one of the few I would suggest. I hate to see something I would suggest to people for use as having a major problem such as this.


RE: ...
By robinthakur on 1/2/2008 5:15:54 AM , Rating: 2
I would class myself as highly technical and work in the IT industry in a senior MS server technology role now (MS SharePoint) previously having been a windows sysadmin, have a respectable IT degree and frequently develop in C#, but I have never used Linux, simply because whenever I installed it, I'd notice that certain drivers just wouldn't work properly and didn't have the knowledge to fix them. Trying to find said knowledge on the net was a complete pain and so frustrating to the extent whereby I just reinstalled the whole thing. I just couldn't find concise and simple guides, it was all fragmented and ratty posts in forums which you had to rely on. Of course this is often the case for Windows support as well, but there is a decent sized resource available. After not being able to fix the problem (which was installing the Nvidia drivers for my graphics card at the time, and not even going near finding and installing the linux driver for my USB ADSL modem!!) I eventually deinstalled it. I periodically install Linux releases from Redhat and Suse since then to see whether anything's improved, but to be honest, while a regular user might be happy with the default install and the settings you can change through the GUI, I like to tinker and installing/configuring anything above the standard install is really bewildering...that long list of free software you provided which apparently does all that Microsoft's offering and more is all well and good, but how hard is it to install it all and configure and is it properly documented in a central location? I would use it if it were reasonably easy to do this, but I doubt that it is. Hate to say it but Vista/Office2k7 ticks all the boxes for me s reliable and I'm happy with using it for everything but development. I will probably be flamed by the Linux faithful on this, but I'm only telling the truth from my perspective and I suspect I'm not alone.

R
T


RE: ...
By Chadder007 on 12/28/2007 2:54:43 PM , Rating: 2
EBOX is a very neat Linux Server package with a Web interface that you work with.


RE: ...
By DigitalFreak on 12/28/2007 3:23:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Not to be a fanboy...


You failed...


This is important, but not as big as you make it
By BPB on 12/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: This is important, but not as big as you make it
By mcnabney on 12/28/2007 3:30:29 PM , Rating: 5
I think the first thing that the average user will do when finding the file they want on the WHS drive is to DOUBLE CLICK IT . That means when they hit save after making changes it will be saving right back to the WHS directly. Who on earth would take the extra step of copying it to the desktop, opening/editing/saving, and copying back to the proper place on the WHS. I run gigabit ethernet at home and I always open/save directly from other computers in my home. I think 99% of users do too.


By MrDiSante on 12/29/2007 11:40:28 AM , Rating: 2
This isn't the major mitigating factor: the major mitigating factor is that your server has to be under immense load. We're talking copying 5+ gigabytes worth of stuff in 3 or more concurrent operations (what it took for mine to start killing data - sometimes) AND using one of those programs AND having bad luck AND having the file stored on the server as opposed to being a backup. I have WHS and decided to see if what Ed Bott described here http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=348 was true - it is. This really ISN'T as often-occuring as they might make it seem.
Furthermore, call me paranoid, but I wouldn't store files on the server directly: WHS has a feature to be able to access the files of other users even if they're stored only as backups. Use that, far safer and less of a chance of data going missing. Just because it's used as a back-up doesn't mean that it should be your only copy of the information.


RE: This is important, but not as big as you make it
By leexgx on 12/28/2007 4:50:05 PM , Rating: 3
i guess some users do not know how to open files but know how to waste time copying files back and to then editing them,
why in the right mind or wrong mind would some do that, its not how you would edit files

even norm users would not do that

the whole idea of WHS is to use it to store files and work on them as well

if your messing with Big files yes norm better to work on them localy (WHS working with big files is poor as i have played with it)


By SmokeRngs on 12/31/2007 12:46:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
i guess some users do not know how to open files but know how to waste time copying files back and to then editing them,
why in the right mind or wrong mind would some do that, its not how you would edit files


Well, depending on who you talk to about me, some would say I'm in a right mind and some would say I'm in a wrong mind. I have a feeling it's all a matter of personal perception.

Anyway, I'm one of the type who has a tendency to be paranoid about data in regards to editing something. Even with small files I have a habit of making a quick backup of the file I'm going to be working on whether it's just saved under a different name or copied to another part of the drive.

In a case such as this, in most cases I would make a copy of the file from the server onto the machine I'm working on locally. That way, the backup copy is still a backup copy until I decide it is no longer needed. This is on my personal home machines. At the current time, I do not have to worry about anyone else accessing or making modifications to the files so this works out well for me.

However, if there is more than one user who is accessing the files, it would be a good idea to have a lock on the files being accessed so only one person can make changes and anyone else can only view it as read only. Data corruption in a situation such as this is unacceptable.

What some people may consider a waste of time is just security to others or in my case paranoia. I often times end up saving the local file with a new filename and copy it to the server so I still have both copies.


Not a typical problem
By System48 on 12/28/2007 12:23:05 PM , Rating: 2
The problem was reproduced by Microsoft under the following conidtions.

Copying a large file to the server while also saving a file to a shared folder on the server using one of the applications mentioned.




RE: Not a typical problem
By mcnabney on 12/28/2007 3:26:28 PM , Rating: 2
That sounds like one of the most basic functions of a server. You would be a little surprised if you bought a car and the engine would turn off whenever you downshifted.


RE: Not a typical problem
By Jedi2155 on 12/28/2007 4:08:07 PM , Rating: 2
It has happened to me before.....


RE: Not a typical problem
By ViRGE on 12/28/2007 5:12:40 PM , Rating: 3
To be more specific, there's two things going on:

1) Alternate Data Streams: WHS is munging the ADS part of NTFS files. Very few apps use this, and it only appears to happen in a few situations, so it's not a huge deal. The WHS team will have a fix out for it fairly soon from the looks of things.

2) Local vs. network file access: Network drives do not act the same as a local drive under Windows, for this reason applications that engage in certain DB-like operations on files can't use those files over a network because their operations aren't atomic, which is critical for dealing with a networked environment. Outlook 2003, Quickbooks, etc all have specific warnings against actively using data files directly off of a file server of any type. WHS is affected just as well here; these unsafe apps will have problems with WHS just like they will any other Windows file server. This quirk will likely never be fixed.


RE: Not a typical problem
By ViRGE on 12/28/2007 5:13:02 PM , Rating: 2
To be more specific, there's two things going on:

1) Alternate Data Streams: WHS is munging the ADS part of NTFS files. Very few apps use this, and it only appears to happen in a few situations, so it's not a huge deal. The WHS team will have a fix out for it fairly soon from the looks of things.

2) Local vs. network file access: Network drives do not act the same as a local drive under Windows, for this reason applications that engage in certain DB-like operations on files can't use those files over a network because their operations aren't atomic, which is critical for dealing with a networked environment. Outlook 2003, Quickbooks, etc all have specific warnings against actively using data files directly off of a file server of any type. WHS is affected just as well here; these unsafe apps will have problems with WHS just like they will any other Windows file server. This quirk will likely never be fixed.


MSFT: You've got data, not anymore!
By blwest on 12/28/2007 11:18:25 PM , Rating: 2
What's the point of WHS if utilizing it for it's intended purpose causes you to lose your data. I have a new slogan, "Microsoft, you give us your money, we give you another reason to use Linux."

quote:
Editing and saving files on a home computer connected to Windows
Home Server can lead to data corruption.




RE: MSFT: You've got data, not anymore!
By mindless1 on 12/29/2007 1:25:09 AM , Rating: 2
It does make you wonder a little if they'd done much testing, doesn't it?

So we buy a 'nix box to backup a WHS box to backup a WinXP box that backs up a Vista box that runs on a MAC. I suppose in my quest to own as many computers as possible, that's progress!


RE: MSFT: You've got data, not anymore!
By TomZ on 12/29/2007 9:31:16 AM , Rating: 2
There were tens or hundreds of thousands of beta testers for WHS, and this never cropped up as a widespread issue. So I think that situation can speak for the severity of this particular problem.


By mindless1 on 12/30/2007 4:35:28 PM , Rating: 1
Of course not a widespread issue, but if you discount every possible issue that isn't "widespread", pretty soon you've left so many issues that quite a few people are effected by one issue or another.

Maybe part of the problem is the screening and qualification process for good beta test groups, that they're looking at it as an opportunity to play with a toy but not being so serious about putting it through its paces.

The real question now is how MS is going to handle notifying users about this, because even if it doesn't effect everyone, those it does effect are going to find this goes directly against the purpose of the file stores.

In other words, IMO it's not enough to just slip a patch into installs, people may now need to verify the integrity of their files which they'll need to know (be informed that) they need to do. Certainly everyone isn't reading a computer tech news 'site to find out about it.


By SmokeRngs on 12/31/2007 12:55:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There were tens or hundreds of thousands of beta testers for WHS, and this never cropped up as a widespread issue. So I think that situation can speak for the severity of this particular problem.


You are now witnessing one of the possible disadvantages of an open public beta.

Don't take it the wrong way, I think they are a very good idea and should be continued. It's one of the best ways to do a lot of bug testing in a short period of time using a lot of configurations that the company developing the product does not have the time or money to test.

However, while this problem may have not been widespread, I'm sure it did show up. Even if not a lot of people experienced the problem; it's still a severe problem. The loss of data on a server is always a severe problem.

Something else to keep in mind is that this problem, while actually being a WHS specific problem, may not have been caused until there was a change or patch to some of the other software that is required to create this problem.

I've been helping someone bug test a rather large webpage lately and when doing so, I have to continually re-check everything when a bug is found and fixed. The fix may cause a problem where there was not a problem before. Something similar to this may have happened here. It may have come through the public beta testing without any trouble but a small change later on to any of the software using it may have caused the problem to show up.

I'm just glad I didn't choose programming as a profession. It can be a real pain and I'm on the easy side just doing bug testing.


"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki