backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 91 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Mar 2 at 1:31 AM


Windows Home Server, the gift that has kept on giving ever since Christmas. The only bad news is that what it's giving is irreparably corrupted files.  (Source: TabletPC2.com)
The list of troubles for Windows Home Server continue to expand and after a promise of a quick fix, two months later no end is in sight

Windows Home Server was aggressively marketed as an attractive consumer storage solution for everyday users, as part of Microsoft's next generation of Windows products.  With a retail price of $189 and hardware setups such as the HP 500GB EX470 retailing with the OS for as little as $599, the price certainly seems to be right. 

Unfortunately, Windows Home Server is still experiencing teething problems.  DailyTech previously reported that users' files were being corrupted by Windows Home Server when simply trying to access and save files.  Microsoft responded to the data corruption by 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."

Originally the issue seemed relatively germane as the list of programs afflicted was relatively small -- photo editors, Office Outlook '07, Office OneNote '03/'07, Quicken, QuickBooks, and torrents.  A Microsoft employee during Christmas break, soon after the issue cropped up, wrote in an anonymous blog posting that Microsoft staff were working full time over the holidays and the issue would be resolved very soon.

Two months have passed and the issue has not been resolved.  Instead, Microsoft conceded that the scope of the problem is much bigger than initially estimated.  Microsoft acknowledged numerous customer reports of corruption in the following programs, though it says it has thus far been unable to replicate them:

  • Apple iTunes
  • Zune Software
  • Photoshop Elements
  • WinAmp
  • Microsoft Office Excel
  • Mozilla Thunderbird
  • Visual Dataflex

The expanded list greatly increases the number of users who may eventually experience the problem.  Between the iPod and Zune player populations alone, many may now be wary of Windows Home Server use until Microsoft can get to the root of the data corruption.



Comments     Threshold


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

The worst possible fault in a fileserver
By ATWindsor on 2/21/2008 3:45:03 PM , Rating: 5
To a fileserver, and I would even say a computer in general. There is no worse fault than corrupting data, even not working is better than destroying data. one of the main reasons for a computer is the production and safekeeping of data.




RE: The worst possible fault in a fileserver
By mattclary on 2/21/2008 3:48:37 PM , Rating: 3
Abso-freaking-lutely. You would think MS would have the process down by now.


By lexluthermiester on 2/22/2008 1:04:20 PM , Rating: 1
As I've stated in other posts, Microsoft has not been doing well for the past few years. There has been an unending string of security issues with XP and now Vista[all you 64 bit adopters are in for a rude awakening soon enough], then there is Xbox360 and the record making defective rates[and after 2 years of manufacturing] and issues with XboxLive, Zune is only just becoming viable as an alternative to ipod, again because of defectives and stability issues[again after 2 years of manufacturing], the very luke-warm reception of Vista due to more issues then I have space to go into, then these issues with Home Server[which are frickin critical issues]. The smack down they received from Yahoo[thank God!] has only added insult to injury. Add to all of that the FACT that people all over the world are migrating to Linux and Mac. And so long a Steve Ballmer keeps doing his thing Microsoft doesn't have a prayer. I hate to say this but things for them were better when Bill was in charge. What to blame someone for the whole activation BS? Look no further than Ballmer.

I guess my real point is, how can anyone be surprised by the issues with Home Server? They should be expected by now.....

In Vista's defense, like Windows ME, the OS can be made to run stably after disabling un-needed parts and changing the configuration of many others. Still, I fail to understand why one should be required to know, let alone apply, the need to tweak the hell out of an OS just to get it working stably. Mac OS works the way it should out of the box and so to do most versions of Linux. Microsoft has spread itself to thin, has the wrong people in leadership positions and is down right too greedy.

OK thats a little more than $0.02 worth, but needed to be said...


RE: The worst possible fault in a fileserver
By Mitch101 on 2/21/2008 4:06:26 PM , Rating: 5
Couldn't remotely be a motherboard driver that isn't fully compatible with home server?

I have seen plenty of people use the CD's that come with their motherboard and never bother to download the latest's motherboard drivers off the web only to have corrupted files in relatively no time then find out the drivers on the disc are some 7 revisions old. Why 7 revisions if they were perfect to begin with?

Microsoft so far hasn't been able to recreate the issue so it could be anything. Bad batch of SATA controllers on the hard drive? Who knows. They need to first be able to create the problem to be able to figure out what or why its happening.

Lots of dumb tech's out there too. I once caught a tech trying to create a Mirror (Raid-0) on a single drive with 2 partitions.


By Etsp on 2/21/2008 4:31:41 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Lots of dumb tech's out there too. I once caught a tech trying to create a Mirror (Raid-0) on a single drive with 2 partitions.
That is just hilarious =D


RE: The worst possible fault in a fileserver
By traxcore on 2/21/2008 4:53:42 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Lots of dumb tech's out there too. I once caught a tech trying to create a Mirror (Raid-0) on a single drive with 2 partitions.


Well you just proved you dont know much either.. mirror is raid 1 not raid 0 :)


By Mitch101 on 2/21/2008 5:08:04 PM , Rating: 2
LOL. I cant believe I did that.

Oh well you get the point single drive raid.


RE: The worst possible fault in a fileserver
By carl0ski on 2/21/2008 5:26:01 PM , Rating: 2
you can create RAID-1 (mirror) why do so many people incorrectly believe 0 = mirror?

0 = no protection.

Linux Software MD-Raid allows you to create Various raid configurations with unequal partitions or drives

even 2 partitions on the same drive, which would defy the point of raid anyway.


By johnsonx on 2/24/2008 4:52:21 PM , Rating: 2
There are possible reasons to want to do RAID-1 on a single drive. None of them really good reasons, but there are reasons.

First, mirroring partitions on a single drive could provide limited hardware fault recovery in the case where the entire drive doesn't fail, but chronic bad sectors appear in the beginning of the drive. Over the years, I've certainly seen enough drives in that condition to make me think RAID-1 on a single drive wouldn't be completely worthless.

Second, there are plenty of times where you'd like to mirror a partition before you do something potentially ugly to it. You mirror the partition, break the mirror, and then do your major OS upgrade or whatever... if it all blows up, you bring the mirrored copy back online and you're back where you started.

There are probably other cases I didn't think of.

In both cases of course, it's far better to actually have a second drive. I don't doubt that many attempts to do so with a single drive are due to technical stupidity, but that doesn't mean there's never a legitimate reason to do RAID-1 with a single drive.


By Clauzii on 2/21/2008 5:38:56 PM , Rating: 2
What about some kind of DRM not functioning??


By omnicronx on 2/21/2008 7:13:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Couldn't remotely be a motherboard driver that isn't fully compatible with home server?
I think its more of an issue with the way WHS combines the hard drives to simulate one big drive. Aside from this, WHS being directly based on Server 2003, I do not see what could possibly be causing corruption issues.


RE: The worst possible fault in a fileserver
By Shoal07 on 2/22/2008 8:37:09 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Microsoft so far hasn't been able to recreate the issue so it could be anything.


That's not true and this whole article is misleading. They have recreated the issue but it took a long time because this issue is incredibly rare. It affects a minute percentage of WHS users and it requires a "perfect storm" of factors for it to happen. For example, of the two computers this happened to during thie beta they were 1) running multiple drives (this doesn't affect single drives machines) 2) both running the same AVS 3) both were maxing out the network subsytem with large file transfers and 4) both were editing files with other programs (like Office 2k7) directly on the server. It does and always has taken just the right amount of combinations to trigger this bug.

Is it still the worst possible fault? Yes it is. Is it going to effect you if you have a WHS, odds are it won't. Have they identified it and are fixing it, yes they are.


RE: The worst possible fault in a fileserver
By imaheadcase on 2/22/2008 9:27:42 AM , Rating: 3
Its not as big deal as DailyTech is making it out to be, it effects a VERY small % of users, even only a small % of users that use the programs listed are effected, its not all users of those programs is why its so rare.

I use the Zune software and thunderbird on WHS and have no problems the past 3 months I've had it.


By lexluthermiester on 2/22/2008 3:10:23 PM , Rating: 2
Of those using WHS, many[if not most] are using multiple drives and this is a flaw that I've personally witnessed on two separate machines neither of which were owed by me. I only know two people use WHS so for me that is 100% failure rate. Out in the wild this issue is far more widespread than people think. Microsoft is just being tight lipped about it, as usual. DailyTech is simply reporting information that has come to light. This issue has been reported by MANY others so if they are blowing it out of proportion, they are not alone.

Having seen it for myself I would agree with those think it's a serious problem. Having the entire file system crap out to the point of not being able to boot or recover files is a critical problem.


By PAPutzback on 2/22/2008 9:17:51 AM , Rating: 2
These are OEM boxes. They should already be updated. And the server should update it self via Windows Update. The home owner should not have to worry about drivers.

The really sad things is that MS knew about this before the O.S. shipped. All of us testing the beta still had various issues right up to the day it was released.


RE: The worst possible fault in a fileserver
By Wagnbat on 2/21/2008 6:12:33 PM , Rating: 1
But is this really surprising?

I mean, it's a computer that backs up files and acts as a media center to some extent. Something computers already do. All they had to do was put a nice GUI on it for the laymans and it would have been successful.

But no, it's another Microsoft dork up.


RE: The worst possible fault in a fileserver
By omnicronx on 2/21/2008 7:16:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But no, it's another Microsoft dork up.
I would have to agree with you. I beta tested WHS, and this error was present at the time of testing for some people. Although I would like to note, the majority of beta users had absolutely no problem, except for slow file transfers when transferring a large amount of files..


RE: The worst possible fault in a fileserver
By PAPutzback on 2/22/2008 9:23:43 AM , Rating: 2
You have to remember how small the beta group was. I bet I had a couple posts on there each week.

I don't know if the files are getting corrupt or if the tombstones are not be kept up to date or failing.

The first thing WHS does when it receives a file is to bring it down to its first drive. Then it splits it off onto the other drives and creates a pointer to the file. This how you are able to add drives on the fly and your space grows, you don't see another drive letter your volume just appears to get bigger. And these tombstones are an index to where the files are located. My bet is these are messed up.


RE: The worst possible fault in a fileserver
By omnicronx on 2/22/2008 12:00:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The first thing WHS does when it receives a file is to bring it down to its first drive. Then it splits it off onto the other drives and creates a pointer to the file. This how you are able to add drives on the fly and your space grows, you don't see another drive letter your volume just appears to get bigger. And these tombstones are an index to where the files are located. My bet is these are messed up.
Exactly! I know for a fact this problem only occurs when multiple hard drives are in use. On the other hand the problems are not as widespread as you are making them out to be. There are many conditions that have to be met for these problems to occur, mainly the system has to be at load, and you must be editing files on the file server. The problem does not occur when backing up files from another computer.