WHS v2 - Vail Released to Public View.

[RebateMonger]

If I have a laptop with the connector installed, why should I have to access anything on my server through a web browser? They could have done some sort of VPN or such that would enable transparent access over the net even if the computers werent on the same network. Its such a wacky scheme with the server website they have, and theyre extending further in that direction...thats what I dont get.

I've used the Remote Access and Web features on WHS1. I haven't tried it yet in WHS2, so I can't speak with 100% authority on what they've done. I'll try to enable it, at least for local access, and see what's changed.

Edit: I took a quick look at it. It seems like the same basic idea as with WHS1. But I haven't look at any of the new remote media stuff that's being touted.

In WHS1, at least, the SBS-like Remote Access (a modified, menu-based version of RDP with extra security) is likely what MS intended for real work. The Web access was mostly intended for access by friends/family or to grab a file or two. Both access methods are considered safe for the server. VPN access certainly wouldn't be safe to provide to friends.

If you want VPN access, I imagine you can turn that on in WHS2. You certainly could in WHS1.

 

[BD2003]

I've used the Remote Access and Web features on WHS1. I haven't tried it yet in WHS2, so I can't speak with 100% authority on what they've done. I'll try to enable it, at least for local access, and see what's changed.

Edit: I took a quick look at it. It seems like the same basic idea as with WHS1. But I haven't look at any of the new remote media stuff that's being touted.

In WHS1, at least, the SBS-like Remote Access (a modified, menu-based version of RDP with extra security) is likely what MS intended for real work. The Web access was mostly intended for access by friends/family or to grab a file or two. Both access methods are considered safe for the server. VPN access certainly wouldn't be safe to provide to friends.

If you want VPN access, I imagine you can turn that on in WHS2. You certainly could in WHS1.

Except that I havent the foggiest idea as to how to go about doing such a thing. I was hoping WHS would have made that as simple as the backup.

 

[RebateMonger]

Except that I havent the foggiest idea as to how to go about doing such a thing. I was hoping WHS would have made that as simple as the backup.

I haven't done it in Server 2008, but there's a Wizard in Server 2003 and I'm sure there's one in Server 2008. Usually, the most complicated thing about VPNs is setting up port forwarding on the router. You could also use Hamachi's VPN or another third-party product.

 

[RebateMonger]

but when I used my alternate windows live id, it did give me the apply for participation link and I had to finish filling out my live id profile.

Somebody on Microsoft's public WHS forum had something similar occur:

"Just as a recap, it wasn't that i could not find the links for downloading WHS Vail this is from an email between myself and Jonas on whsforums

"Hi Nigel,

It looks like you have declined participation in our beta program at some point in time. I am unable to change this status, but have added the Microsoft Connect Admin Team who can assist."

so i had apparently at some stage opted out which meant i could no longer see the downloads apart from the video clip, the mcadmin team have now reactivated the WHS connect programe and i have now downloaded the files. So if anyone else is having the same problem you will need to be reactivated by the Microsoft Connect Admin Team.

Many thanks go to Jonas for all his help ealier today and to the MCadmin team."

 

[nerp]

Eh, the last thing I'd ever want in any system is an atom. A low end pentium is hardly more expensive, run several times faster, and the power savings of the atom add up to a few dollars a year at best.

It's great for netbooks that need good battery life but I don't think it belongs anywhere else, even in a low power server or htpc.

My machine uses about 15 watts at idle, 30 or so under full load. Your low end pentium uses 150 to 200 just sitting there. That's more than a few dollars per year. Plus my server is the size of a shoebox even with 5tb of storage and is perfectly silent. I'd say this is an ideal hardware setup for a home server.

And the atom I have is the 510 which is dual core. Although I won't be winning any gaming contests with it, it's a good deal faster than what is percieved. Frankly, a regular CPU in a WHS box is a bit overkill to me.

 

[Dahak]

Somebody on Microsoft's public WHS forum had something similar occur:

"Just as a recap, it wasn't that i could not find the links for downloading WHS Vail this is from an email between myself and Jonas on whsforums

"Hi Nigel,

It looks like you have declined participation in our beta program at some point in time. I am unable to change this status, but have added the Microsoft Connect Admin Team who can assist."

so i had apparently at some stage opted out which meant i could no longer see the downloads apart from the video clip, the mcadmin team have now reactivated the WHS connect programe and i have now downloaded the files. So if anyone else is having the same problem you will need to be reactivated by the Microsoft Connect Admin Team.

Many thanks go to Jonas for all his help ealier today and to the MCadmin team."

Hm... I must have does something like that too... but dont recall oh well, got it with my alternate id. I have email the connect support as well.

 

[notposting]

My machine uses about 15 watts at idle, 30 or so under full load. Your low end pentium uses 150 to 200 just sitting there. That's more than a few dollars per year. Plus my server is the size of a shoebox even with 5tb of storage and is perfectly silent. I'd say this is an ideal hardware setup for a home server.

And the atom I have is the 510 which is dual core. Although I won't be winning any gaming contests with it, it's a good deal faster than what is percieved. Frankly, a regular CPU in a WHS box is a bit overkill to me.

Well he was a bit off in his Atom-bashing but now you're going the other way with your Pentium-bashing.

My dual-core AMD setup with 2 drives idled around 48W. Intels offerings are quite thrifty at idle as well.

 

[nerp]

Well he was a bit off in his Atom-bashing but now you're going the other way with your Pentium-bashing.

My dual-core AMD setup with 2 drives idled around 48W. Intels offerings are quite thrifty at idle as well.

With C'N'Q enabled or speedstep/c1E yes, you can get decent power rates at idle. But at load it does get up there. And for older machines that didn't consider power management, you're talking a bit of wattage being sucked down 24/7. Not to mention older machines need video cards and other power sucking devices.

Look, running WHS on a non-atom or low power machine is fine. I did it for a bit with a dual core opteron machine. But BD2003 mentions the annoyance of having multiple computers running all the time to use MCE and WHS, arguing that a consolidation into WHS would save power. I suggested that upgrading to a low power machine for WHS might negate that sense of wastefulness he is referring to.

 

[BD2003]

Well he was a bit off in his Atom-bashing but now you're going the other way with your Pentium-bashing.

My dual-core AMD setup with 2 drives idled around 48W. Intels offerings are quite thrifty at idle as well.

I've got a dual core celeron in mine, in a Dell vostro desktop...it idles around 40w, loads around 60w. It's a mini tower under my desk that is also basically dead silent. Performance is at least double the atom, probably more. And that's just a core2 based system, an i3 would probably be even more efficient. There's no reason to use such a poorly performing processor when a much better one is hardly more expensive in price or consumption.

The reason this saves more power than the atom is that by having a server powerful enough to take care of things like transcoding, I don't have to leave the really power hungry desktops on all the time. If my already always on server could record video, or better yet, connect to wmc connectors, then that's one less entire pc that I need. That's where the wastefulness really is.

Of course the performance of the box hardly matters when all you use it for and all they market it as is a glorified NAS. They could and should do so much more with a product that runs a full server OS, but instead they go out of their way to discourage people from making it more useful. At least they don't entirely prevent you from doing so.

 

[Stevem627]

I really wish the Media Center integration was there. I do have to have two machines running all the time and would be able to get by with one if it was integrated. I have low power systems, but one is still better than two.

 

[pjkenned]

My machine uses about 15 watts at idle, 30 or so under full load. Your low end pentium uses 150 to 200 just sitting there. That's more than a few dollars per year. Plus my server is the size of a shoebox even with 5tb of storage and is perfectly silent. I'd say this is an ideal hardware setup for a home server.

And the atom I have is the 510 which is dual core. Although I won't be winning any gaming contests with it, it's a good deal faster than what is percieved. Frankly, a regular CPU in a WHS box is a bit overkill to me.

Wait... I did this Atom/ ION v. i5 comparison... it isn't that far off @ idle. The N330 in the ION is pretty similar to the D510.

http://www.servethehome.com/intel-core-i5-650-v-atom-n330-nvida-ion-review/

 

[BD2003]

It's the ion graphics chip that's soaking up the extra watts to make them nearly even. The atom with a 945 would be prob be lower, but it's performance even more pathetic. The i5 gpu is on the CPU die itself, which cuts the power requirements dramatically.

Still, that's a good example of how ridiculously efficient intels latest chips are. I seriously can't think of a good reason to use an atom in a custom build when there are mini-itx cases that accept real desktop chips. The power or money savings just aren't there. The only real advantage it has is that it works well in minaturized oem nettops and netbooks, but why gimp a server or htpc just to save a few inches?

 

[RebateMonger]

The latest Atoms with the latest Intel chipset are pretty amazing, power-wise. A quick calculation indicates that the power savings over a "typical" low-end Core2 PC (in the 60 Watt region, assuming it has a low-power graphics system) is going to be around $40 a year, or $200 over five years. Maybe more. That's about the cost of an Atom CPU/motherboard/memory package.

But if the Atom can't do what you need your server to do, then, of course, something that burns more power is appropriate.

 

[ViRGE]

It's the ion graphics chip that's soaking up the extra watts to make them nearly even. The atom with a 945 would be prob be lower, but it's performance even more pathetic. The i5 gpu is on the CPU die itself, which cuts the power requirements dramatically.

Still, that's a good example of how ridiculously efficient intels latest chips are. I seriously can't think of a good reason to use an atom in a custom build when there are mini-itx cases that accept real desktop chips. The power or money savings just aren't there. The only real advantage it has is that it works well in minaturized oem nettops and netbooks, but why gimp a server or htpc just to save a few inches?

Ditto. Take a look at Anand's Pentium G9560 review: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2972/...-pentium-g6950-core-i5-650-660-670-reviewed/8

73W idle with a GeForce GTX 280, and only 100W under load. And I have no doubts that would be about 30-40W lower if he used the IGP. It's slow for a Nehalem-architecture CPU, but it would beat an Atom over the head.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2?i=142.145.144.118.57.123.60.52.98.121.111.65.69.71.74.110.91.79

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/110?vs=123

You also have to take in to consideration the fact that ideally a WHS box is going to be idling (or near-idle) most of the time, which means you're usually operating under your best case scenario. Plus when it's not idling, there's a pretty good chance the Atom is going to be operating under load for a lot longer to get the task done.

I know OEMs love the Atom for its cost and heat characteristics, but a real dual-core processor would work a lot better. If anything, I'd be stoked if we could get laptop processors since those are binned for even better power consumption.

 

[JackMDS]

Enthusiasts get so "stuck" on their presumably hardware knowledge that they forget that a computer is a Gizmo that is used to do work.

I have am ATOM WHS, and a Powerful WHS.

Each one is built according to what it intended to do, and both work very well.

Commercial wise, with the coming of the WHSv2 there is going to be a move from ATOM based to the low energy newer CPUs that take a little more energy than the ATOMs but provide more computing Power.

 

[notposting]

Well, even under heavy load my system with the AMD dual core (Athlon X2 BE-2300, 1.9GHz) and 5 HD's plus optical tops out around 80W from the wall. Usually idles now around 60-65W I think.

Actually I am thinking about trying to transition it to a VM based setup where the extra computing horsepower would help. I could eliminate my 30W pfsense box that way And set up some Linux vms for stuff.

On a low power note, check out silentpcreview.com and their forums.

 

[ViRGE]

Commercial wise, with the coming of the WHSv2 there is going to be a move from ATOM based to the low energy newer CPUs that take a little more energy than the ATOMs but provide more computing Power.

I would honestly be surprised if that happened. All you technically need is a single-core 1.4GHz 64bit processor, which Atom can do. It doesn't even have to be the dual-core D510, technically a single-core Atom like the D410 or old 230 would work. OEMs are cheap, and it doesn't get any cheaper than an Atom.

 

[RebateMonger]

I would honestly be surprised if that happened. All you technically need is a single-core 1.4GHz 64bit processor, which Atom can do. It doesn't even have to be the dual-core D510, technically a single-core Atom like the D410 or old 230 would work. OEMs are cheap, and it doesn't get any cheaper than an Atom.

Yeah, since MS has apparently decided against full Media Center in WHS2, it'd seem like the new Atoms would work fine in commercial WHS2 servers. And only burn 10-20 Watts or so.

 

[RebateMonger]

Regarding the original topic of this thread:

Just in case somebody's not aware of it, there's some pretty good technical discussions of WHS2 in the MS public WHS forum and at WeGotServed.com.

http://social.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/whsvailbeta/threads

http://forum.wegotserved.com/index.php?/forum/196-windows-server-code-name-vail/?

 

[ViRGE]

Yeah, since MS has apparently decided against full Media Center in WHS2, it'd seem like the new Atoms would work fine in commercial WHS2 servers. And only burn 10-20 Watts or so.

It would run. Running well is another matter entirely.

 

[BD2003]

I'm personally not too familiar with virtualization since I havent yet seen a personal need for it, but could a VM of Win7 on Vail recognize an installed tuner?

 

[ViRGE]

I'm personally not too familiar with virtualization since I havent yet seen a personal need for it, but could a VM of Win7 on Vail recognize an installed tuner?

If it was a USB or network tuner, sure.

 

[BD2003]

If it was a USB or network tuner, sure.

So theoretically, with a bit of hacking, one could have their cake and eat it too here?

Assuming they had the proper hardware, install vail on a reasonably powerful server. Run Win7 in a VM, with a USB tuner for WMC. Vail does it's server thing, Win7 does it's media center thing, and one could then theoretically use the xbox 360 as an extender?

Would the Win7 in the VM be able to locally access the server shares?

Even if it did work, it still strikes me as the most convoluted way possible of getting it to work. It would be really nice if they would just enable WMC on the stock OS itself, I cant imagine it would be technically difficult to port WMC from Win7 to 2008 R2, but I have a feeling there's some sort of software block that would prevent it.

I honestly couldnt care less about what role MS intends WHS to fill, or their wacky add-in architecture - as far as I'm concerned, it's a waste to not use it to it's full potential and just let it sit there as a dumb NAS. I'm struggling to find a reason for vail to justify it's existence. It needs to do something more than v1 - right now it just seems like change for change's sake. So far I'm seeing nothing in it that couldnt have been done with v1.

 

[RebateMonger]

I'm personally not too familiar with virtualization since I havent yet seen a personal need for it, but could a VM of Win7 on Vail recognize an installed tuner?

It depends. If it's a PCI or PCI-E tuner, then, no.

If it's a USB tuner, then, maybe. Some higher-level virtualization software (like VMWare Server) can read USB ports. But that might be only for mass storage, and not for something like a TV tuner. Low-level virtualization software, like ESX or Hyper-V can't read USB.

 

[pjkenned]

If it's a USB tuner, then, maybe. Some higher-level virtualization software (like VMWare Server) can read USB ports. But that might be only for mass storage, and not for something like a TV tuner. Low-level virtualization software, like ESX or Hyper-V can't read USB.

I was just going to post something like this. Microsoft doesn't do Hyper-V + USB support. However :0) You CAN get USB support by using my second most favorite virtualization package, Virtualbox.

Just to get a bit more exciting, Windows Virtual PC/ XP Mode in Windows 7 has some USB support, although I'm not sure if a tuner would work.