arstechnica.com— The release of Windows Home Server in the US is imminent, and users are reporting that it is already available in some regions. Microsoft remains secretive, however.
Aug 20, 2007View in Crawl 4
I haven't been able to come up with any good reason to have a home server. I have 6 computers running in my house, including two Linux/MythTV boxes. I consolidate all of my storage, etc on my primary desktop computer, which is on all the time anyway. What benefit would I get from installing a server? There certainly isn't a heavy usage load within a household that might degrade performance.I've actually been trying to convince myself to set up a server, but I can't come up with any good reason to do it.
Well, its the age old computer science argument of client vs. server. Tuning a server OS is alot differnet than a client OS. Apps, maintenance, setup, configuration, etc. are also alot different. A mac mini, or heck, a windows machine, can be configured to be a webserver...sure. But do they do it well? Is the throughput maximized to make it efficient? Optimizing around things like 'disk throughput' and 'background' threads are what servers are best configured for. Vista, and most client OS's, have tons of services that you wouldn't want running on a server for per/security reasons. However, previously a windows based server class OS would cost you a grand. This gives people a lower priced windows choice. The eqivalent is tuning a *nix box. A mac mini is just a form factor...having the OS tuned for file sharing, backups, redundancy, etc. is different. The other key thing is remote management. WHS works very efficiently as a 'headless' server. It runs on 512 ram, 1ghz processor. and comes with remote mangement utilities for setting up websites, configuring asp and such. The thing is, it makes this easy. even playing with a true windows server at home, IIS was a PITA to configure asp for. This thing made it cake. I do wish i could configure PHP and such for it. and when i say it has 'add in' support, I dont mean as client applications, I mean it makes remote adminstration activities easier. The downside to the tuning and all that is that it doesnt run as a media pc at all. a media pc would require it to be alot beefier, so i think i know why they did this. besides, my media pc relies on all sorts of drivers written by companies that i wouldnt trust in a server environment. Anyway, if you get a chance, I'd check out the feature set and understand it a bit more. again, its not something you couldnt do before. its just really well done and packaged. A solid *nix admin can probably setup the same setup. I honestly dont know enough about mac to know if they have a 'light server' sku to offer, though i'd be interested to hear / try it out if they did.
weedmonkAug 20, 2007
Waiting on iHome server for iTards?
bigbunionAug 20, 2007
I haven't been able to come up with any good reason to have a home server. I have 6 computers running in my house, including two Linux/MythTV boxes. I consolidate all of my storage, etc on my primary desktop computer, which is on all the time anyway. What benefit would I get from installing a server? There certainly isn't a heavy usage load within a household that might degrade performance.I've actually been trying to convince myself to set up a server, but I can't come up with any good reason to do it.
obkenobiAug 20, 2007
LinuxMCE. Free and no DRM.
darthsnoopyAug 21, 2007
Well, its the age old computer science argument of client vs. server. Tuning a server OS is alot differnet than a client OS. Apps, maintenance, setup, configuration, etc. are also alot different. A mac mini, or heck, a windows machine, can be configured to be a webserver...sure. But do they do it well? Is the throughput maximized to make it efficient? Optimizing around things like 'disk throughput' and 'background' threads are what servers are best configured for. Vista, and most client OS's, have tons of services that you wouldn't want running on a server for per/security reasons. However, previously a windows based server class OS would cost you a grand. This gives people a lower priced windows choice. The eqivalent is tuning a *nix box. A mac mini is just a form factor...having the OS tuned for file sharing, backups, redundancy, etc. is different. The other key thing is remote management. WHS works very efficiently as a 'headless' server. It runs on 512 ram, 1ghz processor. and comes with remote mangement utilities for setting up websites, configuring asp and such. The thing is, it makes this easy. even playing with a true windows server at home, IIS was a PITA to configure asp for. This thing made it cake. I do wish i could configure PHP and such for it. and when i say it has 'add in' support, I dont mean as client applications, I mean it makes remote adminstration activities easier. The downside to the tuning and all that is that it doesnt run as a media pc at all. a media pc would require it to be alot beefier, so i think i know why they did this. besides, my media pc relies on all sorts of drivers written by companies that i wouldnt trust in a server environment. Anyway, if you get a chance, I'd check out the feature set and understand it a bit more. again, its not something you couldnt do before. its just really well done and packaged. A solid *nix admin can probably setup the same setup. I honestly dont know enough about mac to know if they have a 'light server' sku to offer, though i'd be interested to hear / try it out if they did.
sven333Aug 23, 2007
Vad i världen. Microsoft server i hemmet? Varför skulle man bryr sig? Inte jag i allifall.
srg13Aug 25, 2007
What do you mean by "not "Linux easy""? Because that is an outdated stereotype (just like the hundreds of Blue screens you get every day)