My Server 2012 Install Adventure

TechLarry

TechLarry

RIP [H] Brother - June 1, 2022
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
30,481
Ok, we're finally off to a decent start.

Install under Parallels on my Mac Mini was an epic fail. Not sure why. It wasn't giving me enough info to troubleshoot.

Moved on to my dedicated Hyper-V server. So far, installed fine and right now I'm playing with it.

So far:

Created one local user.

Currently trying to set up media streaming and remote access. If that's successful, I'll move on to client backup.

I think that's where the domain thing is gonna kick me in the ass. We'll see.
 
Impressed with the performance under Hyper-V so far. Host server is a simple i5 2400 with 8GB RAM.

Remote Web Access is working. Looks a lot like WHS did.

Only have access over the lan right now. Just like WHS, the whizzard could not configure my router automatically (WNDR-3700) and I'll have to open the ports manually.

More on that later.

RemoteWebAccess.png
 
Ok, this was SO NOT COOL.

I installed the connector software on a Win8 VM I have running under Parallels.

It took control of the computer and put it on the frickin' domain. I KNEW the bastard was gonna bite me on the nuts eventually.

So not cool Microsoft. There were no warnings or notifications at all.
 
Backup is working. But I'm really pissed right now.
 
Ok..... You can only install 2012 Essentials as a Domain Server. There is no option to set up as a Workgroup server. That's stupid, but fine. Let it sit there and be all domainey if it wants.

I just created local accounts on it.

So I'm setting up and installing little bits of it and it comes time to try the backup service.

Using a Win8 machine set up as a standard non-domain computer, I went to //servername/connect to install the connector software for the backup service.

It ran. It ran fine. Only problem is it whacked all my workstation settings on the Win8 machine and instead put it on the Server's domain. No notices, no warnings, no nothing. Very, Very rude.
 
... I'm not sure what you're expecting here. It's basically a newish version of SBS 2011. SBS 2011 did the exact same things.
 
/usr/home said:
... I'm not sure what you're expecting here. It's basically a newish version of SBS 2011. SBS 2011 did the exact same things.
Click to expand...

I haven't delved in to it, but around these parts everybody is saying Server 2012 Essentials is the WHS replacement.

For those interested in a full, dedicated server, Microsoft's suggesting they instead consider its entry-level commercial product, Windows Server 2012 Essentials, which costs $425 for the software
Click to expand...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...018614030_microsoft_kills_windows_home_s.html

So even Microsoft is plugging 2012 Essentials as the WHS replacement.
But if 2012 Essentials is domain-only, wtf?
According to TechLarry's post in Operating Systems, at least the beta is domain-only.

Q: Will there be a next version of Windows Home Server?

A: No. Windows Home Server has seen its greatest success in small office/home office (SOHO) environments and among the technology enthusiast community. For this reason, Microsoft is combining the features that were previously only found in Windows Home Server, such as support for DLNA-compliant devices and media streaming, into Windows Server 2012 Essentials and focusing our efforts into making Windows Server 2012 Essentials the ideal first server operating system for both small business and home use - offering an intuitive administration experience, elastic and resilient storage features with Storage Spaces, and robust data protection for the server and client computers.
Click to expand...
 
Then WTF, if it's meant for home use then why in the world would they price it at $425?
 
And being a castrated piece of shit just spend 400 dollars more and you get standard server and 2 vm cals.

No one will use essentials in the SMB market.
 
j-sta said:
I haven't delved in to it, but around these parts everybody is saying Server 2012 Essentials is the WHS replacement.


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...018614030_microsoft_kills_windows_home_s.html

So even Microsoft is plugging 2012 Essentials as the WHS replacement.
But if 2012 Essentials is domain-only, wtf?
According to TechLarry's post in Operating Systems, at least the beta is domain-only.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the point. From a feature standpoint, it is an updated version of whs.

It's really pretty nice.

But the domain thing and the price are totally wrong.

A 10 user package that runs as a workgroup server for under $200 is what they need to do.

Now, there is one lower end oem only package that is 10 user, but I haven't seen the feature specs yet and there is no demo. Can only hope.
 
You have to remember with essentials, there are no cals to purchase, that makes a big difference in your total cost in the SMB market. Not so much home users.
 
TechLarry said:
That's exactly the point. From a feature standpoint, it is an updated version of whs.

It's really pretty nice.

But the domain thing and the price are totally wrong.

A 10 user package that runs as a workgroup server for under $200 is what they need to do.

Now, there is one lower end oem only package that is 10 user, but I haven't seen the feature specs yet and there is no demo. Can only hope.
Click to expand...

Windows 8 will fill this gap. It can do media streaming, no? And with storage spaces you can pool drives. You wouldn't get the web interface though.

Meh, I liked WHS 2011 a lot, but having just gone with a Synology setup, I'm loving the Synology a lot.
 
/usr/home said:
Windows 8 will fill this gap. It can do media streaming, no? And with storage spaces you can pool drives. You wouldn't get the web interface though.

Meh, I liked WHS 2011 a lot, but having just gone with a Synology setup, I'm loving the Synology a lot.
Click to expand...

So you are 50/50 ?
 
/usr/home said:
Windows 8 will fill this gap. It can do media streaming, no? And with storage spaces you can pool drives. You wouldn't get the web interface though.

Meh, I liked WHS 2011 a lot, but having just gone with a Synology setup, I'm loving the Synology a lot.
Click to expand...

No backup system.

A replacement for WHS can't be bits and pieces. It either replaces it or it doesn't.
 
Wrench00 said:
And being a castrated piece of shit just spend 400 dollars more and you get standard server and 2 vm cals.

No one will use essentials in the SMB market.
Click to expand...

I'll ask the dogs if they can give up their Milk Bones for a few years :)

What you propose sounds feasible, but without a granular server role and feature comparison document, we don't even know what Server Standard has yet.

The only Preview other than Essentials are for Hyper-V and Data Center. There isn't one for Standard or Enterprise.

I did download and install Data Center to check it out. It does not have the backup system, streaming, etc... of 2012E. And that does not surprise me.

Whether 2012 standard can fill in for Essentials will all depend on the features available, and we just don't have any documentation on that right now.
 
TechLarry said:
I'll ask the dogs if they can give up their Milk Bones for a few years :)

What you propose sounds feasible, but without a granular server role and feature comparison document, we don't even know what Server Standard has yet.

The only Preview other than Essentials are for Hyper-V and Data Center. There isn't one for Standard or Enterprise.

I did download and install Data Center to check it out. It does not have the backup system, streaming, etc... of 2012E. And that does not surprise me.

Whether 2012 standard can fill in for Essentials will all depend on the features available, and we just don't have any documentation on that right now.
Click to expand...

Microsoft has posted licencing for server 2012. Its a piece. Essentials has no vming rights I for one will not use it. I haven't built a MS Physical server in several years. Its also easier to upsell 400 dollars plus another 200 dollars of cals and you get a Standard server and 2VM licences and no stupid artificial limits of essentials. It will not be a hard sell.
 
Still can't find info on whether Standard supports the client backup system, streaming, etc... that Essentials does. None of the charts mention these items in the comparisons.

I know datacenter doesn't have them.
 
TechLarry said:
I'll ask the dogs if they can give up their Milk Bones for a few years :)

What you propose sounds feasible, but without a granular server role and feature comparison document, we don't even know what Server Standard has yet.

The only Preview other than Essentials are for Hyper-V and Data Center. There isn't one for Standard or Enterprise.

I did download and install Data Center to check it out. It does not have the backup system, streaming, etc... of 2012E. And that does not surprise me.

Whether 2012 standard can fill in for Essentials will all depend on the features available, and we just don't have any documentation on that right now.
Click to expand...

SErver standard just like old server standard will have everything as essentials just not in a ready package. that means you will need a competent admin to design the system for you.
 
Wait I'm confused. What so bad about being part of a domain? :rolleyes:
 
Home networks do not need the extra complexity of domains. It's really that simple.
 
nitrobass24 said:
Wait I'm confused. What so bad about being part of a domain? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

My sarcasm meter appears to be broken...

Microsoft is plugging a domain-only server as a WHS replacement.
Domain stuff isn't exactly meant for the majority of home users.
 
TechLarry said:
Home networks do not need the extra complexity of domains. It's really that simple.
Click to expand...


Sure they do. Think of how many wannabe techies will buy this product and be desparate enough to pony up $250 to MS for a support ticket on top of the initial purchase price...
 
Wow...

Anyway, I'm reading that you can put the machine back in Workgroup status after the install is done. I'm going to try that and see what the results are.

This issue appears to be getting a great deal of attention right now.
 
Ok, other than the noted gripes, so far so good. Viper AntiVirus installed and is running fine.

File sharing is fine. Backup works but I only have one Windows 8 RC VM running it due to the Domain Requirement.

I just got my replacement WNDR4500 from Netgear. As soon as I have a chance I'll take my network down and swap it back in, then see if the auto setup for remote access works. I don't expect it to. It never has in the past on WHS :) If not, I'll dig up the technet note on the ports to set manually in the router.

Streaming seems ok so far.

Like I said, other than the already noted gripes, so far so good ! It runs great as a Hyper-V VM under Windows 2008r2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top