Servers 2012 hit Technet but....

TechLarry

TechLarry

RIP [H] Brother - June 1, 2022
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
30,481
They are not in RTM form as expected.

They moved from Beta status to Release Candidate.

Wasn't expecting that.
 
This has been out since May, they just finally put it on TechNet. The RC has been publicly available for quite a while.
 
No it's been available on TN since may I have no idea what the OP is talking about, guess he finally just noticed it
 
/usr/home said:
He never mentioned essentials... He just said server.
Click to expand...

Technically, he said "Servers" :p And the thing that went from Beta to RC today on Technet is Essentials. It's pretty clear that this is what he was referring to.
 
Consider most people around her rabidly waiting for WS2012 to RTM to technet couldn't give 2 shits about essentials, it wasn't even remotely clear at all.
 
-Dragon- said:
Consider most people around her rabidly waiting for WS2012 to RTM to technet couldn't give 2 shits about essentials, it wasn't even remotely clear at all.
Click to expand...

If you looked at Technet, it was obvious that is what he was referring to, since that is what actually changed, and not regular Server 2012. If you decided to just jump on him for having a post title that got you all excited about Server 2012 without reading his actual post mentioning "beta status to release candidate", then I suppose it wouldn't be as clear. I'm looking forward to a final RTM version of Server 2012 as well, and am baffled as to why Microsoft seems to be delaying it, but based on the OP, I'm not clear why folks would jump to the conclusion that he was referring to Server 2012 and not Essentials.
 
As soon as I saw the thread, without opening it I was like ALRIGHT and logged into TechNet to download it. Saw it was the stupid Essentials and I are disappoint. Screw Essentials, Standard needs to drop soon.
 
Don't know if I'll bother with 12 or not. I've just gone-round with 12 enterprise and trying to set up a pool using a number of drives. About 1tb into copying it spewed errors about running out of logical space and took the pool entirely offline. And gave no real indicator on the server manager console about it. I had to go digging to reactivate the pool, which it did, and offered no explanation. Meanwhile the shares got pitched offline leaving the clients to hang. Granted this was not an RC but it seems like a pretty dramatic error for something supposedly so close to release. Maybe I'll try the essentials RC just to see if it likewise chokes on copying to the pool. But the other restrictions associated with Essentials make it a total non-starter for any setups I'll ever handle.
 
Could be drivers. I couldn't use Windows 8 on my main workstation because Intel hadn't dropped drivers. Windows 7 drivers wouldn't work, and included drivers could not configure VLANs. There is a difference between the built-in drivers and full-featured drivers from the Mfg.
 
For sure on the drivers. The built-in WDDM driver worked fine on W8 for my wife's laptop with a GMA945 but in games it was crap. Used the Intel Win7 one and the desktop and internet was exactly the same, but it fixed a bunch of game issues.
 
Nope, not drivers. It's an issue with how Spaces manages a pool with different sized drives. It basically can't rearrange itself properly. This was a parity pool with a bunch of drives; 3x 750, 3x 1.5tb, 2x 1tb and 2x 2tb. Seemed to set up just fine. Shared out some folders and started copying data into it. The space then threw a "logical block provisioning permanent resource exhaustion condition" error. It then threw more errors about being write protected and yanked the Space's drive mount offline. A bit of investigation seems to indicate the wizard for creating pools isn't very good at doing it. But creating them in powershell isn't exactly trivial either.

You'd think testing would cover nonsense like this... wishful thinking. Something as basic as setting up a pool with a bunch of random drives, making a share in it and then kicking off a copy from a network client. Pretty basic testing.. clearly not tried. This does not bode well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top