Power Pack 1 and HP's add-ons make Windows Home Server a real grouch

If you've experienced some shockingly slow results from your Windows Home Server-based unit, we've one question for you: do you have Power Pack 1 and the HP add-ons installed? If so, you may not be alone in your frustrations. Apparently a number of users have seen dramatic slowdowns that have rendered their WHS devices nearly unusable. It seems that all the "bloatware" really takes a toll, as the hard drives are constantly pounded and console menus take ages (minutes, to be more precise) to appear. According to Within Windows, the only real solutions are to install more RAM and / or tweak your pagefile configurations afterwards. Anyone else raging mad about the performance issues? What are you going to do about it?

[Thanks, Bryant]

[dial0g @ Jul 28th 2008 3:11AM]

The problem is the McAfee add-in, disable it and everything is back up to speed.

[Bryant @ Jul 28th 2008 3:28AM]

Disable one or the other. Check TFA for information on just how you can uninstall it if you've already done the misdeed of loading them both onto your system.

[JohnFrum @ Jul 28th 2008 3:41AM]

Same. I stopped running McAfee years ago on my main system because of poor performance. I decided to give it a try and should have known better.
Once I removed it my server was happy once more.

[Brad @ Jul 28th 2008 3:44AM]

McAfee is easily the worst major piece of anti-virus software out there. System intensive, ineffectual, paid-subscription-based, and filled with its own critical security holes.

Sometimes you just have to hate shitty software.

[Zorque @ Jul 28th 2008 4:37AM]

I'd argue that Norton's worse, but the fact remains that for some reason, most consumer anti-viruses are terrible software, which sucks because they're so essential. They really need to step it up and find a new way of doing things, because it just doesn't work as is.

[BobTurbo @ Jul 28th 2008 6:30AM]

It is not 1995, antivirus is not essential for many, many people. Their bank doesn't let them transfer externally without some non-computer related authentication, they back up their files, and Windows is relatively secure so they don't need to constantly format from virus attacks.

[bifbib @ Jul 28th 2008 8:20AM]

the problem is HP and their inability to make any PC that isn't deficient...they should stick to printers. If you want a decent Windows server, roll your own and keep away from the AV stuff...buy a hw firewall.

[atbnet @ Jul 28th 2008 8:53AM]

Hopefully people are smart enough not to infect their server with McAfee. Really though you shouldn't even need an anti-virus for your home server unless you are completely incompetent. You shouldn't be downloading and running shady programs on it in the first place.

[loosely_coupled @ Jul 29th 2008 2:07AM]

Who uses Windows home server anyways? If you don't want to run Ubuntu or similar, why not just use Server 2003?

[Alex @ Jul 28th 2008 4:15AM]

Now, I'm not usually one to be a linux fanboi, but this seems like a case where Linux is the obvious solution. I'm willing to admit that, in many cases, linux is not ready for the desktop, but this sort of home file server is exactly what linux is great at. Looking at the list of features on the official Windows Home Server website, there doesn't look like a single thing that windows could possibly be better at.

Case in point: At this very moment, I have a linux box next to me acting as a file server, media center (right now it's piping internet radio through my stereo), freenet and TOR node, and BOINC cruncher. How much did the software cost? $0.

I just don't understand why anyone would buy Windows Home Server (or any MS server product for that matter).

[Intrepid @ Jul 28th 2008 4:21AM]

I respectfully disagree.

This version of Windows is very well designed, and as pointed out above - it's bloatware that's the issue.

All major issues with Windows are driver or bloatware related. Stop ragging on MS because it's the cool thing to do. And as for media centers, Windows Media Center was revolutionary and still is probably the best solution out there... Microsoft's only mistake was letting those stupid OEMs produce the machines.

[Alex @ Jul 28th 2008 4:34AM]

@Intrepid:

"Stop ragging on MS because it's the cool thing to do."

Huh? How on earth did I come off as 'ragging on MS because it's the cool thing to do'? I even provided an example of me putting my money where my mouth is (my linux solution). Also, notice that I'm willing to concede that Windows has its advantages when it comes to the desktop. Hell, I'm even posting this from XP Media Center. What I can't understand is why one would choose MS over Linux as a home server solution.

"And as for media centers, Windows Media Center was revolutionary and still is probably the best solution out there..."
As I posted above, I'm using XP media center on my laptop right now (it came bundled) and I'm not nearly as impressed as you. I uninstalled the media features the same week I got it. Without the one media center program (bloated program to view photos, use a tuner card, and play music) it's basically just XP pro.

[Zorque @ Jul 28th 2008 4:38AM]

I don't think Microsoft's ever said that MCE is anything but XP Pro with a few media features built-in, it's not like it's a secret or anything.

[iofthestorm @ Jul 28th 2008 4:43AM]

You should see Vista Media Center then, it seems a lot better than the XP version. Haven't really tried MythTV or any other Linux media centers to be honest though, but I doubt they could achieve the same level of polish and ease of use.

Also I think you're mostly right that Linux is a much better server OS than Windows, except for one little thing that is probably more important to most home users, whom this is targeted at: ease of use. Sure, you and I can download an ISO and burn it and install Linux, but ask most people what an ISO is and they'd probably either give blank stares or mention something about their camera having ISO800 or something. I think HP had a version of this server with Linux that cost about half as much and was a bit smaller, so that's bridging the gap but for the average user Linux is too much hassle (read: it takes some effort and education).

[Alex @ Jul 28th 2008 4:44AM]

@Zorque:

Oh I agree. I didn't mean to imply that. I was just trying to show why I don't believe XP Media Center to be quite as revolutionary as Intrepid would have you think.

[Chris R @ Jul 28th 2008 5:54AM]

Now, while I understand what you are saying Alex, you have also shown the exact reasons why HOME Server is better than Linux for a HOME user - while I know Linux can do these things its hardly a case of popping to the shop, plugging it in the network and power - job done. That is the WHS experience for the target audience, its sold as a "white goods" solution IMO hence the hardware tie-in when it was initially released.
Linux solution (while it is free, its a lot of hours work to get it right) = find distribution that does everything you want out the box, find the distribution that NEARLY does what you want, download ISO, wonder how you install it for a while, buy hardware to install it on, burn the ISO, connect monitor/keyboard/mouse to install it, read countless geeky posts about how to set up processes to serve the UPNP streams to your Media centre extender (Xbox 360 etc), XBMC, configure folder duplication across disks, configure the remote access to the server from the internet, write special bit of script (or a canned one) for automated backup from the Windows clients to the Linux server...
You understand what I mean? Its not a plug and play solution or even approaching one.
I buy a WHS machine it does the above out the box, with very little configuration to be done.

The target audience for the WHS product is by and large not massively techy IMO.

[RCook @ Jul 28th 2008 10:12AM]

I'll concur that Linux is the better solution for this situation. I was in on the WHS beta program and I used WHS for quite awhile, 6 months or more. But when it got right down to it, when the beta was over, I chose to use Linux -- CentOS specifically -- instead.

I am able to do everything that a WHS box can do and more without the headaches that seem to plague this product. I really wanted WHS to work simply because I didn't want the hassle of admining a Linux box at home as well as at work, I wanted brain-dead-easy. I got it, using Linux.

Once you do have it setup and configured, and don't respond with how hard Linux is to configure -- Windows has just as many quirks, there just happens to be a GUI to use instead of the command line -- my CentOS "home server" works great.

TorrentFlux, SlimServer, File/Print, Remote Access, Web, Ventrillo, Caching DNS, Snort proxy+Dans Guardian=no pron for kids. It's the superior solution.

[Aaron @ Jul 28th 2008 10:51AM]

Linux is not a better solution for a home full of Windows PC's. Until you can show me a Linux app that performs automatic nightly backups of Windows clients that are:
* Clustered (no identical file across clients is duplicated in the DB)
* Imaged (can automatically restore entire PC to exact same state after failure)
* Incremental (only changes are backed up after a full backup)

....Then Linux can't compete with WHS in the area of Windows client backups.

[Andir3.0 @ Jul 28th 2008 12:26PM]

@Aaron: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/info.html

Everything you described, some additional stuff, no client software needed, and it's open source.

Oh, and it took me a whole 30 seconds with the help of Google to find it.

[ds @ Jul 28th 2008 12:56PM]

@Andir3.0

Your last post was nothing short of linux propaganda. The app you claimed could do image backups of Windows drives says flat out on the damn page you linked that it does not. Read some of the limitations -- It does not play that well with Windows drives.

"The conclusion from the last few items is that BackupPC is not intended to allow a complete WinXX disk to be re-imaged from the backup. Our approach to system restore in the event of catastrophic failure is to re-image a new disk from a generic master, and then use the BackupPC archive to restore user files."

[Aaron @ Jul 28th 2008 1:00PM]

Backuppc won't back up any locked files on Windows OS (registry, database files, etc etc). Sorry, not imaged, not even close.

[Andir3.0 @ Jul 28th 2008 1:54PM]

So how exactly is that different from the Microsoft solution? How would you re-image a Windows PC with Windows Server? You still need to have the PC up and running to restore from Win File Server whether you do it with a system restore disc or an imaged base of windows... the same way BackupPC works.

[Aaron @ Jul 28th 2008 2:09PM]

Nope, with WHS your failed client PC does not even need to boot into an OS.

WHS comes with a bootable CD whose sole purpose is to load the network drivers, and then find and connect to WHS over the network to perform a completely automatic network-based restore of the entire disk. Takes only as long as the files take to copy over the network. Backuppc cannot do this, at least not with Windows clients.

[ds @ Jul 28th 2008 2:27PM]

I get that you don't understand how WHS works, but if that's the case why not educate yourself instead of assuming you understand it. All you are doing is spreading your own ignorance here.

WHS will allow you to restore a PC from an image stored on the server. You do not need to install Windows on the target machine before restoring your backup. You boot with a restore CD that finds your server on the network and restores from there. Similar to every other network image app. I'm not sure how you possibly think this is the same as the Linux solution. The Linux solution requires you to reinstall your OS, apps, drivers and will then restore some files (pictures and such). The WHS solution restores your entire OS, apps, drivers, and files with a few clicks and in about ~15 minutes TOTAL. This is an image based backup.

[SchmuckyTheCat @ Jul 28th 2008 4:04PM]

Lunix doesn't offer a Remote Desktop Proxy either.

[Andir3.0 @ Jul 28th 2008 3:34PM]

So, let me get this straight... Microsoft uses a proprietary interface (probably undocumented) to back up locked files and create backups without hacks. They most likely disallow access to these docs to third party backup solutions that have to reverse engineer the methods to do this... and somehow it's Linux's fault that it doesn't perform the EXACT same methods (but damn close)?

So you stick to the double standard. Just like hardware support. Lack of hardware support in Linux = Linux's fault. Lack of hardware support in Windows = hardware companies fault. Something along those lines, eh?

You blame Linux for not supporting what Microsoft doesn't publish openly. Makes total sense...

[ds @ Jul 28th 2008 3:44PM]

It is actually not undocumented. I know how it is done, and so do a lot of people. You just do not know because you are very uninformed. And no one is blaming anything on Linux. The point is WHS offers an incredibly useful feature that Linux does not. If a PC connected to a WHS network needs to be reimaged for any reason, it can be done in a few minutes. If a PC on a newtork with a Linux server is in the same situation, the best Linux can do is store the files while you rebuild the OS, drivers and apps manually.

The irony of course is this is a HUGE difference, and one of the main reasons anyone would consider a home server.

[SchmuckyTheCat @ Jul 28th 2008 4:32PM]

Andir, you're an idiot, and every response makes you look worse.

First you throw out a "solution" that proclaims itself not to do exactly what you proposed it for as a solution. Then you scream that Microsoft is doing secret. undocumented nefarious things, but sorry Volume Shadow Copy is extremely well documented, has been around, and well used by plenty of third party vendors for several years. You can read about it on freakin' Wikipedia.

Then you accuse people of astroturfing for Microsoft because of what they choose to capitalize in a sentence.

Go back to trolling slashdot, please.

[Aaron @ Jul 28th 2008 4:39PM]

Come on Andir3.0, just admit it. For a household of Windows machines, WHS is the superior solution.

No one here is "blaming" Linux for anything. We're just stating that in this case, WHS is superior to anything Linux has to offer. By the way, I have a WAMP server running on my WHS box and I'm regularly playing around with the latest distros (mostly out of interest and curiosity). I have nothing against Linux or OSS. But while it may seem that Linux would be a perfect solution for automatic backup, it's not. At least not for Windows clients.

By the way, I'd love to have a free open source solution that can do what WHS does. I'd gladly switch if/when a better solution pops up. But there's a big difference between imaged and non-imaged backups and I refuse to spend another full day (or longer) rebuilding a crashed machine with all my settings/applications/OS/etc.

[grug @ Jul 28th 2008 4:26AM]

Yeah, it was Microsoft's only mistake!

Well, that and the whole pesky data corruption bug that it took them 7 months to fix...

[Philip Patrick @ Jul 28th 2008 4:32AM]

I have WHS installed for about a half year - since it was released - and didn't find any problem with performance not than nor after installing PP1 (was during its Beta as well).
I have to admit though as my server already has 2 Gigs of memory and there is no McAffess virus scan installed on it either (as posters above pointed out).

[Shawn @ Jul 28th 2008 5:29AM]

I know I'm probably gonna get low ranked for this but what the heck.

This is why some of us use a Mac, Front Row is only a million times easier to use and simpler then Media Center, and is included with Mac. Plus Mac's have loads of server functions included like web, ftp, vnc, etc. that you can setup with literally one click. Plus no bloatware included.

[Juxtah @ Jul 28th 2008 6:10AM]

I like Mac software, but that doesn't change the fact they are blatantly ripping their customers off at every possible turn with hardware.

[jakem @ Jul 28th 2008 6:28AM]

You just can't compare Front Row to Media Center. Front Row is like a toy in comparison and is aimes at a different market since it lacks TV features.

Anyway, this is about WHS and Apple doesn't have a product that competes with that either IMO. Time Machine is not nearly as flexible or sophisticated.

[Brett @ Jul 28th 2008 9:29AM]

I love my Macs, but I completely agree with jakem.

[Chris Wickersham @ Jul 28th 2008 5:44AM]

I'm one of the rare ones indeed I suppose, but I actually switched from a fedora server that I have had running for almost 10 years (migrated from redhat obviously) to a new machine and went with Windows Home Server. After using the beta and then an eval copy of the production release, I was convinced that for my money (including time) it made more sense. The server console and the plugin architecture are very nice features, well worth the cost by themselves. We are an OS agnostic house for the most part, in that we will use what we find to be the best fit for the situation at hand. We use mac desktops/laptops around the house, our gateway for the house runs on a linux box, we have tivo's feeding our televisions, and our file server is now a WHS. Biggest reason? They got disk management (mostly) right. Like Drobo, when you need more storage you just plug in a disk. A disk fails, you swap it out for another disk and the server rebuilds the array. I know that using a combination of raid and lvm you can get this from a fedora box but I really didn't see the point in putting my time into it. As a husband, father and full time coder I just don't have time anymore to futz around with our file server when I'm home. I hate to say it about a MS product, but WHS just works.

[Andir3.0 @ Jul 28th 2008 8:27AM]

So... Did your Fedora (capitalized in my post... wonder why you capitalized all the MS products in your post, but not Red Hat, Linux or Fedora both times you used it? hmmm ... ) machine just stop working? Ran out of disk space and forgot how to add another drive? You forgot how to add one line to a config file and mount that drive to any folder thereby increasing the space? You could take the 5 minutes to add the drive, but not the 30 seconds to add this one line?

[ds @ Jul 28th 2008 12:33PM]

@Andir3.0

Calm down man. I think the guy was giving his honest feedback which is completely relevant and could be valuable to the people reading these comments. Your comment on the other hand was completely pointless and absurb.

Maybe the guy didn't capitalize fedora, redhat or linux; but chose to capitalize Windows Home Server for readability. The linux words stand alone as in any reading 'redhat' knows he is speaking of the OS, as opposed to a hat that is red. Windows Home Server on the other hand can be tougher to read because the words home and server appear frequently in context that is not referring directly to the WHS OS.

Oh and you are a nerd.

[Andir3.0 @ Jul 28th 2008 12:55PM]

Nah, I seriously think he's turfing. After reading it again, he didn't capitalize any of the Linux acronyms (LVM), RAID, or Mac. It's a fun little subliminal technique to draw attention to a particular brand or company by pointing them out in text and doing the opposite to a competitive product.

[Aaron @ Jul 28th 2008 2:03PM]

@Andir3.0
Seriously? How does the term "RAID", whether upper case or lower case, have anything to do with promoting Windows? This is not a Linux term.

Also, he managed to capitalize the word "Drobo". So tell us, how does your grand theory fit fit in with that?

[ds @ Jul 28th 2008 4:19PM]

@Andir3.0

Yes, Chris here is clearly lying through his teeth about WHS. He must have been bought off by microsoft recently though because this is the first post he has ever said anything nice about MS. I see posts with him speaking about his Apple computers, and his annoyance with the 360's lack of HDMI. Yes, clearly Apple used to pay him off, but recently he switched his allegiance to Microsoft -- of course for money because why else would anyone write anything decent about that evil corporation on a message board. Or perhaps.. he was just giving his honest opinion and chose not to capitalize raid to subtly attack Linux... yeah that's it.

[Pete @ Jul 28th 2008 6:08AM]

I had these problems, and then un-installed "PVConnect Media Server for HP MediaSmart" which I've since come to the conclusion is a crippled version of Twonky 4.4.4. Re-installed proper Twonky 4.4.4 and everything's cool.

[chris fredette @ Jul 28th 2008 12:46PM]

After you install PV connect it goes through all you media for streeming. This makes the server dog like no tomorrow. The problem is that it dosen't really show you it is working. With about 90GB of stuff it took over several hours but by the next day it runs like normal.
I never installed the Mcafee crap because I assumed it was crap.

[jakem @ Jul 28th 2008 6:33AM]

Yeap, I uninstalled PVConnect and McAfee and my WHS's performance returned to normal. Additionally, PVConnect was crashing when I logged into the server via remote desktop so it's buggy as well as bloated.

I wish HP wouldn't include this 3rd-party software. Their hardware is brilliant but there attempts to improve the software are lacking. I don't even think they should include the iTunes server software as I can't delete it and have no need for it. Allow users to install it if they want it - don't force it down our throats.

[Neal @ Jul 28th 2008 10:09AM]

Yep, and this is why it serves Apple so well to own and lock down their products from 3rd parties. More times than not, OEM's (in an attempt to make things better) introduce all kinds of problems with the bundled garbage they add on.

[Russell @ Jul 28th 2008 7:55AM]

I experienced similar problems, and raised a discussion thred on the Microsoft Home Server Forum: http://forums.microsoft.com/WindowsHomeServer/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=3666844&SiteID=50

What I concluded though was that some of the existing add-ins I had installed were not 100% compatable with PP1, so having uninstalled the HP upgrades, PP1 the all the add-ins, I then installed PP1, downloaded and installed the latest versions of my existing plugins then finally the HP upgrades. Once the PVConnect indexing had completed everything was running fine.

The only other issue I came across was with installing & un-installing add-ins which became extremely slow, generally taking an hour to install or un-install any add-in, the solution to this I found was to install the Microsoft WHS Toolkit and delete all the Home Server log files, which fixed it.

Russell

[ShadowKain @ Jul 28th 2008 8:16AM]

When will these people get a clue and build their own bare bones server for the same ammount or less, OR buy a simple NAS...this product has garnered nuthin but bad press. Maybe they will release a new model with no bloat? Doubt it, its HP and Windows.

[inteller @ Jul 28th 2008 8:22AM]

let me know when these things are 64-bit. Otherwise the solution to upgrade the RAM sorta falls short when you have to stop at 4Gb.

[atbnet @ Jul 28th 2008 8:46AM]

You really don't need 4 GB for this server. I had been running it with the stock 512MB until this weekend. The HP MediaSmart only has one RAM slot anyhow.

[chickenator @ Jul 28th 2008 8:34AM]

zzz...