Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Data Storage Operating Systems Software Windows Bug

Windows Home Server Corrupts Files 459

crustymonkey points out a ComputerWorld article which says that "Microsoft Corp. has warned Windows Home Server users not to edit files stored on their backup systems with several of its programs, including Vista Photo Gallery and Office's OneNote and Outlook, as well as files generated by popular finance software such as Quicken and QuickBooks." Crustymonkey asks Don't back up your files to Windows Home Server, as recommended by Microsoft themselves? I'm not exactly sure what the point is in having a home server if you can't back up files on it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows Home Server Corrupts Files

Comments Filter:
  • Obvious Answer (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 27, 2007 @12:14PM (#21830164)
    "I'm not exactly what the point is in having a home server if you can't back up files on it."

    Profit
  • Curious... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geminidomino ( 614729 ) * on Thursday December 27, 2007 @12:21PM (#21830248) Journal
    The blurb says that it corrupts files on the backup when you try to edit them...

    Isn't part of the point of a backup that you DON'T edit the backup media?

    I can look at this two ways... MS didn't test this enough because it didn't occur to them someone might do something so ridiculous...

    OR...

    Not only did MS create the misfeature that is editing backups, but they screwed it up too...

    Am I still feeling charitable from the holiays? Hmm...
  • To be fair (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 27, 2007 @12:23PM (#21830260)
    You wouldn't edit a file you backed up to tape, would you? Or CD?

    You should restore a backed-up file before editing it.
  • by FredFredrickson ( 1177871 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @12:23PM (#21830272) Homepage Journal
    So I read TFA thinking, so there's a glitch when windows has virus X on wednesdays only, and only in regions that have the chinese language pack, and only on systems with 64-bit version installed with a sound blaster driver installed.

    But for the first time ever, slashdot's title isn't sensationalist. Microsoft simply states, yeah, for no apparent reason, files are getting corrupt using our operating system.

    Jeebus F'n H Chroist! You had one job to do, and you screwed it up royally.

    It's one thing when some obscure feature doesn't work correctly. It's another thing when a fundamental operation of your software hasn't worked for A YEAR since it came out.

    IT'S AN OPERATING SYSTEM. Your job is to interface the hardware with the user and software.

    *sigh* Bring on the "my linux-distro of choice doesn't do that, that makes me right all along" comments.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 27, 2007 @12:24PM (#21830276)
    Anyone want to do a Slashcode mod to auto-mod anyone using a mini-URL? Or even better, follow the link to its destination. If it's a Minicity link AND the user is anonymous, auto-ban them for a week.
  • Point (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @12:25PM (#21830310) Homepage Journal

    I'm not exactly what the point is in having a home server if you can't back up files on it."

    It's to show another failure at Microsoft in their core markets, while they pursue TV, Magazines, Video Games, etc.

    Put your trust in Microsoft, because they're gonna kill off every other competitor anyway
  • by plague3106 ( 71849 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @12:39PM (#21830454)
    Maybe you should check the features of WHS before you claim that NAS is an adequete replacement.
  • by schnikies79 ( 788746 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @12:40PM (#21830460)
    A dvd-writer isn't feasible to backup nearly 300gb.
  • by plague3106 ( 71849 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @12:44PM (#21830502)
    Ya, because a PST being written and read over a network is slower, and if the connection goes down, the file may be corrupted... just like working with any other file over a network. From the link:

    This is not efficient on WAN or LAN links because WAN/LAN links use network-access-driven methods, commands the operating system provides to send data to or receive from another networked computer. If there is a remote .pst (over a network link), Microsoft Outlook tries to use the file commands to read from the file or write to the file, but the operating system then has to send those commands over the network because the file is not on the local computer. This creates a great deal of overhead and increases the time it takes to read and write to the file. Additionally, the use a .pst file over a network connection may result in a corrupted .pst file if the connection degrades or fails.

    So your KB link isn't quite as suprising or damning as you were hoping it would be..
  • by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @01:10PM (#21830758) Homepage
    Having come from a DECNet background, when I first encountered PC networking I was completely flummoxed by the situation.

    MS-DOS and Windows users seem to take it for granted that a file that is across the network is accessed via different APIs, different user interfaces, and has generally different properties from files that are stored locally. In the MS-DOS days they were always mumbling about The Redirector. Why does a file need to be REdirected across the network? Why isn't it just directed, the way it would be directed to a disk volume or a floppy or what have you?

    It isn't so long ago that most Windows programs couldn't even reference cross-network files in a straightforward way in a file open dialog. You first had to assign a "drive letter" and "map a network drive." (And, of course, all references to that file would break if you ever assigned the remote directory to a different drive letter).

    And when they finally got around to fixing it in the OS, it only fixed it for new programs that were written to some new API. Existing programs, even things like Visual C++ utilities, continued to go through the mapping tapdance, because apparently the existing OS file dialog routines weren't updated to do things the new way.

    The assumption that files across the network are totally differents sorts of thing from local files appeared to be so ingrained in the Windows culture that Windows people don't even understand why it is a criticism of Windows to mention this. They think it has to be that way, because, well, they're across the network. As if there were some physical property of 100-base-T cables that made them intrinsically different from SATA cables.
  • by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @01:16PM (#21830816) Journal
    I have always thought that MS take the "personal" part of "PC" too far -- to the extent that MS does not "get" networking.

    In the *nix world, it is common that one can sit down at *any* machine in the network, log on and one's desktop/files, etc are just the same (assuming the same OS). This has never been true in the MS world. MS requires you to have *your computer* and to always use *your computer* if you want to have any semblance of a familiar desktop/files. Even with server stored profiles, the files are copied to the local machine and copied back again at the end of the session. This is a wildly inefficient method -- really a hack layered on to achieve the semblance of providing a real floating profile. If the profile is large, the copying can take a long time or be impossible (because of lack of disk space).

    In fact, for most Windows users, the idea that one can sit down at another machine and access one's files, just the same as if one were logged into one's primary machine is totally alien. It is amazing how much MS has trained people to accept poor features.
  • by pegr ( 46683 ) * on Thursday December 27, 2007 @01:25PM (#21830912) Homepage Journal
    One also wonders why some programs are safe and others problematic. If a program uses "standard" API calls, is it safe? Since some of the unsafe programs are Microsoft's, could it be that some of the "unpublished" APIs aren't implemented correctly? If Quicken is on that list, could it be they paid "homage" to Microsoft to get the "unpublished" APIs?

    Boy, if that's the case and Microsoft was screwed by their own unpublished APIs, how can you argue against karma? ;)
  • by sm62704 ( 957197 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @01:26PM (#21830918) Journal
    If you need "user friendly" you shouldn't be running a server.
  • by wfWebber ( 715881 ) <webber.wfgaming@com> on Thursday December 27, 2007 @01:42PM (#21831078)
    You're missing the point here. WHS actually is a very nice product (except from the buggy file storage part which, no doubt, will be fixed). The remote desktop thing for example, means you can connect to any machine in your network thru your WHS. So no, that's not the same as having to configure your Inet access router to point to different machines to access all of them.

    Also, the backup part is a simple "click and shoot". Just install the client and your machines can be backed-up and restored in the easiest and way imaginable.

    Yes, there's a zillion great open source projects out there which can do everything WHS does.
    No, there's not one project (that I know of) that can do everything WHS does.

    Feel free to jump in the gap.
  • by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @02:06PM (#21831292)
    While it's true that DECNet (and VMS) made it simple to "SET DEF (some directory on a machine across the country)", the real fact is that VMS was built in such a way that only the current directory was of any (real) use. Sure, you could copy from $10$DUA:[foo.baz.bar], and you could have a login.com full of aliases, but at the end of the day, 99.5% of your work was done in the current directory. And don't get me started about the evils of LAT.
  • by plague3106 ( 71849 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @02:09PM (#21831322)
    Wonderful. Now tell that to Joe blow home user which WHS is targeted to. Continuing to miss the point...
  • by gillbates ( 106458 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @02:17PM (#21831392) Homepage Journal

    Which do well to explain the reason why, when a $1000 PC is faster than a $1,000,000 mainframe, that businesses still buy the mainframe. And then they stock the washrooms with single-ply toilet paper to cut costs.

    Microsoft has made a lot of noise about being "Enterprise class" software, and having "Reliable" servers, but when things like this happen, it just goes to show that Microsoft won't ever be able to touch big iron:

    • Why wasn't this caught by QA? And it has been out for a full year before they figured out that it was a problem? Clearly, Microsoft, even after 30 years in the industry, doesn't know much about software engineering. This is the same company that took 5 years to produce Vista.
    • The fact that Microsoft is the most virus-prone vendor in the industry doesn't reflect well on it as a company. But in light of issues like this, it seems that their persistent problems with viruses - dominating the field for the past decade - has more to do with their lack of design than their popularity.
    • Microsoft has a patch mentality which is totally abhorrent to those of us in the high-availability industry. Sysadmins simply can't "just patch" every time Microsoft discovers a hole in their operating system. It takes weeks - if not months - of testing before a business can roll out a new patch, during which time, the whole business is at risk. This is a risk which is simply not present on mainframe and UNIX systems.

    The next time I hear anyone use the term "enterprise class" and Microsoft in the same sentence, I'm simply going to refer them to this bug. Totally unacceptable - even for a gaming OS.

  • by Blakey Rat ( 99501 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @03:10PM (#21831992)
    MS-DOS and Windows users seem to take it for granted that a file that is across the network is accessed via different APIs,

    I can't speak for MS-DOS (are there any MS-DOS users left?), in Windows you don't use a different API for a network files. Any differences are taken care of far below the application level.

    different user interfaces,

    Really? On my Windows machine, networked files show up in Windows Explorer just like local files. If anything, it's not different *enough*-- i.e. it would be nice to have a mark in the icon to tell me if a file is on a network drive, especially when I'm on unreliable wifi networks.

    It isn't so long ago that most Windows programs couldn't even reference cross-network files in a straightforward way in a file open dialog. You first had to assign a "drive letter" and "map a network drive."

    You never *had* to do that. Well, ok, maybe pre-95 versions of Windows. But Windows 95 would work just fine if you typed \\network\path into an Open dialog. I did that just a couple years ago at a hospital I was working at with some ancient machines still in use.

    Of course you have the option to map a drive letter if you want, and there may be some buggy applications that didn't work unless they had a drive letter to work with, but you can't blame Microsoft for buggy third party apps.

    The assumption that files across the network are totally differents sorts of thing from local files appeared to be so ingrained in the Windows culture that Windows people don't even understand why it is a criticism of Windows to mention this.

    Maybe they just think you're crazy for "criticizing" Windows for something you basically made-up.

    I'm not a huge Microsoft fan, but most of your post is just plain wrong. I know this is Slashdot and thus you were +5 Insightful, but please make some effort to at least be a little accurate next time you post. Let's reduce the amount of bullcrap here, not increase it.
  • by sumdumass ( 711423 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @03:27PM (#21832190) Journal
    Dood, slow down.

    The original parent comment was about something (an alternative) "point and click easy" like the WHS. Do you really expect someone who relies on the "I click enough buttons and it works so it must be right" model instead of the "i set it up correctly so it must work" model to actually know about things like VNC, SSH tunnels or a router?

    I don't mean to dog you and I'm definately not trying to troll you, but we really are dealing with people doing things they really have no idea/clue about. I would probably suggest that they have no business doing it without investing a little more time and effort in learning something about it but they read the side of a box and think it is a good idea. Making them learn something isn't my call though, Microsoft seems to be good at making idiots feel smart. Hang around some of the novice windows users who think they are smart, you will see exactly what I'm talking about when one of them explains to you the difference between a BCC and CC when dealing with email and then tells you he found out because of a popup in office and vista or some shit like that. When you realize their first computer was a windows 95 or 98 box almost 10 years ago and they are just finding this out, you will understand their needs a little more.

    If you don't know anyone like that, start doing repair work for random people. Put an add in the paper or something and do a couple dozen repairs out of your house. Or I can give you a number of other examples of the types of people we/you are dealing with (point and clickers). Most of them are fresh too. Like just recently, a customer who thought his CDROM was broke because he knocked his tower off the desktop and it wouldn't close all the way. So he decided to remove it, take it apart and oil the motors and gears and after putting it back in, when he started the computer up, it said "insert system disk". 9:30 at night, I get the call explaining every thing to me and attempted to trouble shoot is over the phone, I had him reconfirm the connections for the IDE cables on both the HD and CDROM. Then I had him disconnect the CDROM, Sure enough, the HD worked and the computer loaded. 10:15pm, I get another call from the same customer, it is doing it again. How am I supposed to know he plugged the CDROM that he tore apart and we determined was causing the problem back in after I hung up. 35 minutes of checking bios settings, rechecking the cables and troubleshooting later, he suggest putting a the XP system CD in the computer and starting it with that in it. I asked if he had another CDROM because last I worked on his system, he only had one. He told me he fixed the CDROM that we determined was causing the exact same problem an hour ago and put it back in. He refused to associate the same problem with the same device. And then when I told him the CDROM was bad, unplug it and see what happens, He insisted that he had fixed it (he took the CDROM apart again) and the door closed all the way now so nothing was wrong with it.

    Finally, I got his wife on the phone and told her the story as I told you, she said if it is doing the same thing, then if I unplug the CDROM, the computer will start. I said that was the plan but I couldn't get her husband to try it because he claims he "fixed the CDROM" and "nothing was wrong with it because he fixed it. So she ended up unplugging the CDROM and sure enough, it worked sans the CDROM. She brought it in the next day, we swapped the drive out and all has been fine since. I asked her to make sure he didn't call me for support late at night again unless he was going to listen to what I had to say.
  • by coaxial ( 28297 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @04:07PM (#21832676) Homepage
    No. It just means that no one has created a decent home server setup.

    There's plenty of reasons to run a home server. Backing up your laptop without having to remember to plug in some external drive is one. Having a real htpc setup is another. People have lots of data, and a home server is the way to manage that. However there aren't any good home server tools for it.

    Maybe I should make one in my copious free time. Of course I have said Linux could blow me. [robotmonkeys.net]
  • by sacherjj ( 7595 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @04:59PM (#21833298) Homepage
    Wow, I guess I get the important parts of this with my Linux Server running BackupPC. Every night I get incremental backups, single fulls a week. Oh, add on the NFS share and it stores files. Add on the HDHomerun to record all my TV shows via MythTV.

    And it was free. As in speech and beer.

    Oh, yeah. And it works.
  • by Bitsy Boffin ( 110334 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @07:43PM (#21834998) Homepage

    So then, what? Create/edit a file on your working drive, save it there, quit the app, and drag the file to the backup drive via Windows?


    Well, the copying to the backup should be automatic, but yes, this is exactly what should happen.

    It seems that you don't quite grasp the idea of a backup, the general plan is that you work on working files, and these are duplicated at some point in time to a separate location. The only time you should ever even look at the backup set is when recovering files (or testing your recovery process), and you should NEVER be editing backups, because then your backup is not a backup any longer but a working set!
  • by ozmanjusri ( 601766 ) <aussie_bob.hotmail@com> on Thursday December 27, 2007 @08:59PM (#21835550) Journal
    looks like Australian girls should be carrying MORE guns, not fewer.

    You didn't read the page you quoted, did you?

    Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence.
  • by revengance ( 132255 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @11:35PM (#21836452)
    Well, you just highlight the problem. Not everyone (or rather few people) understands the word "backup" as it should be. However from a system design and testing point of view, the system should support "live" editing of files in the backup. Alternative, they should have warn the users of this limitations because most people would think that if a system allows them to edit files, then it should be able to handle the file editing properly. So it is a case of either bad design and bad testing or both. No excuses for Microsoft here.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 28, 2007 @12:57AM (#21836832)

    I am in my right to kill, and I will kill.

    Careful what you say. You don't have a right to "kill." You have a right to stop somebody from inflicting immediate severe harm on yourself or another, with up to lethal force. Your goal must be to stop an immediate, severe threat, not to kill the perpetrator. Your right stops as soon as you've stopped the threat, and you don't have a right to decide whether the perpetrator survives afterwards; if he lives, he lives.

"Floggings will continue until morale improves." -- anonymous flyer being distributed at Exxon USA

Working...