Slashdot Mirror


Windows Server 2008 One Year On — Hit Or Miss?

magacious writes "Friday marked a year to the day since Microsoft launched Windows Server 2008, but did it have quite the impact the so-called software giant expected, or did it make more of a little squeak than a big bang? Before its arrival on 27 February 2008, it had been five long years since the release of the last major version of Windows Server. In a world that was moving on from simple client/server applications, and with server clouds on the horizon, Windows Server 2003 was looking long in the tooth. After a year of 'Vista' bashing, Microsoft needed its server project to be well received, just to relieve some pressure. After all, this time last year, the panacea of a well-received Windows 7 was still a long way off. So came the new approach: Windows Server 2008."

27 of 386 comments (clear)

  1. whats it give us? by itzdandy · · Score: 4, Informative

    I run a few 2k8 servers and must say that there are very few features that distinguish it from 2k3. For me, those are the new remote-apps terminal server feature and hyper-v. not a whole lot has changed other than rearranging a bunch of stuff.

    1. Re:whats it give us? by hudson007 · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you have a small branch office, 2008 offers a RODC option. The new Group Policy features reduce SYSVOL bloat (i.e. less data to replicate) and can fully leverage the new GP features in Vista, assuming you chose to deploy Vista in the first place.

    2. Re:whats it give us? by Shados · · Score: 5, Informative

      The main things is the ability to do a "core" (minimalistic) install, hyper-v, the terminal service enhancements as you mentioned, IIS7 (thats actually a very, very big deal for .NET shops) and souped up Active Directory. The rest is mostly enhanced management (incremental upgrades and some new features here and there to make stuff faster/easier) and incremental improvements on most things, and support for Vista specific features. Its also decently faster overall.

      The first things i mentioned are actually pretty major, if you need them, but obviously are irrelevant if all you're using it for is a file server, of course :)

    3. Re:whats it give us? by Simon80 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not costing you money (lots of it, as far as I can guess) is also relevant when choosing a file server, especially when you can get Linux distributions for free that have had the capability to do a "minimal install" for as long as they've existed. Surely even a very Windows-centric company can manage to meet their file serving needs using Samba.

    4. Re:whats it give us? by Warll · · Score: 4, Funny

      So what ever suck Windows had is now the possession of Linux?

    5. Re:whats it give us? by Niten · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm a busy admin too. Fortunately it doesn't take long at all to install Ubuntu Server, apt-get install likewise-open, and then type "domainjoin-cli join my.domain my-username" in the command line.

      When you use being "busy" as an excuse for being ignorant of your options, you do your employer a disservice. That page you linked to hasn't had a major edit in two years or so, and it does not reflect the current best practices for setting up a simple Linux/Samba file server with AD integration. And no, no extra $$ is required for Ubuntu Server.

    6. Re:whats it give us? by tobiasly · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wow, you must work for my employer; we also have a bunch of clueless, lazy admins who would rather stick their fingers in their ears and shout "LA LA LA, sorry too busy" instead of keeping abreast of current technology and trying to find innovative ways to do more with less. Instead it's the guys who actually figure out ways to save their company money -- even though that isn't in their job description -- that will be moving up the value chain.

    7. Re:whats it give us? by paganizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't disagree with what your saying, but I don't think thats the main reason people should go for a NT based solution.
      I really, seriously think its the Trained Chimp factor.
      If you set up a NT network properly, lock it down, and make sure someone with a clue looks in on it every once in a while, you can have a much lower pricepoint trained chimp fix the day to day problems; sure, there will be more day to day problems, but your chimps are a lot cheaper, and easier to find.
      Also, I had a lot of problems trying to work with earlier versions of Samba; I imagine a lot of other people did, as well, it's going to take a while to get over the distrust.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    8. Re:whats it give us? by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That page you linked to hasn't had a major edit in two years or so, and it does not reflect the current best practices for setting up a simple Linux/Samba file server with AD integration.

      Then what the fsck is it doing on the samba.org site? Why isn't it removed if not updated? You know, this IS one of the real pitfalls of Linux, whenever you're looking for a guide you're likely to find something that's two years old and may or may not be valid. If documentation sucks, documentation re-verification on newer versions suck even more. I bet that's 99% of the reason Ubuntu got their code names down the way they do, if you search for "active directory hardy", "active directory intrepid", "active directory jaunty" you're much more likely to get relevant hits than "active directory ubuntu" or worse yet "active directory linux".

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  2. No news is good news by LibertineR · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Bottom line: It just works. Nice new GPO features, Hyper V is fine, but overall, nothing to get terribly excited about other than the fact that there have been few negative issues.

    Outside of removing ISA Server from the Small Business suite, I've read very few negative opinions on 2K8. If you dont need 64-Bit goodness, it might not be worth upgrading from a stable 2K3 environment.

    1. Re:No news is good news by TheBracket · · Score: 5, Informative

      I recently setup a client of mine with two Win2k8 64-bit servers (in a larger virtual VMware setup). So far, it's worked out very well. It's fast, stable (uptime is exactly equal to the number of days since we last had to reboot for a patch), and played nice with everything already present. Active Directory and Exchange 2007 migrated from the previous Win2k/Exchange 2k setup without a hitch. In other words: no complaints at all, other than the price (which wasn't too bad, since the client received non-profit pricing - but most of what I setup is Linux or FreeBSD and I greatly prefer that pricetag!).

      Things I noticed that have improved:
      * The group policy editor is a bit easier to use, and less confusing.
      * The Vista performance/health monitor is actually pretty good, and provides a really handy ntop-like interface for seeing which service is doing what with the network (not as fine grained as I'd like, but it's a good starting point).
      * The old Services-For-Unix services are more tightly integrated, and it was very easy to get NFS up and running.
      * Less is installed by default, and adding just the required services was very straightforward.
      * The scheduler seems to have improved, because processes distribute over CPUs more widely, and throughput/responsiveness "feels" better.
      * The new role-based manager for file serving is a bit easier to find, but is really similar.
      * A couple of new diagnostic wizards have appeared, including one for Group Policy - it helped me find a couple of problems I hadn't thought about.

      Items I wasn't so fond of:
      * Activation. It doesn't matter if you have a charity volume license anymore - you still have to activate. That bugs me, because this server has to last for years, and I worry that if I have to restore a backup in 5 years time the activation wizard may make my life difficult.
      * Volume shadow copies are STILL not configured to my liking by default.
      * If you want to use some of the new active directory features, you need a pure Win2k8 domain on the server side. It works with "legacy" Win2k/2k3 systems around, but only if they aren't domain controllers.
      * The start menu/icons are straight from Vista.
      * License management makes less sense, since the license control tools are now hidden away - checking CAL status is a pain.

      Overall, for an MS operating system it's pretty good. I don't see a compelling reason to run out and upgrade any Win2k3 systems that are working well - but for new servers, it works great.

      --
      Lead developer, http://wisptools.net
    2. Re:No news is good news by gordguide · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hello, this is Bob from Marketing here at FUD Advertising, and we've got this new account from these guys in Washington state called Microsoft.

      We've decided to move them into full page adds in Technology and General Media, with short TV spots in support later. We want to go with "Movie-Style" ads: brief quotes from professionals who use the product and speak to potential buyers (Edit from Boss: scratch that ... they want us to call them "users". Sounds like drug addicts to me, but whatever. They write the checks).

      We love the idea, because these short quotes are so meaningless, easy to manipulate, memorable and almost perfectly supportive. We think black background, big type with product name at the top, nice picture, and quotes with attributions below ... you know, like a movie ad in the paper.

      So, this is what we have so far.

      "Less confusing!"

      "Pretty good!"

      "A good starting point!!"

      "Seems to have improved!!"

      Send comments to my assistant by Friday.

      Thaaaaaanks. That would be Greeaaaaaaaat.

  3. Re:Anything like 2k3? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can mock all you want, but I find decreasing the attack vector for an out of the box install a sensible approach. Something all server intallations should do, regardless of their creators image.

  4. Re:Not a matter of opinion.. by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Funny

    Second comment on the thread, and it's already been Godwin'ed. I _am_ impressed.

  5. Re:Can't answer your question by zappepcs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    To add a voice: I'm seeing more Linux installs than Win2k8 and Vista combined. This many mean nothing, or may mean I'm seeing what the average person is seeing. Consolidation and cost are driving what I'm seeing. When you see a row of several hundred blades running RHEL (replacing Windows in some cases) it's fairly convincing.

  6. Re:Not a matter of opinion.. by PyroMosh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not useless, and in fact, it's the very first thing I thought to myself when I read the summary.

    To further your own analogy, how seriously could you take an article that, in it's first paragraph dismissed the Nazi Germany as a something the world over-reacted to, and never should have taken seriously?

    It sets a tone, that perhaps the author's views are badly colored.

  7. Re:I expected more driver support by mysidia · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is really an about face... 10 years ago, Linux was the platform you often couldn't get running due to missing hardware drivers -- you really had to be very careful about what hardware you chose.

    Also, Windows 2000 was the easy-to-use OS.. Linux was the server OS with usability issues..

    Is it starting to change, so that Linux is actually more usable than Windows server?

    That would be the day...

    Now if only we could get a true match for Windows Active Directory. So that the software on Windows Desktop machines, works EXACTLY as if the environment was powered by Windows servers, Exchange for e-mail, etc.

  8. Re:Anything like 2k3? by Rutulian · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, I know. Thankfully a new installation is safely locked down so that you can only browse the Microsoft website. Imagine what might happen if you could browse the web freely. You might accidently end up here which everybody knows is a site full of trojans and malware.

  9. Re:Can't answer your question by zappepcs · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The data center where my servers are is a mixed client data center. It's not the decision of a single company there. There is one company who is using Windows server 2k3 but they are not upgrading. Some of their stuff is moving to Linux/Solaris. The RHEL stuff is a different company that replaced all their Windows servers and went full on RHEL. In my area, we use a mix of Win2k3, Solaris (5.8-10), and Linux (CentOS). There is a ton of telecomms stuff in half the data center as well. I'm not seeing any growth in Windows servers, quite the opposite. That's why I thought my experience might be 'average' so to speak.

  10. Re:I expected more driver support by SuperQ · · Score: 4, Informative

    You don't get 5 nines out of a single server install, sorry. The only way you get that is with HA clustering and automatic failover.

    PC hardware, even expensive stuff, is not reliable enough no matter what $VENDOR's sales pitch is.

    You might get lucky and get a single reliable box, but if you deploy a non-trivial number of servers you will need to plan for hardware/software failures.

  11. Re:Can't answer your question by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Your experience would be average--for low-end stuff. Generally, if you have the money to be leveraging a lot of Windows Server, you have the money (and often need) your own DC, or a sizable chunk of one.

    Anybody whose cup of tea is ASP.NET should be running, not walking, to Server 2008. IIS7 is so much more useful and performant it's not even funny.

    --
    "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
  12. Re:2008 is the 2nd best desktop MS ever made by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have this vague suspicion that AC obtained his copy via the "Port 6881 Volume Discount Licence Program", so to speak...

  13. Works well as workstation by regular_gonzalez · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm actually really impressed with it as a workstation OS. It is as fast as XP due to the significantly fewer number of background services running as compared to Vista, with the prettiness and features of Vista (including Direct X 10 for gaming). Vista drivers work just fine. I installed it mostly as a joke after having received it at one of those Heroes Happen Here conferences, but now I don't even boot to my XP partition anymore.

    --
    Due to circumstances beyond my control, I am master of my fate and captain of my soul.
  14. My experience with 2008 by jregel · · Score: 4, Informative

    Two position statements first: 1) I'm primarily a Unix sysadmin of multiple flavours and love it, 2) I've only used Server 2008 on my test VM network.

    Having setup a private network thanks to a company purchased Technet subscription, I now have two Active Directory Domain Controllers, a WSUS server and Terminal Server. My take on 2008 is that when approached the right way, it's actually a very nice operating system.

    I like the new Terminal Services seamless window capability, the default policy of only installing the minimum required services, the new look Server Manager, even IIS7 looks nicely moduler. In fact, I could imagine managing a network of 2008 machines in a way that I never could with 2003. Now that might be my lack of fundamental 2003 knowledge (I can use it, but wouldn't describe myself as a "Windows System Administrator").

    The reality, even for us Unix/Linux advocates, is that we're probably going to have to interop with Windows Server from time to time, and if it's Server 2008 that I'm having to work with, then I can live with that.

  15. Re:I expected more driver support by dave562 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Most large OEMs provide install disks that load all of the drivers for you. For example at the place I work, we use HP Proliant boxes. The Proliant install DVD handles all of the disk partitioning, setting the RAID/disk controllers as primary, driver support, etc. HP has a whole slew of great system tools for the enterprise.

  16. Re:Why do you need a special OS to run a server ?! by Jaime2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The logic is simple... There is a special OS for a server so the cost can be different. There is no technical reason that Windows couldn't be like Linux and allow you to add every server component to a single base operating system, The only reason is that they want to charge people that buy servers with 256GB of RAM $3000 per server and those that run small companies $600 per server. Both companies get a good deal (of course, not as good as free).

    Where I work, a typical server costs $5,500, Windows costs around $600, physically putting the server in the datacenter costs $2,000, and labor for installing, configuring, and supporting the server costs $3,000 over the its life. At the end of the day, Windows servers cost around $11,100. Switching to Linux would save us $600, reducing our costs by 5%.

    A typical server with 256GB of RAM would run about $60,000. This server would require the Enterprise editions of Windows Server, so that would run about $3,000. The other costs would remain the same and at the end of the day, the OS is still only five percent of the total.

  17. ACTIVATION?? by plazman30 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The fact that I have to activate my OS is annoying. With 2K3, there was a volume licensing option, but with 2K8, that option is gone, and I have to either allow my server to talk to a public Microsoft activation server, or run a KMS server in house.

    Sorry, Microsoft, If you don't trust me, I don't trust you.