Windows 7 nonsense
- Thread starter MaxBurn
- Start date
ddrueding
Fixture
I think that is awfully presumptive of them.
Stereodude
Not really a
I haven't been able to think up any uses for Bluetooth on a server. What are yours?
ddrueding
Fixture
Using a server as an additional workstation, capturing data from remote devices, outputting data to remote devices. We use those last two for some of our GIS stuff; Server connects to statically mounted GPS and uploads the data via cellular uplink. Both were Bluetooth when I got here (I've cabled them in since).
I suspect it says more about MS' lack of confidence in the stability of their bluetooth stack than about them deciding you don't need it.
I suspect it says more about MS' lack of confidence in the stability of their bluetooth stack than about them deciding you don't need it.
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
Bluetooth mouse. Sometimes, you have to work directly on the server. Not all of the servers are configured remotely. I'm sure there are some people wanting to sync data using a bluetooth device to their server too. It must not be very common, but so are bluetooth devices.
I'm in agreement. I don't see any use for bluetooth for a server OS. I'd almost rather it not be there to reduce complexity, patches, security exposure. I work with a lot of servers in a lab environment and I've never wished for bluetooth support. For 99% of those machines, there is a rolling cart with a KVM usin USB or PS2 connections or Avocent connections. For a workstation I can see bluetooth as being useful.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Some people use Windows Server as a workstation, and it's certainly useful for certain devices such as keyboards and mice. It's rather silly to restrict hardware support simply because someone can't see a need for it.
I can't see a need for Western Digital Hard drives, but I still expect that one will work, albeit briefly, when it's plugged in to a PC.
Yes, I can see security implications, but even with that being the case, other practices that affect security are allowed without consequence, such as loading 3rd party video drivers or configuring user accounts without passwords.
I can't see a need for Western Digital Hard drives, but I still expect that one will work, albeit briefly, when it's plugged in to a PC.
Yes, I can see security implications, but even with that being the case, other practices that affect security are allowed without consequence, such as loading 3rd party video drivers or configuring user accounts without passwords.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should (or that it should be supported). If you choose to use a server-based OS as a workstation machine, you're already against their intended use case.
Your example is a bit silly regarding WD. Their support is with a compliant SATA adapter, not a specific hard drive company such as WD. Your statement is more with your disgust of WD than anything useful (albeit funny). That's like you saying server 2008 should support Jawbone when it should just be bluetooth.
Sure, but if you completely remove code needed to support a feature (any feature), you're reducing your security exploitation risk. Less code is less possibilities to be exploited. Loading non-compliant video or allowing an ignorant system administrator to incorrectly configure a system are not the fault of an OS, but more of a proper training situation.
Regardless, having the feature would be nice for you; I do understand that, but can also understand why it's not implemented.
Your example is a bit silly regarding WD. Their support is with a compliant SATA adapter, not a specific hard drive company such as WD. Your statement is more with your disgust of WD than anything useful (albeit funny). That's like you saying server 2008 should support Jawbone when it should just be bluetooth.
Sure, but if you completely remove code needed to support a feature (any feature), you're reducing your security exploitation risk. Less code is less possibilities to be exploited. Loading non-compliant video or allowing an ignorant system administrator to incorrectly configure a system are not the fault of an OS, but more of a proper training situation.
Regardless, having the feature would be nice for you; I do understand that, but can also understand why it's not implemented.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
When you install Server 2008, there's a default configuration that actually has a whole, whole bunch of stuff turned off, and that support is only enabled through the addition of a server role called "Desktop Experience." Once Desktop Experience is installed, the machine becomes eligible to install the full, normal set of drivers that are available to desktop machines. Except for Bluetooth.
As a user and an administrator, I already had to take my machine out of a fully secure and Microsoft approved configuration, but even in that state, Bluetooth gets the special treatment of remaining unsupported.
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
You can't even install a third-party stack? Or do they all rely on Microcrap now?
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
XP had 3rd party stacks because it didn't ship with BT support. Vista and 7 technically do, so they don't need 3rd party stacks.
Anyway, my latest irritation: data transfer rates on 802.11n. I have both 2.4GHz and 5GHz wireless and I can connect to either on my Win7 notebook with an Intel dual band adapter.
I'm seeing data transfer rates of around 2.3MB/sec on either band, less than 10 feet from my AP.
That can't be right, can it?
I pull out an old Thinkpad R60 I have handy. It has the same Intel dual band wireless card in it and a bog standard Windows XP Pro load on it. A little math says I copied files at 9MB/sec on the crowded 2.4GHz network, and 10.1MB/sec on 5GHz.
Apparently, even though my Win7 machine is an N client connecting on an N network, it's only connecting at a maximum of 54Mbit while my XP machine varies but reports minimum connection speeds of at least 108Mbit.
Weak.
Anyway, my latest irritation: data transfer rates on 802.11n. I have both 2.4GHz and 5GHz wireless and I can connect to either on my Win7 notebook with an Intel dual band adapter.
I'm seeing data transfer rates of around 2.3MB/sec on either band, less than 10 feet from my AP.
That can't be right, can it?
I pull out an old Thinkpad R60 I have handy. It has the same Intel dual band wireless card in it and a bog standard Windows XP Pro load on it. A little math says I copied files at 9MB/sec on the crowded 2.4GHz network, and 10.1MB/sec on 5GHz.
Apparently, even though my Win7 machine is an N client connecting on an N network, it's only connecting at a maximum of 54Mbit while my XP machine varies but reports minimum connection speeds of at least 108Mbit.
Weak.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Not to defend Microsoft, but that sounds like a crappy device driver to me. My reasoning ....
1: the card is the same one as he card in your R60. That makes it old. Very old. Too old to have shipped with Vista/Win7 drivers because, back when that card was new, there wasn't any Vista yet.
2: so they did the Vista/Win7 drivers later, as an afterthought when the card was already well into its production lifecycle
3: so they just made it work, and saved their performance tuning for a newer, more financially important prodct.
Well, it's a theory. Or it could be just because Vista sucks, and Win7 is mostly Vista with nicer wallpaper.
1: the card is the same one as he card in your R60. That makes it old. Very old. Too old to have shipped with Vista/Win7 drivers because, back when that card was new, there wasn't any Vista yet.
2: so they did the Vista/Win7 drivers later, as an afterthought when the card was already well into its production lifecycle
3: so they just made it work, and saved their performance tuning for a newer, more financially important prodct.
Well, it's a theory. Or it could be just because Vista sucks, and Win7 is mostly Vista with nicer wallpaper.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
On the contrary, it means I added a dual band card to replace one that was not. It's a... 4965AGN? Something like that.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Sorry, when you wrote:
I took that to mean that it has the same Intel dual band wireless card in it. Now you say it doesn't in the following post. OK. Calcel my post above because I obviously don't understand whatever it was that you posted.
I took that to mean that it has the same Intel dual band wireless card in it. Now you say it doesn't in the following post. OK. Calcel my post above because I obviously don't understand whatever it was that you posted.
Those transfer rates don't sound right. I'm running Win7 on my T500 with a 2.4Ghz N connection about 25+ feet (two floors) away and I was averaging about 6.5MB/sec with WPA security (AES). It has an Intel 5300 AGN card in it.
SP1 info for those that were holding out till SP1
http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/wi...for-windows-7-and-windows-server-2008-r2.aspx
http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/wi...for-windows-7-and-windows-server-2008-r2.aspx
Maybe a Intel Pro 1000GT cards and a direct cable across. You'll be limited by the PCI bus, but you might get a little more speed depending on the speed of the disks in each system. I don't know what you have now, so you might not gain much by doing this.
ddrueding
Fixture
That would be a good first question Greg, where are you now?
DrunkenBastard
Storage is cool
Greg, I assume your router is also giving them internet access.
I would follow Handruin's recommendation of the 1000GT cards (your server mobos may already support gigabit ethernet). Direct attach them, and if need be connect one of the servers to the router for internet access, and set up internet connection sharing to route thru to your second server.
I would follow Handruin's recommendation of the 1000GT cards (your server mobos may already support gigabit ethernet). Direct attach them, and if need be connect one of the servers to the router for internet access, and set up internet connection sharing to route thru to your second server.
DrunkenBastard
Storage is cool
"So don’t wait - go ahead and deploy… you know you want to! ;-)"
Sweet jebus. Sounds like a business case winner. Head over to the bosses office.
"Sir, I think it's time for Windows 7 deployment"
"Really, can you provide your reasoning? Shouldn't we wait for SP1, I read about it on CIO.COM this very morning?"
"It's Microsoft Sir. They've given the green light."
"Get out"
DrunkenBastard
Storage is cool
A 1000 GT on even a 32bit/33MHz PCI bus should give you 90+MB/sec transfers. Of course once Windows has it's way with it it won't be that high but we are talking orders of magnitude here. For a potential investment of $34+shipping.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833106123
You should only need the one for your PCI-X based machine, any mobo with PCI-E slots should have onboard gigabit Ethernet. That and a run of Cat 6 and you should be good to go.
Santilli
Hairy Aussie
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2002
- Messages
- 5,207
Doesn't say it supports Windows 7.
Problem is I just put a two slot blower in the case to try and get more heat for the cat;-)
Seriously, the pci SATA card pretty much makes airflow not great to the graphics card.
The 3 speed blower allows me to turn it up during the day, venting the case pretty well, and, down at night, making it nearly silent, when it's cool.
Dual Xeons are a good source of heat...
Santilli
Hairy Aussie
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2002
- Messages
- 5,207
" No Downloads Available
- Driver updates and Intel(R) PROSet for Windows Device Manager for these Intel(R) Ethernet adapters are not available for download.
- These adapters are only supported by the drivers included "in box" with Microsoft Windows* 7 and Windows* Server 2008 R2.
- No driver or software updates are planned for these adapters."
Appears the drivers are included in 7...
- Driver updates and Intel(R) PROSet for Windows Device Manager for these Intel(R) Ethernet adapters are not available for download.
- These adapters are only supported by the drivers included "in box" with Microsoft Windows* 7 and Windows* Server 2008 R2.
- No driver or software updates are planned for these adapters."
Appears the drivers are included in 7...
Pradeep
Storage? I am Storage!
http://www.newegg.com/product/ProductReview.aspx?item=N82E16833106121
Looks like Windows 7 supports it out of the box, however you may not have support from the latest Intel ProSet driver (used for things you wouldn't be doing like adapter teaming etc).
Looks like Windows 7 supports it out of the box, however you may not have support from the latest Intel ProSet driver (used for things you wouldn't be doing like adapter teaming etc).
Pradeep
Storage? I am Storage!
This way you can use your external drives as backup devices as opposed to data shuttlers.
Santilli
Hairy Aussie
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2002
- Messages
- 5,207
hmmmm.
Why don't you need a crossover when you go directly between two computers?
I thought you did. Will a Cat 5 give you GigE speeds?
Thanks
GS
Pradeep
Storage? I am Storage!
Gigabit Ethernet includes in the spec functionality that does the crossover for you, in the event that you direct connect two NICs. With 10/100 ethernet, you do need crossover cables.
For gig speeds Cat5E would be the minimum you would want, and cat 6 for a longer run to be safe.
For gig speeds Cat5E would be the minimum you would want, and cat 6 for a longer run to be safe.
There is optional feature support for Auto MDIX in the GigE standard. Chances are high that it already has it in your setup, but you can still use the crossover without problems.
Yes, a CAT 5e (350MHz) cable will support GigE speeds without issues. I don't know what happens with a CAT5 (100MHz) cable if you try negotiating at 1000Mbit...it may not even allow for it.
Yes, a CAT 5e (350MHz) cable will support GigE speeds without issues. I don't know what happens with a CAT5 (100MHz) cable if you try negotiating at 1000Mbit...it may not even allow for it.
blakerwry
Storage? I am Storage!
I've ran 1000BaseT over cat5 cables with mixed success. Sometimes it works fine, sometimes you end up with 1000Mbps one way and < 100Mbps the other direction. The NIC's don't seem to identify or report this as a problem and happily continue to negotiate at 1000Mbps, but with terrible performance.
You should be fine with a premade cat5e patch cable.
You should be fine with a premade cat5e patch cable.
Gilbo
Storage is cool
Blech. Just installed Windows 7 on one of my laptops, and it looks like new security related to the CIFS/SMB protocol has essentially broken the connection to my home Linux SMB server.
Navigating folders on the server is ridiculously slow, large files transfer corrupted (silently) or fail to transfer, and I can't play movies anymore
. I think its some sort of authentication/fallback issue in the protocol negotiation.
The more things change, the more they stay the same... Good times.
If anyone has any tips, they would be greatly appreciated. I'm probably just going to hose the server and install a newer version of Linux. I think I'm on Fedora 8 at the moment back home, so it's definitely time for an update.
Navigating folders on the server is ridiculously slow, large files transfer corrupted (silently) or fail to transfer, and I can't play movies anymore
. I think its some sort of authentication/fallback issue in the protocol negotiation.The more things change, the more they stay the same... Good times.
If anyone has any tips, they would be greatly appreciated. I'm probably just going to hose the server and install a newer version of Linux. I think I'm on Fedora 8 at the moment back home, so it's definitely time for an update.
There might be an issue on your hardware or drivers. I'm using windows 7 and I've recently transferred 400GB to a CIFS NAS running Linux without any issues with performance or corruption. Navigating folders is not slow on either my Win7 laptop or desktop.
What NIC/mother board are you using?
What NIC/mother board are you using?
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
Since you are on Fedora 8, you almost certainly don't have the latest version of Samba, unless you built it from source. I would think your best bet is to install a new distro and see if your problem persists.
Sol
Storage is cool
If you can hold out the new Ubuntu LTS release is due next month... And apparently it's purple... (Which is admittedly not a great endorsement but it should be good anyway) I use Ubuntu (8.10) and connect to it with Windows 7 via smb quite happily. I remember having serious smb performance issues when I first tested Vista with my server and I can't remember exactly why. I think it was related to security configuration and backwards compatibility with old versions of Windows and some config changes fixed it. I think just updating Samba would also have fixed it and I might have done that (I really don't remember). I would imagine a new Ubuntu install would already have any required config though so if you're happy to reinstall then that should sort out the problem in any case.
I always liked Ubuntu better than Fedora anyway. (Actually I like Ubuntu better than RHEL, even when someone else is paying for it)
I always liked Ubuntu better than Fedora anyway. (Actually I like Ubuntu better than RHEL, even when someone else is paying for it)
Chewy509
Wotty wot wot.
I had similar issues getting SMB priting working from a Solaris 10 guest, to a printer on a Windows 7 host.
I changed a few settings in : Control Panel > Networking and Sharing Center > Advanced Sharing Center.
IIRC I changed the 128bit, 40/56bit encryption setting, Use user accounts (under home group), and turn on File/Print Sharing (this last one should be obvious). You can also turn off password requirement for SMB here are well, if need be.
Once I did that, browsing the Win7 shares and printing to printers hosted on the Win7 box worked flawlessly.
Mind you I am running Solaris 10, which has it's own CIFS/SMB engine and doesn't use SAMBA. But the above settings may help with older Linux distro's.