Any Problems With Server 2008?

[srochford]

I also read that just after one month (April 2008), 2008 Server has already received a security hotfix which I am surprised about. I hope this trend doesn't continue and that it's a one off!

Would you rather that they didn't bother to fix problems?

I don't think that any program (beyond "Hello World" type apps) has ever been released without some kind of problem - the key thing is always whether the manufacturer fixes problems when they are alerted to them. Historically, Microsoft were bad at dealing with this but for a good few years now they've responded quickly to problems (hence "patch Tuesday") and have a much better security record.

[st00175]

I just finished building 2 new Quad Core Xeon servers with Server 2008 Std x64. I must say I found it much simpler to setup and get going over 2003. There's a few good improvements which you dont realize until you go back to a 2003 box.

About the only issue I've found so far is copying files between mapped drives, where sometimes it copies REALLY slowly, then bombs out - it's a known issue according to a few posts around the net. Apart from that, and the unstable Hyper-V (both the included beta and the RC0 update), it's fantastic.

A few things to be aware of if you are thinking of updating, especially if you have XP clients, is to disable AutoTuning and RSS using NETSH. Google "slow vista RDP" for the actual fix - it applies to 2008 too.

[amcevoy]

We are having a few .net based problems..

[Gibbo]

I'm thinking of rebuilding my network over the Summer and have just put 2008 Enterprise x64 on one of my new servers.

The interface is very different from 2003 and I'm wondering if there is a problem whether it's going to be easy to find and diagnose, or cause longer downtime, especially as I don't have a service agreement or any help whatsoever.

[zag]

I'm thinking of rebuilding my network over the Summer and have just put 2008 Enterprise x64 on one of my new servers.

The interface is very different from 2003 and I'm wondering if there is a problem whether it's going to be easy to find and diagnose, or cause longer downtime, especially as I don't have a service agreement or any help whatsoever.

Yes that's exactly the problem, it may be Microsoft's most stable server OS yet, but I wouldn't want to be in a disaster recovery situation with limited help on Google and a problem I simply couldn't fix because no one else has had that problem yet.

Servers to me should be stable and simply work, when there is a problem it should be easy to diagnose and fix.

I don't see the point in upgrading for the sake of upgrading, even if you want to future proof your network.

[Gibbo]

Well, I've had a couple of hours play. Got DNS, DHCP and AD running with no issues. Even managed to create a couple of accounts (one staff, one pupil) and set up a bit of group policy and drive sharing.

I found the drive sharing very basic though, I wouldn't feel safe knowing if the shares are secure. I'm sure there are settings to enable more advanced features, but I wouldn't like to be struggling to find them when things go bad!

I think I'll stick with 2003 R2 for now.

[ZeroHour]

I have been playing with 2008 and hyper v and just having a go of it all and its brilliant. I love the new interfaces for the most part and find it fairly easy to use.

[Michael]

Would you rather that they didn't bother to fix problems?

I don't think that any program (beyond "Hello World" type apps) has ever been released without some kind of problem - the key thing is always whether the manufacturer fixes problems when they are alerted to them. Historically, Microsoft were bad at dealing with this but for a good few years now they've responded quickly to problems (hence "patch Tuesday") and have a much better security record.

I agree problems should be fixed, but I was just so surprised a patch was released so soon after its release. I think also (as other people have pointed out), 2008 Server is still very new and it doesn't matter whether "SP1" is mentioned in its build name. It needs to be tried and tested. I think realistically 2008 SP2 should be the time I take it more seriously, but also I'll be running XP SP3 by then too.