More operating systems: Latest | Best | Top 10

Windows Server 2008

By Roger Howorth, ZDNet UK on 03 March 2008 12:38 PM

Tags: microsoft, windows, server, 2008, longhorn, hyper-v, .net, nap


Server Core

Windows Server 2008 includes a ground-breaking new installation option called Server Core that installs a Windows Server system with a minimalist graphical user interface (GUI) and a limited set of roles. This requires much less RAM and patching than a normal Windows system. Microsoft estimates around half the RAM than an equivalent GUI version, and 40 per cent fewer patches than an equivalent Windows Server 2003 configuration. Customers have long complained about the need to install numerous patches to Windows servers, and it appears Microsoft has taken heed.

The downside to Server Core installations is largely short term. IT staff will need additional resources and training to learn how to install, configure and manage applications running in the Server Core environment.

Server Core installs a Windows Server 2008 system with a minimalist graphical user interface (GUI) and a limited set of roles.

In tests by ZDNet.com'au's sister site ZDNet UK, an Enterprise Edition Server Core system was installed from the normal installation utility. Unfortunately there's no way to convert an existing system between a Server Core and full GUI-based configuration. The installation utility proceeded in the same way as for the GUI versions of Windows. Likewise, we needed to set a strong password before we could log into our Server Core system for the first time. Once logged in we found that basic networking was enabled. For example, we could ping another device on our network. But as with the other versions of Windows, Windows Firewall was configured to block all incoming connections except Core Networking services, such as handling router broadcasts.

However, one of the useful things about Server Roles-based installations is that, in addition to installing the necessary software components, the Server Role installation tool reconfigures the Windows environment to work with the applications that make up the role. So in order to make a functioning IIS7 system, we needed to type only one command into the Server Core CLI to install the software and reconfigure Windows Firewall.

For a default installation of IIS, we typed the following at a command prompt and pressed "ENTER":

start /w pkgmgr /iu:IIS-WebServerRole;WAS-WindowsActivationService;WAS-ProcessModel

With setup complete, Windows started the IIS service automatically -- all we needed to do was connect to the server via a web browser and confirm that IIS was working normally. To select specific IIS modules for installation would have involved typing the name of each required module on the command line, which would probably have resulted in a much longer command.

Next, we reconfigured Windows Firewall to allow incoming connections to the Microsoft Management Console using the following command:

netsh advfirewall firewall set rule group="Remote Administration" new enable=yes

At this point you can run Computer Manager on a Vista SP1 desktop or another Windows Server 2008 system and connect it to a Server Core environment. However, only a subset of management tasks can be performed using a remote MMC connection to Server Core. For example, you can't use Computer Manager to add or remove roles or features. The following command enables management via a remote desktop:

cscript C:\Windows\System32\ Scregedit.wsf /ar 0

Although this would be useful in many datacentre environments to provide remote access to Server Core systems, it's not a solution to the problem of using scripts and text-based commands to manage a Server Core system. The command enabled our Server Core desktop to be accessed remotely from a Terminal Services client, but the remote desktop was just as spartan as the local one, with only a command prompt, Task Manager and a few other graphical tools available.

We also tested Server Core running in a virtual machine hosted by VMware Workstation 6, so we wanted to install the VMware Tools utility into our system. We found that the normal method of installation using the VMware 'Install VMware Tools' menu item didn't work. However, having selected this menu item, we used the command prompt to install the software by changing to drive 'D', which was the local drive letter assigned to our DVD drive. From here we found it best to copy the software to a directory on the 'C' drive and execute the 'VMWare Tools.msi' file from the command line.

At this point the installation utility launched properly and we could use its graphical dialogue boxes to begin the installation. Unfortunately the installation utility froze near the end of the normal process, so we waited a few minutes for disk activity to stop and then 'Cancelled' the VMware Tools installer and forced a reboot of the system.

We found that some elements of VMware Tools had indeed been installed correctly. Although there are reports that some beta versions of Windows Server 2008 need VMware Tools to be installed for networking to function, the network connections on the launch version worked without requiring this step.

Advertisement

Talkback 5 comments

    Be very careful of building ap ...Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) -- 11/11/08

    Be very careful of building applications based on M$ servers... Server 2003 dropped support for earlier API calls, and our application failed to work... The problem was that with M$ you can't really stay on older versions, as support is dropped etc, yet there is no corporate commitment to retain reverse compatibility. It would not have hurt M$ to retain the API support... but M$ just thought everyone should be migrated onto the newer M$ ways of doing things (.NET etc further lock-in). Our problem was that we were not yet ready to re-write that functionality.. and the programers who did write the earlier stuff were no longer around. To this day, for adding new users to an M$ Access application, we need to copy the database off the 2003 server back to the prior server (NT server) and make the changes, then re-copy the database files back onto the 2003 server. Clearly the application still works, but what changed was M$' support for functions done within their own complementary products (eg Access).

    The good: Can't think of any... Presumably some of the security problems of the earlier product are addressed... but at a cost of greater lock-in.

    The bad: Our experience with non-compatibility in 'upgrading' from one M$ product to its replacement has meant that we are seriously looking to standardise on only Linux servers, knowing that Linux retains strict reverse-computability and adherence to true standards.

    If you are to learn proper scr ...Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) -- 11/11/08

    If you are to learn proper scripting, you may as well invest the time to learn the Linux 'world-wide standard' scripting, not M$ copy/derivative of that arrangement... and then you won't have to worry about licences, or having enough of the right type, pre-purchased etc, to keep the network running.
    Note that the earlier comment re lack of reverse-compatibility with M$ servers was also by me, and I had intended my name to be included (rather than anonymous),
    Graeme (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu)

    Why is Linux allowed to have standards and M$ cant? Anonymous -- 13/08/09 (in reply to #320204246)

    Microsoft has about 90% of the world's computers under its control. So if it does something then that IS the standard. Just because Linux is open source doesn't mean it is the only thing in the world allowed to do something a certain way.

    RE: Why is Linux allowed to have standards and M$ cant Anonymous -- 16/09/09 (in reply to #320207990)

    What's called a "standard" is not dependant of whatever market share. It's supposed to be established by an independent body where several (an any) manufacturers can participate in its conception, where research centers and universities can also bring forth the latest "application-ready" results, consolidating evolution and research in a given field: the later is NOT based upon marketing strategies and efficiency, but upon research and technological quality/efficiency. For all the later reasons, it's thus easy to understand why Microsoft's products and technologies cannot and will never be considered as "standards", more over when considering their patents: a standard CANNOT be owned by a clique, it has to be accessible to any company, university, etc. WITHOUT the side-effect of enriching a small clique who would own whatever so-called "standard" (else that standard would be driven by the greed of such a clique, not for "the better" of us all and of the domain of application itself -here it would be computing sciences-, which is a deviation from what should be a standard)! LOL it's so evident that It feels weird to recall that simple fact to the stupidity of the previous post...

    RE: Why is Linux allowed to have standards and M$ cant Anonymous -- 16/09/09 (in reply to #320301703)

    Just to complete my previous post.... As an example, Microsoft would embrace and/or implement standards, they can also provide their own research to establish new standards (from then on freely offering sources codes and all to the community and market). Another example: XML is NOT a Microsoft guyzmo, even though MS has a big pie of the market is irrelevant.

Add your opinion

Overview

» Enlarge

The good:
  • Important new features reduce the cost of running corporate networks, including Network Access Protection, Server Core, PowerShell and Read Only Domain Controllers
  • Many existing components, such as IIS, Terminal Services and the file-sharing protocol have also had a thorough overhaul
The bad:
  • Many new features are not compatible with older Windows desktop and server systems
  • Upgrades to existing servers will need careful planning
  • More care is needed when purchasing Terminal Service Client Access Licences
  • .NET framework and PowerShell are not available in Server Core configurations
  • Training is required to make good use of the Server Core option
The bottomline:

Windows Server 2008 presents some compelling reasons to upgrade.

Editors’ rating:

7.5/10

RRP: TBA

Related topics:

microsoft, windows, server, 2008, longhorn, Hyper-V , .net

Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

  • Suzanne Tindal Sick of broken tender sites
    Some of the state governments desperately need to invest in more user-friendly tender sites so that looking for information on government tenders doesn't have to be a game of blind man's bluff.
  • Array Cyberwar: What is it good for?
    In this week's episode, Cyberwar. What is Australia's place in the world of digital warfare? What are the implications for the NBN?
  • Array Is wholesale-only backhaul just a pipedream?
    The potential acquisition of Pipe Networks by SP Telemedia has raised the question about whether vertically integrated backhaul providers will mean higher wholesale prices for ISP customers.
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured