No Previous Versions Tab on Windows Server 2003

[humbletech99]

I have enabled Volume Shadow Copy on a 2003 server and taken some shadow copies in between changes as a test but I am unable to get the Previous Versions tab when right-clicking properties on the files/folders on the server.

I installed the Previous Versions client on the server and on my windows xp workstation. On my workstation I can get the previous versions tab and use it just fine, but on the server I cannot get the previous versions tab.

This is a problem since I am using Terminal Servers and most of my users will need to do this actually on the terminal server itself, not over a share.

I have found that accessing the file on the server locally via it's share instead of via the local filesystem actually allows you to use the previous versions tab.

Surely Microsoft did not do this intentionally??!!!

Why can't I access the previous versions tab on the locally via explorer on the server machine?
Am I missing something?

 

[58sniper]

I'm sure you're referring to the Shadow Copy client, as there is no "Previous Versions client".

If you read more about Shadow Copy, you'd know it requires the network redirector to work. Hence, you don't see it on a local machine (like the server console).

Pat Richard, MCSE MCSA:Messaging CNA
Microsoft Exchange MVP
Want to know how email works? Read for yourself -

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt

 

[humbletech99]

err, it's called the previous versions client, but yes we are talking about the same thing.

It think it was silly to make it require the network redirector as it's also useful to let it work locally.

Anyway, does this mean that I have to have shares on my terminal servers just to let clients use this feature?

Is there another way?

 

[58sniper]

It's called the Shadow Copy client -

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/downloads/winsrvr/shadowcopyclient.mspx

and works with the Volume Shadow Copy Service -

http://technet2.microsoft.com/windo...b7d8-42c3-b6c9-59c145b7765f1033.mspx?mfr=true

Users don't usually connect directly to a file server. That's why it was designed that way. Usually Terminal Services servers aren't also file servers.

To answer your question - yes. That would likely work.

Pat Richard, MCSE MCSA:Messaging CNA
Microsoft Exchange MVP
Want to know how email works? Read for yourself -

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt

 

[humbletech99]

yes I see the ambiguity, I installed it from the c:\windows\system32\clients folder and after installation control panel shows it as "Previous Versions Client".

I downloaded it again from the link you posted to see if it was newer or different but it's the same client and the installation even calls it "Previous Versions Client".

odd.

anyway, thanks for the pointer, but I don't understand why a terminal server is not used as a fileserver also.

Our users run stuff like vfox in a terminal server where they have files also as working on local files is much faster than working on network files. Is this so strange?

If I used separate file servers then performance would suffer.

I'd like to know your thoughts on this.

 

[58sniper]

I don't really see how performance would suffer if things are configured correctly, with the exception of opening and close some REALLY big files (hundreds of MB). And TS puts FAR more workload on a server. Performance might actually be better if they were separated.

TS servers are prone to attack if they're forward facing. Not where I'd want my data to be.

Can't say as I've ever seen a TS box also working as a file server. Even in small offices with <12 users.

Pat Richard, MCSE MCSA:Messaging CNA
Microsoft Exchange MVP
Want to know how email works? Read for yourself -

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt

 

[humbletech99]

heh, the files are gigs, not mere megs.

I actually have quite a lot of these machines used to store and process files, it's a performance thing.

You would have to wait some time even over gigabit to access laarge files, and then the constant writing back and forth would just be rubbish.