Being slow does not mean you do anything for extra integrity. It just means your baby steps in storage are still years behind everyone else.I am no longer convinced that this is a "problem" to be solved. While I think that perhaps it COULD be improved...I believe that it is merely a by product of the clearly conservative approach they are taking to data integrity, especially considering the journaling and all.
Is that as difficult as it sounds? I really don't want to spend >100 hours to learn Solaris just to store things. My only motivation to do that would be if 8 empty drives suddenly landed in my lap.I think many of us here, myself included, are simply spoiled by our fancy ZFS rigs.
ZFS is easier than any other solution, in my opinion. Less complex. More intuitive. Lot of people use OpenIndiana with napp-it (in the huge thread) and they dont know solaris, or care to learn. They just want to store data. Safely. You should try to install napp-it in VirtualBox (which is free) and see if it is difficult or not.Is that as difficult as it sounds? I really don't want to spend >100 hours to learn Solaris just to store things. My only motivation to do that would be if 8 empty drives suddenly landed in my lap.
This is software raid being software raid. They're not going to have it improved by RTM. This is probably it, or what they were satisfied with. I mean their article on this boasts "comparable to RAID speeds" which is safely vague enough for that to be true. Coincidentally that's all an external USB2.0 hard drive will give you. They really just optimized this system to be good enough for just those types of drives? I find that a silly waste of resources and can't believe it. While their mirror speeds are good, that doesn't really matter since you could just do it right at the start and use RAID1.
Is that as difficult as it sounds? I really don't want to spend >100 hours to learn Solaris just to store things. My only motivation to do that would be if 8 empty drives suddenly landed in my lap.
I could honestly live with 20MB/s write speed though to have what this is. Read speed is much more important to me than write. This drawback is a better tradeoff than no parity. I want to see what ReFS does for this first.
ZFS is easier than any other solution, in my opinion. Less complex. More intuitive. Lot of people use OpenIndiana with napp-it (in the huge thread) and they dont know solaris, or care to learn. They just want to store data. Safely. You should try to install napp-it in VirtualBox (which is free) and see if it is difficult or not.
Just a random thought; but anyone think its possible that we might see better write speeds as a part of the Windows 8 server OS? I'm just a hobbyist, but it seems that such low write speeds might really limit the appeal of storage spaces on a server platform.
ZFS is really easy and intuitive. No need for 20 commands to create a raid, and format and setup partitions etc etc.
Windows 8 is a pretty significant change, so there will be some relearning there as well.
That said, it looks like you should be fine as long as you stay away from the parity spaces. Run mirrors (multiple 2 disk mirrors) all in the same "space" - should be equivalent to raid10 (though it looks like it doesn't do read striping?).
If you want a raid-6 setup then it still seems like you need to spend the money for a decent raid card.
It may be the fact that it is journelling the changes before writing them to the parity spaces data store to guard against the RAID5 write hole. You can apparently define an arbitary drive for where this journal should live on, so I suspect dumping it on an SSD should dramatically improve preformance.
linky on the info:
Parity spaces include a journal to ensure data integrity regardless of write size and in the presence of unexpected power loss. Stay tuned for more information on the work we have done with Windows file systems - this work builds on Storage Spaces. Parity spaces do use some memory caching to improve performance. Storage Spaces do not use a SSD as a write buffer although SSDs can be used to back the journal thereby helping performance for parity spaces
If ReFS woks okay (e.g. bit rot) with "mirrors", I will be fine. I will get saturaged gigabit ethernet performance + redunacy + bit rot. I know my efficiency will be around 40% for storage (Raid 1 + 13% bit rot overhead protection)..but i'm okay with that; i'm okay with adding 2 drives at a time for more storage; others may not be.
You don't need to add two drives at a time for 2-Way Mirror with Storage Spaces. You just need two to start, and then add extra drives as needed. I'm at 5 drives right now and it works like a champ. My only complaint is that the write speeds are still pretty slow (even though they are 100% faster than parity). It is what it is I guess.
I'm a bit confused - if you start with a 2 way mirror, then add a third drive, and it's *not* a parity setup, what exactly is it? (assuming we are protected from any drive failing).
Just a quick question: has anyone tried using a SSD for journaling backup as alluded to in a few posts in this thread? I was wondering if I could "buy" a write performance increase at the cost of a SSD.
I found one issue with storage spaces in Win 8 I don't like.
With WHS V1 you can turn off duplication. With Storage Spaces as far as I can find once you set up the storage pool you can't change the settings.
For example I selected 3 way mirror since the 3 drives were old and pulled at some point from my WHS so I don't remember if I had issues or just upgraded them for space. I used a 500gb, 750gb and a 1tb drive. It turns out the 750gb is actually having issues and was locking Windows and Storage Spaces up. I pulled the 750gb drive since I couldn't even get into manage storage spaces without it locking up. Unfortunately I only have 320gb drives laying around. As a result with 3 way on, I don't have enough room to remove the 750gb via the menu even after adding the 320gb drive in place of the 750gb.
I can't find anyway to change it from three way to two way so my only option seems to be to copy the data off the pool until I have enough space to remove the 750gb drive.
To replace a drive you need to replace it with something of equal or greater value, unless you know you have enough free space on your other drives to cover the difference.
The only options that I know you will be able to change once a Space has been created is that you supposedly will be able to make your Space larger... so changing it from 10TB to 20TB for example. If you want to make any other major change, I think you need to start from scratch and just copy data to it.
Optimize-Volume -DriveLetter H -ReTrim -SlabConsolidate -Verbose
One other concern is Win 8 didn't notify me on boot there was a problem with the storage pool. It shows the pool is unhealthy when I enter the menu but nothing alerted me that I might have an issue.
If you are willing to get dirty with powershell commands, there appear to be a bunch documented here.
Calling Optimize-Volume should do the trimming & moving to free up space.
Where "H" is whatever the storage pool's drive letter is (you can select the pool by other methods too).Code:
Optimize-Volume -DriveLetter H -ReTrim -SlabConsolidate -Verbose
Can't see where you change the journal location in the documented powershell commands. So it may not be in this release yet
To maximize performance, Storage Spaces always stripes data across multiple physical disks
Akin to mirrored spaces, slabs for parity spaces are strewn across available disks (with capacity utilized for parity information) as shown below for a parity space contained within a six-disk pool:
@Salty – two-way mirrored spaces will survive failure of any 2 disks backing the space. Parity spaces will only survive failure of a single physical disk backing the parity space – note, however, that concurrent failures of other disks within the pool not backing the parity space do not impact access to the parity space.