Windows server 2008 vs Opensolaris/ZFS

[Caddish]

Hi I'm in the process of building of small home server.

My focus are :

• Performance; Goal is nearly loading a 1gb/s connection)
• Redundancy; So raid 1 all the way
• One pool of storage with ability to add raid 1 array to the pool

Keeping that in mind what could be the argument to choose WS2008 over ZFS .
I have red a lot about ZFS but know noting about WS2008 and I know last timed I checked btrfs picked my curiosity but I don't think it's there yet
I love to read so any link to article or thread discussing that is welcome

 

[jonnyjl]

If your goal is for a single storage server (NAS)....

Nothing.

ZFS all the way.

 

[Red Falcon]

Yep, you'll want a ZFS setup, all the way.

Server 2008 has no advantages except that it can run certain enterprise apps, but those cost $$$. Other than that, ZFS has every advantage.

 

[pjkenned]

So I am a decent fan of ZFS, but I will say, LSI hardware RAID 1 is ultra cheap. If you are building a sub-8 drive system a IBM BR10i is a $70 or less 8 port solution that would let you run Windows.

The two primary reasons NOT to go ZFS at this point are:
1. You are not comfortable in Solaris/ Nexenta/ Napp-it (see guide here for the napp-it gui) or FreeBSD.
2. You have another application you want to run that is Windows/ Linux specific.

2 can be mitigated by using VMware ESX(i) pass-through of the controller with VT-d to the ZFS VM, and then running something else in another VM. That gives you a lot more flexibility with the machine since you are not tied to Solaris or FreeBSD.

1 is tougher because people panic when something goes wrong with their storage servers, since it is a lot of data that goes inaccessible, and they then do less than intelligent things. If you are not comfortable with administration, save yourself the headache up front OR get comfortable before you store your data on Solaris/ FreeBSD. Just a word of warning since I get a lot of e-mails from people that build systems that they are not prepared to administer.

 

[vraa]

LMFAO

Next thread:
New hard drive for my Kia or a graphics card for my toilet?

 

[omniscence]

Neither!

Just buy a small and simple NAS with multiple harddrives and an Atom processor. Those are able to saturate a gigabit connection. A single harddisk can almost saturate gigabit ethernet for streaming reads, which is all what typical home users do (streaming their DVD rips over ethernet).

I don't even see why WS2008 came into the decision, nothing you mentioned would justify a Windows Server. You did not specify the number of users or amount of storage needed.

 

[jonnyjl]

It seems like he's really concerned about data integrity/redundancy, since he wants to run everything mirrored.

I guess I don't honestly know, so someone correct me if I'm wrong, but NTFS and/or RAID1 has no protections for data integrity right? I mean the data isn't hashed and auto corrected like it is in zfs right?

 

[Red Falcon]

Neither!

Just buy a small and simple NAS with multiple harddrives and an Atom processor. Those are able to saturate a gigabit connection. A single harddisk can almost saturate gigabit ethernet for streaming reads, which is all what typical home users do (streaming their DVD rips over ethernet).

I don't even see why WS2008 came into the decision, nothing you mentioned would justify a Windows Server. You did not specify the number of users or amount of storage needed.

Only if the Atom is a dual-core, single cores max out around 15-20MB/s on gigabit as they are not physically powerful enough to drive the network connection to higher speeds, unless a hardware-based NIC is used.

 

[Caddish]

If your goal is for a single storage server (NAS)....

Nothing.

ZFS all the way.

There is no way to make a software or hardware pool in WS2008 similar to ZFS ?

Yep, you'll want a ZFS setup, all the way.

Server 2008 has no advantages except that it can run certain enterprise apps, but those cost $$$. Other than that, ZFS has every advantage.

Do you have any of those enterprise app in mind. That's the kind of thing I'm interested in learning to use.

So I am a decent fan of ZFS, but I will say, LSI hardware RAID 1 is ultra cheap. If you are building a sub-8 drive system a IBM BR10i is a $70 or less 8 port solution that would let you run Windows.

The two primary reasons NOT to go ZFS at this point are:
1. You are not comfortable in Solaris/ Nexenta/ Napp-it (see guide here for the napp-it gui) or FreeBSD.
2. You have another application you want to run that is Windows/ Linux specific.

2 can be mitigated by using VMware ESX(i) pass-through of the controller with VT-d to the ZFS VM, and then running something else in another VM. That gives you a lot more flexibility with the machine since you are not tied to Solaris or FreeBSD.

1 is tougher because people panic when something goes wrong with their storage servers, since it is a lot of data that goes inaccessible, and they then do less than intelligent things. If you are not comfortable with administration, save yourself the headache up front OR get comfortable before you store your data on Solaris/ FreeBSD. Just a word of warning since I get a lot of e-mails from people that build systems that they are not prepared to administer.

The IBM BR10i is interesting, can I start with 6 drive then add 2. And is there striping across each "grape" of 2 mirrored drive to improve performance and what happen if the card fail can I just replace it with the same model ?

1 Does not scare me at all I'm a google expert and have way too much time to waste (thanks for the link to the ZFS thread)
2 Would be my primary reason, I have a lot of windows PC and microsoft software so I was thinking that at some point I'll want to run a windows specific application

Neither!

Just buy a small and simple NAS with multiple harddrives and an Atom processor. Those are able to saturate a gigabit connection. A single harddisk can almost saturate gigabit ethernet for streaming reads, which is all what typical home users do (streaming their DVD rips over ethernet).

I don't even see why WS2008 came into the decision, nothing you mentioned would justify a Windows Server. You did not specify the number of users or amount of storage needed.

Among the reason for building a server: wasting time; satisphying my inner geek, not beeing limited to 3-4 drive; not paying 500$ for a atom box; I'm soon going to have a e8400+mobo or i7-860+mobo laying around; expanding functionnality of my VPN and SSH tunnel; running some app in remote desktop from anywhere; itunes, torrent, nzb, media streaming server ... I could go like that for a long time

Main reason for the interest in WS2008 : I work for a 6 employee company and my boss is buying a WS2008 server + microsoft exchange + some app running on the server accesible via RDP + VPN. I'd like to be able to administer it.

It seems like he's really concerned about data integrity/redundancy, since he wants to run everything mirrored.

I guess I don't honestly know, so someone correct me if I'm wrong, but NTFS and/or RAID1 has no protections for data integrity right? I mean the data isn't hashed and auto corrected like it is in zfs right?

I have no idea but since there won't be that much activity; mostly file transfer I don't think data integrity should be that much of an issue

Only if the Atom is a dual-core, single cores max out around 15-20MB/s on gigabit as they are not physically powerful enough to drive the network connection to higher speeds, unless a hardware-based NIC is used.

Anyway the cpu is going to be a e8400 or i7-860

Thanks everybody for the input but I'm still curious about what kind of functionality WS2008 has over ZFS excluding the way it manage storage

 

[Red Falcon]

Server 2008 and 2008R2 use NTFS, which imo, is a very fast format, but one that must be constantly monitored (error checking/repairing, defragging, etc). ZFS uses the ZFS format, which is a RAID engine and drive format all in one and is self-repairing.

Also, all Windows OSes can only run on FlexRAID (which is horrendous imo) and expensive hardware RAID. ZFS uses a very advanced version of software RAID, but it does require a lot of RAM and processing power.

The only reason to get Server 2008 would be if you need Windows-only exclusive apps which are enterprise-class (and cost $$$). Other than that, there is no reason to get Server 2008 for file sharing.

I switched from 2003/2008 to Ubuntu 10.04 and I couldn't be happier. ZFS will take you much further than even Linux will. PM sub.mesa here on the forums, or look for his ZFS thread, it will really help.