Storage Spaces Performance-Server 2012 Essentials

Near and dear to my heart has been all the discussion on Storage Spaces.  I have tested the Server 2012 and the Window 8 versions for performance as compared to a hardware solution, and have consistently seen lower performance, especially from Windows 8.  Now that they have released the beta version of Server 2012 Essentials, I was naturally curious as to how it would compare to the other versions I tested, not only in approach, but in performance.  For those who have not seen essentials, I have included an overview of the software as well as features such as Web Access.



The following screen shots are all of the major elements you see after the installation.  As you can see they have used some of the Metro interface as well as the visual features of Windows 8 and Server 2012.  The Dashboard has the same basic features as the existing version of WHS 2011.  One major difference is of course the storage tab which takes you to the Storage pool options.

SNAG-0176  SNAG-0178SNAG-0179

SNAG-0182   SNAG-0183

SNAG-0184   SNAG-0185SNAG-0186   SNAG-0187SNAG-0188   SNAG-0189

I had various issues with setting it up the web access.  In the end it works fine but the setup wizard does not like if you do not have UpNp router.  Since I use Untangle, I manually setup port forwarding per the instructions and got it functioning despite the wizard choking on it and not being able to verify it.




After I experimented with Storage Spaces, I used the Highpoint 2680 with the three drives to recreate my RAID 5.  Just to make sure there was no issues, I installed and tested the Highpoint Web software to make sure that it worked correctly and that there were no compatibility problems should someone want to use a hardware solution in lieu of Storage Spaces.  As you can see other that some page rendering imperfections, everything worked fine.

SNAG-0180   SNAG-0181


Web Access

For the most part Web Access work very well.  I was able to get to all my files, music, photos, and video.  Thumbnails generated correctly and everything appeared as it was supposed to.  Remote access also worked with not issues.  I did however have a problem with video playback.

SNAG-0191   SNAG-0192SNAG-0193   SNAG-0194

Video playback issues

MP4 files appeared to be supported in the documentation and the files are read, however I could not get any to playback.  The result was a black screen and ultimately an error message.

SNAG-0195   SNAG-0196SNAG-0197


Storage Spaces Performance – We are getting close…

Now for the moment of truth.  Again I used a parity configuration as my basis because that is what I used in testing all prior versions, as well as my comparison to a hardware solution (RAID 5).  The initial screen shots walk you through creating the storage spaces volume.  The process is identical to Windows 8 but fortunately the performance is much better and is closer to Server 2012.

SNAG-0198  SNAG-0199SNAG-0200  SNAG-0201


The performance of Server 2012 Essentials is very close to its big brother.  The one thing I noticed is the file copy curve was much better than either of siblings, and overall felt more responsive.  In the end, it still takes twice as long to copy files as a low cost RAID card and I still would not use this for serious work, however it is comforting that things are improving.  Hopefully by release time (or maybe SP1) we will see performance close to a hardware solution.  For now, don’t expect the same speed from Storage Spaces.  If you review the copy curve, you will see that the throughput varied from the low 40’s to 105+ which overall is far better than anything I have seen from prior versions.  By comparison, the hardware solution never drops below 100 using the same files.

Storage Spaces – Windows 8

Storage Spaces – Server 2012

SNAG-0202  SNAG-0203SNAG-0204  SNAG-0205SNAG-0206  SNAG-0207SNAG-0208  SNAG-0209  SNAG-0211



Overall I like 2012 Essentials mostly because it is based on a strong core that eliminates the 2T barrier.  We all have come up with ways around it, but now we won’t have too.  I have mixed emotions on the Metro implementation but the dashboard overall is very well laid out.  During my week of using it, I found the backups to be very fast and when teamed with my RAID card, worked extremely well.  I still do not like the overall performance of Storage Spaces even though this was the best I have tested, as it is still considerably slower than a cheap RAID card.  Other than some annoyances from the video playback and quirky Web Access Wizard, everything works pretty well.  I am sure that these things will get worked out before the release time and certainly are not show stoppers in either case.  I will hold off on the domain discussion till I finish more testing, so look for additional articles coming in the future.


Storage Spaces – Windows 8

Storage Spaces – Server 2012

You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. jam3ohio says:

    Nicely done, Doc!

  2. Jim Collison says:

    Great job Mike and some very helpful resources. I am sure we will quote this post for months to come!

  3. Chris says:

    Does Server 2012 fix the issue in Windows 8 where your storage space was limited by the smallest drive in your pool (i.e. two 2TB drives and one 1TB drive would only yield 3TB of usable space, rather than 5TB of usable space…not including formatting loses of course)? I know it reports all the space as available, but once your file transfer goes above the smallest size limit it fails.

    • Ben says:

      Would like to know this as well, please!

      • Chris says:

        If I get the chance I'll dual boot Server 2012 over the weekend and test out the storage pooling. I'll report back with my findings.

      • Chris says:

        So, on the Enterprise Build 9200 (yes, the leaked copy on the web…purely for testing on my part) everything seems to be working fine. I hooked up a 160GB and a 20GB HDD and created a no-resiliency storage space which yielded about 155GB of supposedly usable space. On the older builds, copying data would normally stop around the 40GB mark (limited by the 2*20GB), but I've currently copied over about 85GB worth of data and it's still running strong. I'll let it finish up to ensure the entire space is usable, but I see no reason it won't be. All in all, good news.

  4. hvakrg says:

    Kind of weird that you only get 60+15+2 MB/son your copy test, personally I am currently moving my data from my backup drives to my server and I seem to always max out my 1Gbit network when I do this, and in a very balanced way with 30ish+30ish+30ish MB/S