Jump to content
RESET Forums (homeservershow.com)

WHS 2011 Storage Strategy


pcdoc
 Share

Recommended Posts

It's more for the mechanical failure of the drive than anything else. Issues of data corruption are possible, but I've never seen an OS fail to boot because the drive is failing. That's what remapping bad sectors are for. But it is like you said, the OS drive has failed, so you'd like to get the system up and running ASAP. Server backup is a nice feature that should be done anyway, but that still requires your system to be down for a period of time.

 

Wow, that is the exact opposite experience I have supporting hundreds of PC's. When the HD starts to go, the registry and other critical OS files get corrupted and you get a BSOD. Nine out of ten times for us, the cause of a non-booting OS is a failing hard disk.

 

Now I have less experience with mirroring OS drives but in the instances I have and experienced a drive failure, the resulting corruption that was mirrored to the non-failing drive still resulted in a non-bootable OS. I have seen this 5 times. All other OS mirrors I have setup never experienced a fail. So in the 5 out of 5 failures I have seen, the mirrored OS drive gave us nothing that a backup image would not have provided. It takes about the same amount of time (or less) to get an image restored to a replacement drive as it does going into the hot spare and restoring system files and registry backups from the restore points.. As a matter of fact, I can get most of an OS drive re-imaged in the time it takes a PE disk to boot..

 

It would be great if a hard drive failed by just simply turning off or failing to turn on after a reboot. In that case the hot spare would pickup and save the day. But for me, it has just never worked that way. IME a hard drive failure tends to destroy data before it goes and the results are discovered at the next reboot..

 

So my faith in it has been crushed.

 

Have any of you actually experienced an OS mirror fail-over successfully?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does everyone feel they gain by mirroring the OS drive? ...

Have any of you actually experienced an OS mirror fail-over successfully?

 

I tend to agree, I don't really agree with all the interest in mirroring the system drive. I call it IcyDock hysteria... which seems to be an epidemic around here. ;)

 

On my system, I just use an Enterprise class WD 500 / 64 mb Cache drive, no mirror. I separate data from the OS drive and then do a 1:1 backup of my data drive to an eSata box and my old v1 system.

 

if the system drive fails, ehh... I'll just get a new one and reinstall the OS and reconfigure it, no big deal. if a data drive fails, I have two or three backups to restore from.

 

I'm not a fan of mirroring, as it only protects against HD failure, not bad data, stupid user mistakes, etc. Mirroring generally just copies the same problem to another drive.

Edited by TechMule
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, that is the exact opposite experience I have supporting hundreds of PC's. When the HD starts to go, the registry and other critical OS files get corrupted and you get a BSOD. Nine out of ten times for us, the cause of a non-booting OS is a failing hard disk.

 

Now I have less experience with mirroring OS drives but in the instances I have and experienced a drive failure, the resulting corruption that was mirrored to the non-failing drive still resulted in a non-bootable OS. I have seen this 5 times. All other OS mirrors I have setup never experienced a fail. So in the 5 out of 5 failures I have seen, the mirrored OS drive gave us nothing that a backup image would not have provided. It takes about the same amount of time (or less) to get an image restored to a replacement drive as it does going into the hot spare and restoring system files and registry backups from the restore points.. As a matter of fact, I can get most of an OS drive re-imaged in the time it takes a PE disk to boot..

 

It would be great if a hard drive failed by just simply turning off or failing to turn on after a reboot. In that case the hot spare would pickup and save the day. But for me, it has just never worked that way. IME a hard drive failure tends to destroy data before it goes and the results are discovered at the next reboot..

 

So my faith in it has been crushed.

 

Have any of you actually experienced an OS mirror fail-over successfully?

 

When mirrored though, writes should be successful on one drive, even when the other one is going south. Should that happen often enough, I would HOPE the IcyDock recognizes that the drive is failing and mark it as such. When you only have one drive, the system just keeps trying until the drive gives up and dies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory perhaps you may be right, but overall I disagree... a logical volume on a physical hard drive is an available resource. An unused resource is wasteful. This is why people are concerned about 'wasted' hard drives space, it's an unused resource.

 

In my case I wanted a WD black enterprise 64 MB cache drive for my OS, knowing I would use 20 GB of it, so I am OK with the 'waste' part of my system.

I have a different perspective. Here's the thing: hold up two 3 1/2 in. hard drives, one 80GB and one 2TB. If you don't look at the labels, they look the same. The most obvious difference is likely that the 2TB is probably lighter. The 2TB probably also has less physical material in it and it costs less to buy these days.

 

So, from a practical perspective, you save 2 resources by going with the 2TB drive: your money, which represents something real; and physical, expensive materials like aluminum, magnesium, and rare earth elements.

 

Contrast this with a perceived loss of not being able to use some bit space on the 2TB drive and, for me, the choice is obvious: I'll save my money, and the planet, over some lost disk space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a different perspective. Here's the thing: hold up two 3 1/2 in. hard drives, one 80GB and one 2TB. If you don't look at the labels, they look the same. The most obvious difference is likely that the 2TB is probably lighter. The 2TB probably also has less physical material in it and it costs less to buy these days.

 

This is a flawed analogy IMO.... because 80GB drives are hard to find and more expensive today. Perhaps your focus is on the use within WHSv2 as an OS drive. In that case you should consider a 160GB or 200GB. .. but if you compare buying a 500GB to a 2T today, the 2T will most likely be more money, if it goes unused, the cost difference to a 500GB is a waste of money and the additional disk storage is an unused/wasted resource.

 

that said, none of this really matters... I have so many darn hard drives it's ridiculous.

 

Goals for my last build were to use all new drives and a server/enterprise class boot drive. Using 20 GB of 500 is the least of my problems this week :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I'm glad I found this wonderful forum and I'm hoping you could give me some advice.

Building a new WHS 2011 (never had a server before) with the following:

 

1 x 320 GB for OS

3 x 2TB for data

 

No raidcontroller.

I thought before I saw this forum to build a raid 5 with the 3 disks but I now see that there are many other options and I'm a bit lost.

Server is going to be used for backing up 2 clients and storage of Photo's as critical and movies\music as little less critical.

 

Who could guide me into the right direction to a proper setup of drives where the data on the server is backed.

I also have a NAS (2 x 1TB mirror) where I would like to create an extra backup to, for example My Images and probably some others.

 

 

As a couple of other have mentioned, I would take 2 drives and put them in a RAID 1 configuration (a mirror) and use the third drive as a backup for the RAID 1 mirror. The mirror can be created either thru the BIOS or thru the Computer Management Console. Simple and complete. I would also take the take to create a System image of the OS and put it on that third drive also. You can recover from there or thru the normal backup regime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a flawed analogy IMO.... because 80GB drives are hard to find and more expensive today. Perhaps your focus is on the use within WHSv2 as an OS drive. In that case you should consider a 160GB or 200GB. .. but if you compare buying a 500GB to a 2T today, the 2T will most likely be more money, if it goes unused, the cost difference to a 500GB is a waste of money and the additional disk storage is an unused/wasted resource.

 

that said, none of this really matters... I have so many darn hard drives it's ridiculous.

 

Goals for my last build were to use all new drives and a server/enterprise class boot drive. Using 20 GB of 500 is the least of my problems this week :)

Agreed. We each have our own perspectives which, hopefully, work well for each of us. These forums are great for bringing out different viewpoints without people bashing you for it. Everyone benefits IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's good to hear (about VHDX). Let's hope that it appears in WHS 2011 PP1 - if something like that ever makes it out of the door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...