Jump to content
RESET Forums (homeservershow.com)
Sign in to follow this  
chrisoldroyd

Windows 8.1 Storage Spaces

Recommended Posts

jmwills

Just becsuse they sell it doesn't mean to me it is a mainstream product (Storage Spaces). Is the Datacenter version widely used? Apples and Oranges.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drashna Jaelre

I'm pretty certain that anyone that is using data centers are using cached and battery backed up RAID cards, and not storage spaces. Why? because 500MB/s is the minimum allowed speed. And storage spaces doesn't stack up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ikon

I don't know how widespread the use of Storage Spaces is within enterprises. However, I would NOT be surprised to find out it's pretty low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pcdoc

Thanks for the link, but that only mentions performance in passing. No real issues.

 

I just ran Disk Mark against my pool.. results (all Sequential #'s in MB/sec):

OS SSD: 260 / 111

Simple Pool: 145.6 / 138.4

Mirror Pool: 143.0 / 132.4

Parity: 256.0 / 25.12

 

Keep in mind these are numbers from my live system and all use ReFS File System. The Parity I created just for this test as a 1TB pool.

 

My mileage does vary.... don't worry, I'll twist your arm into liking it! Just give me some time! ;)

 

 

The poor parity performance is only one problem.  The number of issues I had with it such the array just dropping, random drive errors, when a drive fails and you have more than one drive you can not tell which drive is bad, and my favorite, the disappearing data.  I personally would touch SS with anything but test data.  After even my test data got creamed, I decided this was not a good plan and just not worth pursuing at this time.  The idea is good but it needs a round 3 for better execution.  If you are having good luck that awesome, but have lots of backup just in case....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris

The poor parity performance is only one problem.  The number of issues I had with it such the array just dropping, random drive errors, when a drive fails and you have more than one drive you can not tell which drive is bad, and my favorite, the disappearing data.  I personally would touch SS with anything but test data.  After even my test data got creamed, I decided this was not a good plan and just not worth pursuing at this time.  The idea is good but it needs a round 3 for better execution.  If you are having good luck that awesome, but have lots of backup just in case....

 

pcdoc, thanks for your opinion. I've not experienced the problems you mentioned, but I'll take your word for them. Regarding drive errors, the management console tells you which drive has failed.

 

So just to confirm, you use SS on Server 2012 with a mirror and ReFS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vance Fox

As have been said above, Storage Spaces probably won't find its way into a ts government or mid/large cap corporation where raid will, most likely, always be king. With that said I wouldn't be surprised if a startup would use it until they IPO or get high value data.

 

I personally would have no problem using it for my home non-critical data, but I don't. Just my opinion though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris

As have been said above, Storage Spaces probably won't find its way into a ts government or mid/large cap corporation where raid will, most likely, always be king. With that said I wouldn't be surprised if a startup would use it until they IPO or get high value data.

 

I personally would have no problem using it for my home non-critical data, but I don't. Just my opinion though.

 

I don't agree. SS is certainly not hardened like RAID; plus operational experience with a known commodity is worth a lot. SS/ReFS are in their infancy for sure, but I'm willing to bet a lot more governments and mid/large corps use SS over the alternatives mentioned on this forum. Of course no business will switch to SS outright, but they're testing them - the cost savings is just too good compared to enterprise class RAID arrays.

 

Microsoft is eating their own dog food... if you see the article I linked to above, they're were storing 1.1 petabytes of data managed by SS. The case study is from a year ago, so I'm sure that number has gone up considerably.

 

Knowing how much companies spend on storage and the exponential growth of data produced every year, more and more large corps will be moving to SS. No different than virtualization - remember when putting a production application on a virtual machine meant all kinds of performance issues? Now, almost everything is virtualized.

 

By the way, I said something earlier, which I found out isn't true. You can use ReFS in Windows 8.1 (I haven't checked 8.0)... so that's a no brainer if you care about bit rot. No raid array will give you that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vance Fox

Sounds like a sales pitch from a salesman.

 

Of course MS will use their own product; it would be a death sentence if they didn't.

 

You love it... I get that. I don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ikon

Although you really have to wonder which mode they're using SS in, given how poor its 'RAID5' performance is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris

Sounds like a sales pitch from a salesman.

 

Of course MS will use their own product; it would be a death sentence if they didn't.

 

You love it... I get that. I don't.

 

The case study is most certainly a sales pitch! At least they're eating their own dog food.

 

 

Although you really have to wonder which mode they're using SS in, given how poor its 'RAID5' performance is.

 

Good question, my guess is it depends on how important write speed is. But because your SS is separate from the underlying disks, you're not just wasting all the space to a mirror the way you would in a traditional RAID. So for example, let's say you have 2x 3TB drives. In a traditional RAID1 setup, you'll have 3TB worth of storage. With SS, the non-essential stuff can be on a Simple SS partition, effectively increasing the amount of usable space - using the same 2x 3TB drives.

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...