Garden sheds cape town




Storage spaces raid card,10 x 20 wood shed kit,self storage prices east sussex,sheds for sale in vermont xl - Tips For You

09.07.2014 admin
If you're like most other IT pros I know, you're probably already cringing just at the title of this article. Native Windows drive mirroring (read: software RAID) has been in every Windows release since Win 2000. Then Microsoft gave a technology called Drive Extender a short run, which was for all intents and purposes the rookie season for Storage Spaces. With the release of Windows 8 and Server 2012, Microsoft took the wraps off of two technologies that work in conjunction to usher in a new era of software RAID. Any IT pro worth their weight knows that depending on RAID is a necessity for redundancy in production-level workloads.
Advanced RAID types, like RAID-5, allow us to leverage greater amounts of space per pool of drives, but they also come with an inherent flaw: they are disgustingly hard to recover data from.
This is why I never use RAID-5 in production scenarios since I can easily take any disk off a RAID-1 and recover files off of it, as if it never existed in a RAID configuration. And when is the last time you ran into NTFS inconsistencies on a RAID and had to follow through on a complete CHKDSK scan?
The Linux geeks surely know that free distros have been widely available for years now attempting to plug this needs gap. FreeNAS is by far the oldest purpose-driven distro in the Linux crowd, offering nothing more than an OS to host drives on converted PCs for the purpose of replicating what pre-built hardware NASes provide. ZFS is a technically superior filesystem (for now) to Microsoft's ReFS from all I can read, but it has rather high memory requirements for host systems. 16GB of RAM for a simple storage server, especially for a small organization of 5-10 users, is a bit ridiculous.
You may be itching to go with a pre-built hardware appliance which has the benefits of RAID, minus the complexity.
And let me clarify by saying that ReFS actually already exists in Windows 8.1 on the consumer side.
Yes, some brave souls are already describing workarounds about getting full ReFS drive support in Windows 8.1, but I wouldn't recommend using unsupported methods for production systems. ReFS, short for Resilient File System, is Microsoft's next generation flagship filesystem that will be overtaking NTFS in the next 3-6 years.
Self-healing capabilities aka goodbye CHKDSK. Microsoft introduced limited auto-healing aspects into NTFS starting with Windows Server 2008 R2, which is nice, but keep your excitement in check. No-downtime-required data repair. In the event that ReFS needs to perform deeper repairs on data, there is no need to bring a volume out of availability to perform the recovery. Reduced risk of data loss due to power outages, etc. NTFS works with all file metadata "in-place" which means any changes made to files (like updating file content, changing  filenames, etc) is saved over the last set of metadata for those items. Some other missing items do not matter as much to me, as I don't rely on them (as far as I know) but these are file based compression, EFS, named streams, hard links, extended attributes, and a few others. CHKDSK is on leased time, if ReFS replaces NTFS like the latter replaced FAT32 over a decade ago. A few bloggers online are unfairly comparing ReFS to ZFS and other well established file systems. Put the technology aside for a moment, and dissect Microsoft's needs pitch on this offering. But just like RAID, you have a few options for how you can format your Storage Spaces to work. Parity Space: This is the equivalent of a RAID-5 array, using parity space to prevent disaster and recover data in the case of failed drives. Simple Space: Just like a RAID-0, where you are striping data across multiple drives for raw speed but zero data redundancy. And this is an important distinction about how I tested Storage Spaces with older hardware. In my testing, I was not only interested in how fast a setup would be under Storage Spaces, but likewise, how safe my data would be in the event of disaster.
No matter how well a storage array performs, if my data won't be safe from drive failure in a real world scenario, I don't care how fast it's whizzing to and from the storage set.
So for my first round of tests, I decided to build out test Storage Spaces that were configured in both mirroring and parity modes.
I then replicated a drive loss on my Spaces by simply hot unplugging the power to one of the disks inside the server, and kept close watch on the signals from Windows about the lost drive. Even when the drive was unplugged on each Space to simulate failure, I did not lose access to any of the files. Windows knew a drive was down, had alerted me, and was actually keenly waiting for me to reconnect the drive. But the above confirmation of data resiliency in the face of failure was not good enough for me.
I'm running Windows 8.1 Pro on my Thinkpad, so I would expect there to be no connectivity or drive recognition issues. But at face value, Storage Spaces does live up to its promises of data resiliency in the face of disaster.
While I had comparable speeds on my sequential and 512K read tests, just look at how Storage Spaces blew away the hardware RAID-1 on the same tests in the write category.
Seeing as RAID-1 is what I traditionally use for customers, I'm quite shocked that Storage Spaces was able to one-up my beloved RAID-1 array. I also ran tests of RAID-0 up against a Storage Spaces simple array, which are equivalent technologies.
Again, I wish I had a chance to test out what running more trials of each test would have garnered, as well as upping the file size tested to 1GB or larger, but I think in the end, these numbers are relatively representative of what an average joe setup of Storage Spaces would achieve. Unless I run into something wild in my own Storage Spaces adventure to move off a NAS, then I will tentatively say that yes, it's a technology worth trying. And the performance numbers, especially on how a mirror SS just destroyed my hardware RAID-1 on writes specifically, was quite impressive.
I'm hoping that Spaces lives up to its name when I start tossing hundreds of gigabytes of actual company data at it. Derrick Wlodarz is an IT Specialist who owns Park Ridge, IL (USA) based technology consulting & service company FireLogic, with over eight+ years of IT experience in the private and public sectors. With yet another beautiful example of feature creep and an overwhelming belief that Windows 8 must please all of the people all of the time, Microsoft has unveiled Storage Spaces, a new RAID-like storage solution that will be built into Windows 8.In essence, Storage Spaces allows you to group physical disks into pools of any size (pools of hundreds of disks, as found in a datacenter, have been tested by Microsoft). Both pools and spaces can be created and managed using Powershell or a Control Panel applet. Im Zuge des Aufbaus einer Testumgebung zur Erprobung und Abbildung von Microsoft Cloud Szenarien habe ich einen Benchmark zwischen der Microsoft Storage-Virtualisierungstechnologie Storage Spaces und klassischen RAID Leveln eines Hardware RAID Controllers durchgeführt.
Bevor ich das Testsystem und die Benchmark Ergebnisse vorstelle, möchte ich kurz einige wesentliche Informationen zu Storage Spaces liefern. Storage Spaces sind virtuelle Laufwerke, die aus einem lokalen Storage Pool generiert werden und dem Betriebssystem als Volume zur Verfügung stehen. Ab zwei physischen Laufwerken in einem Storage Pool steht neben dem Simple Storage Layout zur Steigerung des Datendurchsatzes durch Data Striping ohne Fehlertoleranz ein 2-Wege Mirroring zur Auswahl, das die Datenkopien redundant auf beiden Laufwerken speichert. Ab drei physischen Laufwerken steht das Parity Storage Layout zur Auswahl, das die Fehlertoleranz durch Bildung von Prüfsummen sicherstellt.
Aus einem Storage Pool können mehrere Storage Spaces mit unterschiedlichen Storage Layouts erstellt werden.
Darüber hinaus wurde die Geschwindigkeit des Rebuilds nach einem Fehlerfall durch einen parallelisierten Reparatur Prozess verbessert, indem ungenutzte Laufwerke des Storage Pools zur Wiederherstellung der Fehlertoleranz herangezogen werden. Der Benchmark ist auf einem Dell Power Edge R610 Server mit 2x Intel Xeon 5620 (2,4 GHz) und 32 GB Multibit ECC RAM ausgeführt worden.
Als Benchmark ist die kostenfreie Software ATTO Disk Benchmark des Herstellers ATTO Technology in Version 2.47 verwendet worden. Der jeweilige Space hat alle drei Laufwerke umfasst und den kompletten Speicherplatz „fixed“ provisioniert. Als Äquivalent wurden auf dem PERC H700 die RAID Level 0 und 5 konfiguriert und nach Abschluss der Background-Initialisierung getestet.
Die Werte Adaptive Read Ahead und Write Back der Read und Write Policies aktivieren den RAID Controller Cache. Liegen bei beiden Technologien die gleichen Cache-Konfigurationen an, so kann der Storage Space im Simple Layout sehr gut im Vergleich um RAID 0 Level mithalten und diesen bei deaktiviertem Hardware Controller Cache schlagen. Im Gegensatz dazu liegt die Performance des Storage Layout Parity beinahe durchgehend hinter den Werten des RAID Levels bei gleichen Cache-Einstellungen.
Den Ergebnissen entsprechend, empfiehlt Microsoft die Nutzung des Parity Layouts zur Archivierung von Daten und für Backups, bei der eine effiziente Speichernutzung mit gleichzeitiger Ausfallsicherheit im Vordergrund steht. Darüber hinaus entspricht es nicht Microsofts Vorstellungen, die Storage Spaces auf ein reines Software RAID zu reduzieren. Dynamic IT Management Blog is proudly powered by WordPressArtikel (RSS) und Kommentare (RSS). Microsoft sigue con el desarrollo de Windows 8, a buen ritmo, a juzgar por la gran cantidad de funciones que nos van llegando de las versiones pre-beta.
El formato 2-way guarda dos copias de los archivos y puede manejar los fallos de un disco, mientras que el 3-way realiza tres copias de los archivos y puede manejar los errores de dos discos. Aunque lo ideal seria contar con RAID por hardware cuyo soporte la mayoria de placas base de nivel medio ya incluyen aportando ademas de seguridad de datos mayor velocidad de acceso, el Storage Spaces sera interesante para prevenir contra la perdida de datos aumentando la fiablidad de las unidades de almacenamiento. Como la perdida de datos es tanto en problemas fisicos como logicos, aqui tambien es posible perder la data. Usamos cookies propias y de terceros para mejorar tu experiencia y realizar tareas de analitica. Windows 8's new Storage Spaces functionality will easily allow users and system administrators to pool different physical drives together into one logical drive, writes Rajeev Nagar on the Building Windows 8 blog.
When creating a new Storage Space, you can specify a maximum size larger than the amount of available physical space - the system will prompt you when the storage pool needs more drives to work with.
For an in-depth look at how this technology works (and a FAQ which answers, among other questions, some inquiries about its similarities to and advantages over RAID), check out the full post using the link below. No, it's actually very different (and works parallel to what you can do in disk manager).Thin Provisioning being one key term of difference. I had some major performance issues with Drive Extender when it would rebalance the drives.
It showed up in the first version of the now-dead Windows Home Server line, but was stripped out of the second and final release because of how knowingly buggy the technology was. Perhaps that's the wrong way to phrase it; after all, software RAID comes with a lot of negative connotations, judging by its checkered past.
For systems that cannot be offloaded into the cloud, and must be kept onsite, my company has had excellent luck with running dual RAID-1 arrays on Dell servers.
Disks that are outside of their natural array environment (specifically, their native controller and array) are near useless for data recovery purposes unless you are willing to shell out in the thousands for a professional clean room to do the job. But opting to go RAID-1 instead of RAID-5 forces a larger investment in drives since you are always losing half your total spanned disk size to redundancy.

And hardware RAID has been a great, but expensive and labor intensive, solution for those who have the expertise or can hire it as needed.
By all accounts, from my little experience with it and what colleagues of mine have told me, it's pretty darn solid and does a good job.
FreeNAS pushes the notion that you can convert near any PC into a FreeNAS box, but in actuality, on low spec systems you're likely relegated to the legacy UFS filesystem. First off, its filesystem of choice is ReiserFS, which is already being heavily discussed in Linux circles as being on its way out, with support in the future likely to be placed into the legacy filesystem bin at some point. As Scott Kelby wrote on his lengthy blog post, dealing with Drobo's unique (and proprietary) filesystem called BeyondRAID actually puts you in a bad position come a worst case scenario (Drobo failure, etc) compared to regular RAID-1. That scares me, and is the reason why I'm being so cautious with Storage Spaces and ReFS to begin with. It's all fine and dandy, but that fancy magic comes with the full assumption you are willing to entrust your sensitive data in a proprietary RAID-alternative with no recovery outlet if when your Drobo goes belly up. I'd rather invest a little elbow grease and time into a solution, whether it be true RAID or something else, that I know always has a backdoor I can fall back on in that "ohh sh*t" scenario of complete array failure. I definitely can't knock the product, and online reviews from users seem pretty solid, but I am worried about the program's reliance on the aging NTFS. If I am making the move to a pooled drive ecosystem, I want to move away from NTFS and onto a modern filesystem like ReFS or ZFS. Server 2012 and 2012R2 support ReFS fully already except for using it on the drive you leverage for booting into Windows (a darn shame). There's a reason Microsoft has locked down ReFS in such a manner -- because it's a filesystem still very much in development! Steve Sinofsky, the former head of Windows that left the company in late 2012, laid out a stellar in-depth blog post back in January of the same year. By all accounts, it's leagues behind what ReFS has built in because Microsoft says that CHKDSK is no longer needed on ReFS volumes.
ReFS performs the repairs on the fly, with zero downtime, and is invisible to the end user.
This works great when you have battery backups protecting all your systems, but this is not ideal in reality. To a non-developer like me, all that I care about is the promise of compatibility for business applications on the market. So you can't enforce Johnny in accounting getting 15GB for his home drive and Nancy in marketing having 25GB instead.
Due to the auto-healing capabilities of ReFS, there is absolutely no need to run CHKDSK on volumes formatted in this next gen file system.
ZFS, for example, has been on the market since 2005, and ReiserFS has been around even longer, since 2001.
Microsoft IT evangelist Brian Lewis put on an excellent Server 2012 bootcamp here in the Chicago area which I had the opportunity to attend on behalf of my tech company FireLogic.
What if you could leverage all the cool benefits that RAID arrays and SAN backbones offer, at a sliver of the cost of a true SAN? If you can provision 2012 or 2012 R2 servers, and have collections of disks you can throw at them, you can build a wannabe SAN at a fraction of what the big boys charge for their fancy hardware.
Exact copies of data is mirrored across two or more drives, giving you the same redundancy that RAID-1 has offered for so long. I personally don't like this Space type as it has given me very poor write speeds in my testing (shown below).
If I'm going to use Storage Spaces for my own company needs, and more importantly, for my clients, I need proof that this tech works.
I upgraded the unit to a full 8GB of RAM and an Intel Xeon X3230 processor, a best-of-yesteryear CPU that has 4 cores at 2.66GHz each. I wanted to ensure that this feature could deliver on the results that Microsoft boasts about. Obviously, when I was testing Storage Spaces speed, my RAID functionality was completely disabled on the card so we could see what Windows was able to muster on its own between connected disks.
A pair of Seagate 250GB SATA drives and another pair of oddly-matched 2TB Seagate SATA drives. It actually deciphered that I merely disconnected one of the drives, instead of saying that one disk was out of commission due to technical failure, and I guess this is accurate because Windows has full control over the disks in the array with Storage Spaces. I wanted to know if Storage Spaces allows me to recover data from failed arrays in the same manner that my favorite RAID-1 technology offers. A server goes down due to a RAID card failure and we are simply looking to recover data from one of the drives, move it to a new array (RAID setup or a Storage Space, going forward), and get our client back up and running. The amount of data I had stored on the associated Storage Spaces was miniscule compared to what a production level system would use.
I could not replicate what an actual failed disk situation would look like, as I don't have any disks I want to sacrifice for such a test, but I will be sure to report back if Storage Spaces doesn't function in similar ways during real-life usage. Microsoft claims all over their blogs on Storage Spaces that their testing has shown the technology to be working on similar speed levels as hardware RAID cards. I know there are many other products out there used by the professional review sites, but between client work load and personal matters, I don't have the time to hammer away at legions of speed test programs. My results were a bit mixed, but I was most pleased with how my Storage Spaces mirror array (2 drives) performed against the same two disks in a hardware RAID-1.
There could be more than a few factors at play here, and I'm sure storage geeks will nitpick my findings.
Just for kicks, to see what kind of performance it had, I also tried a parity Space even though I could not compare it up against a RAID-5 since my old Dell RAID card does not support it. I'm not sure why the performance was so bad, and it may have had something to do with my heterogeneous array of varied hard drives.
Of course there will be differences between hardware setups, especially on the side of newer hardware (this server is a 2008 era system) but my testing kept a level playing field except for the disk management technologies involved between setups.
I would wade into Storage Spaces with one foot forward and test it before you convert any production systems, as my above test scenarios were far from real-world situations. I don't think there is anything tangible I would be losing by moving away from hardware RAID if these performance figures consistently follow through on my formal Storage Spaces array for my company.
I'll say this much: I wouldn't put a customer volume onto it yet, but I am surely going to use ReFS for my Storage Spaces setup at my business. He holds numerous technical credentials from Microsoft, Google, and CompTIA and specializes in consulting customers on growing hot technologies such as Office 365, Google Apps, cloud-hosted VoIP, among others.
These pools can be allocated as spaces, which then appear as a normal drive letter in Windows and can be used to store documents, videos, photos, and so on. It looks like the process will be easy enough to set up, but whether it will be advertised to regular consumers (Clippy: “You seem to have multiple drives installed!
Sowohl Storage Pools als auch Storage Spaces sind Build-in Features der genannten Betriebssysteme, d.h.
Lediglich der Laufwerksbuchstabe des zu testenden Volumes und die Funktion Start sind von mir ausgewählt worden.
Simple bietet auf der einen Seite einen hohen Datendurchsatz durch parallele Schreib- und Lesezugriffe, auf der anderen Seite aber keine Ausfallsicherheit.
Die angepassten Einstellungen auf dem RAID Controller wurden sofort aktiv, ein Neustart des Servers ist nicht notwendig. Bei den Benchmarks mit aktiviertem Hardware Controller Cache limitiert dieser die Leistungen des Systems. Das schlägt sich mit einem deutlichen Performance-Verlust im Vergleich zu den RAID Leveln mit aktiviertem Hardware Controller Cache nieder. Die noch junge Storage Spaces Technologie muss sich erst in verschiedenen Produktivumgebungen beweisen. Permite montar cualquier disco duro para aumentar la capacidad de almacenamiento y obtener copias de seguridad redundantes.
This functionality, which is similar in some ways to the now-discontinued Windows Home Server Drive Extender, will allow drives of any capacity connected to a PC by USB, SATA, or SAS interfaces to be seen by the OS as one large drive. It's massively different and one of the best things about Win 8.From what i can see you get the performance of RAID-0 speeds, but you can also mirror your data 2 or 3 times. Windows does not currently allow multiple, physical storage devices to be used as 1 logical storage drive. The premature nature of dynamic drive pooling in Windows, coupled with the arguably inferior file system NTFS, was the perfect storm for showing Drive Extender the door. In server environments, even for relatively simple layouts prevalent at small businesses we support, doing a hardware RAID the right way entails using enterprise grade disks, add-in RAID cards, and the knowledge to configure everything in a reliable manner.
You almost always have to take the system(s) in question out of service for periods of time when the upgrades are being done, and the older servers get, the more tenuous this procedure becomes. But with multi-terabyte arrays becoming the norm, taking production servers down for days at a time for full CHKDSK scans is a nasty side effect to perpetuating the 'status quo' in how we handle storage. There have likewise been a bevy of alternative options over the years, but none of them have impressed me that much, either. Two major offerings that I have been investigating for our own internal post-SMB NAS future are FreeNAS and UnRAID. But its biggest draw, and likewise its achilles heel, sits within its filesystem of choice: ZFS. You can read some of the discussions members of the FreeNAS community have been having about ZFS's rather high memory needs on their forums. Secondly, the free version is more of a freemium edition, with support for only 2 data drives and one parity disk. So yes, you'll be doing the equivalent of CHKDSK on the Linux side when you start running into bit rot. The line of devices offered by Drobo range in options from 4 bays to 12 bays, all promising the same nirvana of a post-RAID lifestyle. I can't imagine having no plan Z solution for working with drives from a dead Drobo that had no other backup.
Otherwise, DrivePool is just a fancy patch for a bigger underlying architectural problem with how we handle large sums of data.
Microsoft is rolling out ReFS in the same manner that NTFS took the better part of a decade to make it to a mainstream Windows release (Win 2000). He gave a no-holds-barred look into the technical direction and planning behind how ReFS came to be, and where it's going to take Windows. ReFS uses checksums to validate all data saved to volumes, ensuring that corruption never gets introduced. ReFS borrows a page from a concept known as "shadow paging" where a separate metadata set is written and then re-attached to the primary file in question after the write has been completed successfully. I'm not sure if these are temporary, intentional decisions from the ReFS engineering team for the sake of getting ReFS into the market for testing, or if these are long term omissions, but you should know about them. This is an important missing feature which kind of irks me and is in some ways a step back from NTFS.

So comparing Microsoft's new ReFS to those other maturing filesystems is not an apples-to-apples comparison yet, because Microsoft is undoubtedly still working out the kinks. If you rely on functions of NTFS that ReFS has left out thus far, you may not enjoy what it has to offer.
One of the items that came up in live demos of Server 2012 was Storage Spaces, and it not only got me interested, but the SAN guys in the crowd were super curious at what Microsoft was cooking here.
What if these storage arrays could be scaled out from standard DAS drives of any flavor -- SATA or SAS -- without the need for any fancy backplanes or management appliances? 2012 and 2012R2 are afforded a few extra bells and whistles for enterprise situations, but for the most part, the same basic technology is available at your disposal in all flavors of Windows now.
From there, you create Storage Pools of these available disks, and from that point, you create Storage Spaces which are volumes rendered upon spanned pools utilizing multiple drives. It's a pretty straightforward approach in the land of Storage Spaces, and actually works as advertised, I've found. I loaded up a batch of misc test files onto each Storage Space, to represent just a hypothetical set of data that may be sitting on such an array.
I even gave the system a few reboots to simulate what someone may do in the real world while investigating a lost drive, and tried to access my data on the Spaces respectively during drive loss. I actually like this approach to Storage Spaces; removing the hardware RAID controller from the equation puts Windows in direct control over the drives, and likewise, affords us deep insight as to the status of our disks.
On any standard RAID-1 array we deploy, I can unplug any of the given drives from a server or NAS device and access it via a plain jane Windows computer. I shut my Dell 840 server down, pulled out the drive caddy, and connected one of the mirrored drives into my Thinkpad X230 laptop for some spot checks on my data.
The drive connected, installed, was immediately read, and I was able to browse the entire disk as if nothing ever happened.
And I'm hoping to replicate such usage when we move our office NAS over to a mirrored Storage Space, so I can get some hard real world experience with the functionality.
Ballsy claim for Microsoft to make, knowing that they will have to pry hardware RAID from the cold dead hands of IT pros like myself. From what I could gather online, CrystalDiskMark is a trusted tool used as a general benchmark of how any kind of storage array or disk is functioning. From how old my RAID card is, to the kind of disks I used in my testing, I know my lab experiment wasn't 100 percent ideal. But for numbers' sake, you can at least have a look at what kind of performance it offers (read: it kinda sucked). I'm hoping that Microsoft can get the speed of such parity arrays raised, since my tests proved the option to be a pretty pitiful alternative to a RAID-5 setup which would have definitely trounced the small numbers shown in my tests. But my preferred Storage Spaces type, a mirror, treats all file data as a kosher ReFS volume that can be plugged into any Windows 8 or above system in an emergency.
I'm a bit disappointed to see parity Spaces working at such sluggish speeds, as I found out first hand, but as I mentioned, I always found RAID-5 unrealistic for my client needs, so I doubt I would lose any sleep over the Storage Spaces alternative. If my internal company primetime test of Storage Spaces falters, I definitely won't be ditching my tried and true RAID-1 approach for clients anytime soon. Derrick is an active member of CompTIA's Subject Matter Expert Technical Advisory Council that shapes the future of CompTIA exams across the world.
Any array of physical disks can be used to make a pool — you can use a combination of external USB and internal SATA, if you wish.
Do you want me to set up a pool?”) or kept as a power user feature remains to be seen. Dies hat zur Folge, dass bei Verwendung von Storage Spaces für jedes einzelne der drei Laufwerke ein eigener RAID 0 Level konfiguriert werden muss. Verbesserung könnte die in Server 2012 R2 neu hinzugekommene Funktion der Nutzung eines schnelleren Storage Tiers, bspw.
Plus if one disk in the Storage Space fails, it's no problem, you can add another disk easily, and in the meantime the Storage Space continues to work as normal.It also automatically copies any mirrored data that was lost on the failed drive over to the newly added drive without you having to do anything. Every previous try has either been met with gotchas, whether it be performance roadblocks, technical drawbacks, or outright feature deprecation. While I've never played with Drive Extender, I have given Windows drive mirroring and striping limited trials on a personal basis in the XP and Vista days with grim results. Dependability is what business IT consulting is all about; we're not here to win fashion or feature awards. But, and the big but, is that once you run out of SATA or SAS ports on your RAID backplane or card, that's it. Long story short, NTFS was never meant to take us into the tera and petabyte storage era, especially in scale and in complex fault tolerant environments. But as I've written about before when it comes to the "free" aspects of open source, just because it doesn't have a price tag doesn't mean it's superior to commercial counterparts. Storage Spaces in Windows 8.1 and Server 2012 R2 likewise don't have any issues with lower memory footprints, from my own tests and what I can glean from technical articles on ReFS. Paid options start at $69 and get you 5 data drive capability, and there is a $120 edition that gets you support for 23 data drives. But this convenience doesn't come without a hefty price tag, with the cheapest gigabit ethernet-enabled Drobo (the 5N) coming in at a sizable $515 USD on Newegg -- and that's diskless, mind you. Because as he found out, you can't plug any of the disks in a Drobo array into a standard Windows or Linux PC to recover data.
It's not myself that I'm concerned about; I can only imagine selling a Drobo to a client and having them coming back to me for an emergency years down the road due to a failed device. Not to mention, I don't like the notion of two more (paid) apps that have to be layered into Windows, maintained for updates, the overhead, etc. Let the business customers work out the kinks, so that consumers can see it show up in full focus by Windows 10, I'm guessing. And ReFS is constantly scrubbing data behind the scenes to ensure that consistency on stored information is upheld over the long run. No more BSODs from corruption when you lose power in the middle of a sensitive write operation on your drive.
With enough testing in the field, and business penetration, it will gain the real-world testing that it deserves.
But the aspects I care about -- self healing, disk scalability, the death of CHKDSK -- are extremely appealing. What if you truly could have all the niceties that big companies can afford in their storage platforms, at a small to midsize business price point? While the intentions behind Storage Spaces was to allow companies to scale out their storage pools easily as their needs grow, this same technology is simple enough for me and you to use at home. I setup numerous test Storage Spaces pools on a Windows 8.1 Pro testbed Dell PowerEdge 840, and it took me minutes to do so in a point and click interface on each try. But most importantly, they are considered mainstream specs these days for something you may find at a small office or something you can build at home. If they say it works, I wanted to test it on its own turf, putting it through the paces that anyone with off the shelf hardware would be using.
This is how Microsoft demo'd the tech at the Server 2012 bootcamp I attended, and as such, I'm doing the same! It's a super fast, but super dangerous, technology to be using when storage resiliency is at stake.
The test files consisted of misc photos, images, and vector graphics, with some document files mixed in as well. This is excellent for emergency data recovery, or simply getting an organization back up in the face of a time crunch where relying on backups will waste more time than we can afford.
I would probably never use a parity or simple Storage Space in real life, so I was not as concerned about those numbers. Microsoft may not be done with ReFS yet, but then again, isn't all software a perpetual beta test anyway? Spaces can be configured to be redundant and provisioned.Redundancy in Storage Spaces is through either mirroring (RAID 1) or parity (RAID 3). Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Ziff Davis, LLC.
You're either looking at a full replacement set of hardware, looking for another card to add in, or some similar Frankenstein concoction.
Seeing that you can buy Server 2012 R2 Essentials for about $320 OEM right now, and use Storage Spaces plus the rest of the flexibility that Windows provides, this is a hard purchase proposition for me to swallow.
If you have to invest in good Seagate Constellation or WD RED NAS drives, you'll be looking at closer to a $1K budget for this route. Hence why I likely won't ever sell a Drobo unless they start leveraging industry standard filesystems. The hardware I'm using is pretty basic, stuff that any small business or tech enthusiast may have laying around in their stash of goodies.
This isn't a multi-thousand dollar blade server that a large company would use in a complex storage setup. I've always believed hardware RAID to be faster, but in this instance, I was definitely proven wrong. Seeing as Microsoft is advertising Storage Spaces as RAID for the average joe, I don't think my testing setup was that oddball. I've got nothing to lose as we will be using rsync to make copies of all critical data back to our old trusty QNAP NAS, so I really don't have any qualms with being a guinea pig of sorts here.
Here goes nothing, and I'll try to follow up on this piece in 3-4 months after some more formal stress testing of this pretty darn neat technology. In both cases, if a mirror or parity disk fails, Spaces will notify you with a Windows pop-up, and then proceed to rebuild your volume if you have the capacity.
If you run out of disk space, you would typically need to remove files or buy a different hard drive.
This is an area Storage Spaces attempts to solve, by giving us the ability to use any form of DAS (direct attached storage) in our "pools" of disks. The only downside i can think of is that if you mirror your data then obviously it's going to use more drive space.
With this new technology, you could purchase another hard drive and simply plug it into your computer. The other advantage of thin provisioning is that you don’t have to decide on partition sizes ahead of time (an arduous task that many of you have no doubt suffered through).

Storage shed blueprints free vector
8 by 10 storage shed plans 00

Rubric: Steel Shed


  1. VUSALIN_QAQASI writes:
    Lacquer could also be costly acknowledge that it is all very nicely deciding when wooden.
  2. ELIZA_085 writes:
    Wood to cordon off the realm where parquet wood with help.