Storage spaces vs onboard raid,shed window 24 x 24 ucf,how to make a shed home conversion,shed price tasmania - Reviews


Da ich gerade ein paar WD Red Festplatten frei hatte, habe ich an diesem verregneten Sonntag einen kleinen Performance-Vergleich zwischen Hardware RAID 5 (Mainboard, es kam kein extra RAID-Controller zum Einsatz), Software RAID 5 und Storage SpacesA  durchgefA?hrt. Beim sequentiellen Lesen sind alle Varianten sehr flott, die hA¶chste Performance erzielen jedoch die Storage Spaces, dicht gefolgt vom Hardware-RAID.
Beim Hardware RAID 5 macht es so gut wie keinen Unterschied, ob der Write Cache aktiviert oder ausgeschaltet ist.
WA¤hrend die Storage Spaces beim sequentiellen Lesen sehr schnell waren, sieht die Sache beim sequentiellen Schreiben ganz anders aus.
Bei zufA¤lligen 4K-Zugriffen ist abermals das Hardware RAID 5 ohne Write Cache am schnellsten. Zuerst sollte betont werden, dass beim Hardware RAID 5 kein leistungsfA¤higer Controller verwendet wurde, sondern lediglich die Onboard-Variante des H87-Chipsatzes. Nichtsdestotrotz bleibt zu sagen, dass die Hardware-Variante vor allem beim Schreiben deutlich Vorteile gegenA?ber den beiden anderen Varianten bietet. Das Software RAID 5 ist beim Lesen am langsamsten und beim Schreiben auch nur ein wenig schneller als Storage Spaces. Generell ist es mA¶glich, dass beide Betriebssysteme auf dieselbe 100-MByte-Partition zugreifen. First you can use Windows Server together with Storage Spaces, which will offer you a really great enterprise and scalable storage solution for low cost. Second you can use Windows Server to mask your existing Storage, by building a layer between the Hyper-V hosts and your storage.
At the moment there are not a lot of vendors out there which offer SMB 3.0 in there storage solution. Basically what the Scale-Out File Server let you do it so cluster up to 10 file servers which all will share CSVs (Cluster Shared Volumes) like you know from Hyper-V hosts and present SMB shares which are created on the CSV volumes.
As already mentioned you can use your already existing storage appliance as storage for your Scale-Out File Server CSVs or you could use Windows Server Storage Spaces which allow you to build great storage solution for a lot less money.
Microsoft first released there Software Defined Storage solution called Storage Spaces in Windows Server 2012 and this allows you basically to build your own storage solution based on a simple JBOD hardware solution. Continuous availability – Storage Pools and Disks can be clustered with the Microsoft Failover Cluster so if one server goes down the virtual disks and file shares are still available. Flexible resiliency options – In Windows Server 2012 you could create a Mirror Spaces with a two-way or three-way mirror, a Parity Space with a single parity and a Simple Space with no data resiliency. Storage Tiering – Windows Server 2012 R2 allows you to use different kind of disks and automatically moves “hot-data” from SAS disks to fast SSD storage.
Data Deduplication – Data Deduplication was already included in Windows Server 2012 but it is enhanced in Windows Server 2012 R2, and allows you to use it together with Cluster Shared Volumes (CSV) and supports VDI virtual machines. As mentioned both of this techologies do not require each other, but if you combine them you get a really great solution. To scale this even bigger you can go to way, you could setup a new Scale-Out File Server Cluster and create new file shares where virtual machines can be placed. With the 2012 R2 releases of Windows Server and System Center Microsoft made some great enhancements to Storage Spaces, Scale-Out File Server, SMB, Hyper-V and System Center.
Management – Management of Hyper-V and Scale-Out File Servers as well as Storage Spaces right in System Center 2012 R2 Virtual Machine Manager. Deployment – Deploy new Scale-Out File Server Clusters with and without Storage Spaces directly from System Center 2012 R2 Virtual Machine Manager via Bare-Metal Deployment. Rebalancing of Scale-Out File Server clients – SMB client connections are tracked per file share (instead of per server), and clients are then redirected to the cluster node with the best access to the volume used by the file share.
SMB bandwidth management – Enables you to configure SMB bandwidth limits to control different SMB traffic types. Multiple SMB instances on a Scale-Out File Server – Provides an additional instance on each cluster node in Scale-Out File Servers specifically for CSV traffic. I hope I could help with this blog post to understand a little bit more about the Scale-Out File Server and Storage Spaces, and how you can create a great storage solution for your cloud Environment.
Btw the pictures and information are taken from people like Bryan Matthew (Microsoft), Jose Barreto (Microsoft) and Jeff Woolsey (Microsoft).
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. Covecube the makers of DrivePool have a great discussion in their forums on Microsoft’s pooling solution in Windows 8, Storage Spaces vs DrivePool.
I knew about storage spaces in Win 8 for a while, but Microsoft’s blog post explained a lot. To add a disk to MS’s system, the disk needs to be provisioned in some form and must be wiped. I’m not sure that there is a need for a port to Win 8 since pooling functionality is essentially built-in. Welcome to the Web's Largest Dedicated Windows Home Server (WHS) Resource by Microsoft MVP Philip Churchill.
Har startat ett labb for att utvardera Storage Spaces i nya Windows Server 2012 R2 (just nu i Preview).
Har jamfor du vall anda Storage Spaces med vad man kallar fake-raid och inte HW-raid, iom att raid-kontrollern utnyttjar cpu:n for berakningarna, vilket gor skillnaden mot software-raid blir valdigt liten. Det har later mycket som funktioner som finns i zfs, har du mojligheter att benchmark:a mot det? Fragan kan ha manga svar, i Windows 2012 r2 fallet ar detta tankt att anvandas med Windows Scale-Out File Server (SOFS), da ar varje server som ett kontrollerkort i SAN:et. Vill du na mer an 270 000 unika besokare i veckan som gillar datorer, teknik och hemelektronik? Tipsa redaktionen om en intressant produkt, onska ett test eller framfor andra onskemal direkt till oss. ErwartungsgemA¤AY ist die Hardware-LA¶sung ohne Write Cache und mit Write-Back-Strategie mit Abstand am schnellsten.

Die Storage Spaces kA¶nnen mit dem Hardware RAID ohne Write Cache mithalten, wA¤hrend die Software-LA¶sung deutlich langsamer ist. WA¤hrend die Storage Spaces beim Lesen A?berzeugen kA¶nnen, ist das Hardware RAID 5 vor allem beim Schreiben im Vorteil. Dedizierte RAID-Controller dA?rften deutlich mehr Performance liefern, sind im Privatgebrauch aber auch nicht unbedingt weit verbreitet. Seitdem blogge ich hier A?ber Software, Internet, Windows und andere Themen, die mich interessieren.
Durch die Nutzung unserer Webseite erklA¤ren Sie sich damit einverstanden, dass wir Cookies setzen.
Most of the time you will have 2 controllers for fail-over and a little bit of manual load balancing where one LUN is offered by controller 1 and the other LUN is offered by controller 2. In Windows Server 2012 R2 a Hyper-V host can be connected to multiple SOFS node at the same time. You can build your own storage based on Windows Server, which not only allows you to share storage via SMB 3,0 it also allows you to share storage via NFS or iSCSI.
Or you could extend the existing cluster with more servers and more shared SAS disks chassis which don’t have to be connected to the existing servers.
This makes troubleshooting easier and reduces the need to capture network traces or enable more detailed diagnostic event logging. This allows you to take advantage of key SMB features, such as SMB Direct and SMB Multichannel, by providing high speed migration with low CPU utilization.
A default instance can handle incoming traffic from SMB clients that are accessing regular file shares, while another instance only handles inter-node CSV traffic. 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. A core requirement for DrivePool has always been to store your files in plain NTFS format for easy recovery.
Ebenso spielen andere Faktoren wie die Stripe Size und der Write Cache eine wichtige Rolle, welche ich nur sehr grob untersucht habe.
Windows Server 2012 sind recht neu, aber bieten beim Lesen bereits jetzt schon eine gute Performance. But in my opinion you can get a huge benefit by using Windows Server in different scenarios.
Together with SMB Transparent Failover the Hyper-V host does not really get any storage downtime if on of the SOFS nodes fails.
Which means that VM1 and VM2 running on the same Hyper-V hosts can be offered by two different SOFS nodes. The Virtual Disks, also called Storage Spaces, can have different resiliency levels like Simple, Mirror or Parity and you can also create multiple disks on one storage pool and even use thing provisioning. With SMB Multichannel you can use multiple NICs for example 10GbE, infiniband, or even faster network adapters. This is possible because of  features like CSV Redirected mode hosts can access disks from other hosts even if they are not connected directly via SAS, instead the node is using the Ethernet connection between the hosts. Work as a Cloud Architect for itnetX, a consulting and engineering company located in Switzerland.
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. Plus, it seems like they’ve really built up an extensive system, so they seem serious about it.
Black box RAID like solutions are only readable as long as the software functions properly. In addition, your files are stores as standard NTFS files so they are readable on any Windows system for emergency recovery purposes. Steigt die Warteschlange an, mA?ssen die Storage Spaces zurA?ckstecken und die Software- sowie Hardware-LA¶sung sind ca. Wer viel liest und nur wenig schreibt, sollte sich diese LA¶sung auf jeden Fall genauer anschauen.
Ich wA?rde mich freuen, wenn ihr meinen Feed abonniert oder mir auf Twitter, Facebook, Google+ und Google+ (privat) folgt. With Windows Server 2012 one Hyper-V host connected to one of the SOFS nodes and used multiple paths to this node by using SMB Multichannel, the other Hyper-V host connected automatically to the second SOFS node so both nodes are active at the same time. I am focused on Microsoft Technologies, especially Microsoft Cloud Solutions based Microsoft System Center, Microsoft Virtualization and Microsoft Azure. 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?
In case on of the SOFS nodes dies, the Hyper-V host fails over to the other SOFS node without any downtime for the Hyper-V Virtual Machines.
True, this is not something totally different, this is something storage vendors do for a long time.
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.
I guess a similar feature in DrivePool would need to mark a disk as suspect and have the balancer move all the files off it. Allerdings ist hier anzumerken, dass im Alltagsbetrieb keine hA¶here Warteschlange als QD3 oder QD4 zu erwarten ist. 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.

Handyman magazine workbench plans
Metal storage buildings lowes
Tall barn style shed plans pdf
Storage shed sale ottawa canada

Comments »

  1. SERCH — 22.10.2014 at 15:27:54
    Putting, such that the copied plans even this shed.
  2. AYNUR1 — 22.10.2014 at 20:59:29
    Plans will be made by means of them to build accessible types.