If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?
I want to build a Windows 8 box that uses Storage Spaces to create a
Raid-5-like redundant storage space using 12 2-TB drives. The PC in question has an old Asus mobo with an Intel Core2 Duo CPU E700 running @2.8GHz with 2 gigs of memory which I plan to upgrade to 8 gigs before attempting this little venture. So Far, I see: - Windows 8 - Windows 8 Pro - Windows 8.1 Full Version - Windows 8.1 System BUilder OEM DVD 64-Bit I don't wan to chince out... OTOH, no sense throwing away good money on a feature set I don't need. Which version do you recommend? -- Pete Cresswell |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?
Per (PeteCresswell):
Which version do you recommend? Got it... Just plain "Windows 8.1" as per http://www.dummies.com/how-to/conten...ndows-810.html -- Pete Cresswell |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?
(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per (PeteCresswell): Which version do you recommend? Got it... Just plain "Windows 8.1" as per http://www.dummies.com/how-to/conten...ndows-810.html Read up a bit on it first. http://arstechnica.com/information-t...en-it-works/3/ https://helgeklein.com/blog/2012/03/...-design-flaws/ Those refs are from the Wikipedia article on Storage Spaces. I had to use the references, because the Wiki didn't have enough "meat" in it. I don't know what explanation there is for the speed. If a large file is interleaved across disks, you would think it would write faster. Paul |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?
Per Paul:
Read up a bit on it first. http://arstechnica.com/information-t...en-it-works/3/ https://helgeklein.com/blog/2012/03/...-design-flaws/ Thanks. Not exactly deal breakers - but enough to make me start looking at DriveBender. I can deal with almost any level of poor performance because the use is just as a backup for my NAS box. Only runs when I do backups and I usually just fire them up and go to bed.... The ugly part for me is drive replacement. I'm still not sure what has to happen when a drive fails - wasn't sure under WHS either... - Can I just replace the failed drive by swapping a new one into it's physical location/SATA connection? - Or do I have to have another SATA connection available at all times to deal with adding the replacement drive first ? If it turns out that DriveBender runs under Windows 7 and doesn't have any bad reviews, I call it a slam dunk..... even under 8.1.... -- Pete Cresswell |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?
(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Paul: Read up a bit on it first. http://arstechnica.com/information-t...en-it-works/3/ https://helgeklein.com/blog/2012/03/...-design-flaws/ Thanks. Not exactly deal breakers - but enough to make me start looking at DriveBender. I can deal with almost any level of poor performance because the use is just as a backup for my NAS box. Only runs when I do backups and I usually just fire them up and go to bed.... The ugly part for me is drive replacement. I'm still not sure what has to happen when a drive fails - wasn't sure under WHS either... - Can I just replace the failed drive by swapping a new one into it's physical location/SATA connection? - Or do I have to have another SATA connection available at all times to deal with adding the replacement drive first ? If it turns out that DriveBender runs under Windows 7 and doesn't have any bad reviews, I call it a slam dunk..... even under 8.1.... I would think replacing a bad drive with a good one, then looking for a "array rebuild" option, is all that is needed. The bad drive is of no use to you any more, once the status has changed. If distributed parity of some sort is being used, the software just "recalculates" the drive contents on the missing member. You can get some ideas here, how the math behind it works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levels Paul |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 19:37:18 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
Per Paul: Read up a bit on it first. http://arstechnica.com/information-t...en-it-works/3/ https://helgeklein.com/blog/2012/03/...-design-flaws/ Thanks. Not exactly deal breakers - but enough to make me start looking at DriveBender. DriveBender? I just wrote about that in another post. I didn't think anyone else had even heard of it. I can deal with almost any level of poor performance because the use is just as a backup for my NAS box. Only runs when I do backups and I usually just fire them up and go to bed.... The ugly part for me is drive replacement. At its core, DriveBender is a drive pooling tool. You throw any number of any-sized drives at it and it seamlessly combines them into a single, very large, volume. My pools/volumes are 28TB and 30TB, respectively. Data redundancy, however, is quite secondary. You can designate any number of folders that you want to be redundant and DriveBender will quietly create two copies of those folders, making sure that the two copies reside on different physical drives. I suppose you could designate every folder to be a redundant folder, but that halves the storage space. With any drive pooling method, or at least with this one, keep in mind that as your drives begin to fill up, you're limited to saving files no bigger than the amount of space you have on a single drive. To put it another way, files are *never* split across drives. You can remove a drive from the DriveBender pool at any time, connect it to another PC, and read the files from it without any problem. No special drivers or software are needed. Here's another peek behind the scenes: with a DriveBender pool, whenever you create a new folder, DriveBender creates that folder on each drive in the pool. That's an intentional design decision, as they feel it's better to create folders that might never be used than to need a folder later and not have it when it's time to write a file. I'm still not sure what has to happen when a drive fails - wasn't sure under WHS either... - Can I just replace the failed drive by swapping a new one into it's physical location/SATA connection? - Or do I have to have another SATA connection available at all times to deal with adding the replacement drive first ? If it turns out that DriveBender runs under Windows 7 and doesn't have any bad reviews, I call it a slam dunk..... even under 8.1.... DriveBender has the capability to replace a failed drive, but data will only be preserved if you have designated the folders on that drive to be redundant. If yes, then there's another copy of the data on another drive, so when you replace the failed drive, DriveBender will quietly recreate a second copy. If the folders on the failed drive weren't designated as redundant, then the data on the failed drive will be lost. Even so, you can still pop out a failed drive and pop a new drive in. You will have lost any non-redundant data, but DriveBender will immediately start using the new drive. I give DriveBender a thumbs up. If you need additional data protection, SnapRaid would be my choice. I mentioned where to get it in my other post. Good luck and please follow up with what you decide. I'll be curious to see which way you go. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?
Char Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 19:37:18 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote: Per Paul: Read up a bit on it first. http://arstechnica.com/information-t...en-it-works/3/ https://helgeklein.com/blog/2012/03/...-design-flaws/ Thanks. Not exactly deal breakers - but enough to make me start looking at DriveBender. DriveBender? I just wrote about that in another post. I didn't think anyone else had even heard of it. I can deal with almost any level of poor performance because the use is just as a backup for my NAS box. Only runs when I do backups and I usually just fire them up and go to bed.... The ugly part for me is drive replacement. At its core, DriveBender is a drive pooling tool. You throw any number of any-sized drives at it and it seamlessly combines them into a single, very large, volume. My pools/volumes are 28TB and 30TB, respectively. Data redundancy, however, is quite secondary. You can designate any number of folders that you want to be redundant and DriveBender will quietly create two copies of those folders, making sure that the two copies reside on different physical drives. I suppose you could designate every folder to be a redundant folder, but that halves the storage space. With any drive pooling method, or at least with this one, keep in mind that as your drives begin to fill up, you're limited to saving files no bigger than the amount of space you have on a single drive. To put it another way, files are *never* split across drives. You can remove a drive from the DriveBender pool at any time, connect it to another PC, and read the files from it without any problem. No special drivers or software are needed. Here's another peek behind the scenes: with a DriveBender pool, whenever you create a new folder, DriveBender creates that folder on each drive in the pool. That's an intentional design decision, as they feel it's better to create folders that might never be used than to need a folder later and not have it when it's time to write a file. I'm still not sure what has to happen when a drive fails - wasn't sure under WHS either... - Can I just replace the failed drive by swapping a new one into it's physical location/SATA connection? - Or do I have to have another SATA connection available at all times to deal with adding the replacement drive first ? If it turns out that DriveBender runs under Windows 7 and doesn't have any bad reviews, I call it a slam dunk..... even under 8.1.... DriveBender has the capability to replace a failed drive, but data will only be preserved if you have designated the folders on that drive to be redundant. If yes, then there's another copy of the data on another drive, so when you replace the failed drive, DriveBender will quietly recreate a second copy. If the folders on the failed drive weren't designated as redundant, then the data on the failed drive will be lost. Even so, you can still pop out a failed drive and pop a new drive in. You will have lost any non-redundant data, but DriveBender will immediately start using the new drive. I give DriveBender a thumbs up. If you need additional data protection, SnapRaid would be my choice. I mentioned where to get it in my other post. Good luck and please follow up with what you decide. I'll be curious to see which way you go. Does it have redundancy (parity) to handle drive failure ? Paul |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 23:24:48 -0400, Paul wrote:
Char Jackson wrote: On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 19:37:18 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote: Per Paul: Read up a bit on it first. http://arstechnica.com/information-t...en-it-works/3/ https://helgeklein.com/blog/2012/03/...-design-flaws/ Thanks. Not exactly deal breakers - but enough to make me start looking at DriveBender. DriveBender? I just wrote about that in another post. I didn't think anyone else had even heard of it. I can deal with almost any level of poor performance because the use is just as a backup for my NAS box. Only runs when I do backups and I usually just fire them up and go to bed.... The ugly part for me is drive replacement. At its core, DriveBender is a drive pooling tool. You throw any number of any-sized drives at it and it seamlessly combines them into a single, very large, volume. My pools/volumes are 28TB and 30TB, respectively. Data redundancy, however, is quite secondary. You can designate any number of folders that you want to be redundant and DriveBender will quietly create two copies of those folders, making sure that the two copies reside on different physical drives. I suppose you could designate every folder to be a redundant folder, but that halves the storage space. With any drive pooling method, or at least with this one, keep in mind that as your drives begin to fill up, you're limited to saving files no bigger than the amount of space you have on a single drive. To put it another way, files are *never* split across drives. You can remove a drive from the DriveBender pool at any time, connect it to another PC, and read the files from it without any problem. No special drivers or software are needed. Here's another peek behind the scenes: with a DriveBender pool, whenever you create a new folder, DriveBender creates that folder on each drive in the pool. That's an intentional design decision, as they feel it's better to create folders that might never be used than to need a folder later and not have it when it's time to write a file. I'm still not sure what has to happen when a drive fails - wasn't sure under WHS either... - Can I just replace the failed drive by swapping a new one into it's physical location/SATA connection? - Or do I have to have another SATA connection available at all times to deal with adding the replacement drive first ? If it turns out that DriveBender runs under Windows 7 and doesn't have any bad reviews, I call it a slam dunk..... even under 8.1.... DriveBender has the capability to replace a failed drive, but data will only be preserved if you have designated the folders on that drive to be redundant. If yes, then there's another copy of the data on another drive, so when you replace the failed drive, DriveBender will quietly recreate a second copy. If the folders on the failed drive weren't designated as redundant, then the data on the failed drive will be lost. Even so, you can still pop out a failed drive and pop a new drive in. You will have lost any non-redundant data, but DriveBender will immediately start using the new drive. I give DriveBender a thumbs up. If you need additional data protection, SnapRaid would be my choice. I mentioned where to get it in my other post. Good luck and please follow up with what you decide. I'll be curious to see which way you go. Does it have redundancy (parity) to handle drive failure ? If "it" is DriveBender, then redundancy is on a 'per folder' basis, rather than a 'per file' or 'per drive' basis. So you can get to a point where the entire drive is redundant, but you'd do it by carefully managing your folder redundancy. If "it" is SnapRaid, then yes. SnapRaid can be configured to handle any (within reason) number of simultaneous drive failures. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?
Per Char Jackson:
Data redundancy, however, is quite secondary. You can designate any number of folders that you want to be redundant and DriveBender will quietly create two copies of those folders, making sure that the two copies reside on different physical drives. I suppose you could designate every folder to be a redundant folder, but that halves the storage space. One appeal of both of these products is that I can probably run them under my old WHS license or one of my spare XP licenses - i.e. I don't have to spring for another Windows 7 or 8.1 license. At what level does DriveBender mirror redundant folders to different physical drives? e.g. Suppose I have a folder called "B" with subfolders "DVDs_NetFlix", "Streamed_HBO", "Streamed_NetFlix"... and so-forth. And under each of those folders are hundreds of individual folders - one for each movie....and maybe multiple subfolders per movie. Obviously "B" is going to be huge - as in tens of TB.... and the average movie's folder is going to be about 4 gigs. There's more, but you get the idea.... Given redundancy for all folders, are those huge top-level folders going to be a problem ? I am looking at SnapRaid right now.... Trying to find some feature that makes it preferable to DriveBender for my use. But, for something like this, I think I am partial to paid applications (i.e. DriveBender) over freebies like SnapRaid. Do you know anybody who uses SnapRaid ? 58 Terabytes ??? Wow.... Are you using redundancy in your implementation of DriveBender ? How are you physically managing all those drives? - Multiple SATA cards ? - Some sort of backplane box ? All I have right now is a large tower case and have it maxed out with 13 drives - but changing drives is a chore and I'm stuck at 13. -- Pete Cresswell |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?
Per (PeteCresswell):
Are you using redundancy in your implementation of DriveBender ? OK, I think I have it doped out: you are not.... right? And if/when you do want redundancy, you will implement SnapRaid on top of DriveBender.... Am I even close ? -- Pete Cresswell |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 20:04:28 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
Per (PeteCresswell): Are you using redundancy in your implementation of DriveBender ? OK, I think I have it doped out: you are not.... right? In DriveBender, I have redundancy enabled on the folder that holds the many sub-folders containing our life's collection of digital photos, scanned documents that we care about, home movies, etc. I figure almost everything else has limited value and can probably be replaced, if necessary. I *expect* to have hard drive failures, but so far, knock on wood, there haven't been any. And if/when you do want redundancy, you will implement SnapRaid on top of DriveBender.... Am I even close ? Yes, that was the plan since the two get along well together and don't get in each other's way. I may still do that, but I'm finding that my need for a multi-TB storage pool is actually diminishing, so I've been putting it off. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 19:44:52 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
Per Char Jackson: Data redundancy, however, is quite secondary. You can designate any number of folders that you want to be redundant and DriveBender will quietly create two copies of those folders, making sure that the two copies reside on different physical drives. I suppose you could designate every folder to be a redundant folder, but that halves the storage space. One appeal of both of these products is that I can probably run them under my old WHS license or one of my spare XP licenses - i.e. I don't have to spring for another Windows 7 or 8.1 license. True. At their core, both are just Windows-compatible programs, happy to run on consumer versions of Windows as well as server versions. DriveBender gets its hooks into the storage subsystem, but SnapRaid runs on top and doesn't care about the underlying architecture. At what level does DriveBender mirror redundant folders to different physical drives? When you designate a folder to be redundant, all of its contents get mirrored to another drive. So not just files in that immediate folder, but also any sub-folders and their contents. Note that you won't see any hint of this mirroring in any Windows file management tools. You'll see it in the DriveBender management GUI, though. e.g. Suppose I have a folder called "B" with subfolders "DVDs_NetFlix", "Streamed_HBO", "Streamed_NetFlix"... and so-forth. And under each of those folders are hundreds of individual folders - one for each movie....and maybe multiple subfolders per movie. Obviously "B" is going to be huge - as in tens of TB.... and the average movie's folder is going to be about 4 gigs. There's more, but you get the idea.... Given redundancy for all folders, are those huge top-level folders going to be a problem ? Not a technical problem, but keep in mind the double disk space required. If I were building a large storage pool today, I'd be tempted to build it on these WD 6TB drives, just so that I wouldn't need so many. At about $190 each, they're a pretty good deal. I have no info on their longevity, though. http://camelcamelcamel.com/Book-6TB-Hard-Drive-Backup/product/B00KU686HI?context=browse I am looking at SnapRaid right now.... Trying to find some feature that makes it preferable to DriveBender for my use. But, for something like this, I think I am partial to paid applications (i.e. DriveBender) over freebies like SnapRaid. Understood. SnapRaid does have a competitor that costs money, but I ruled it out long ago and don't have a link at hand. If I think of it, I'll post. Edit: FlexRaid, I think. My gripe at the time was that program development consisted of a single person working part time, and he would drop out of sight for months at a time. That may have changed now so give it a chance. Do you know anybody who uses SnapRaid ? No one personally, just forum members over at avsforum. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/gtsearch.php?cx=partner-pub-7865546952023728%3A4039054045&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UT F-8&q=snapraid&sa=Search&siteurl=www.avsforum.com%2F forum%2Findex.php&ref=www.avsforum.com%2F&ss=1897j 583275j8 58 Terabytes ??? Wow.... Are you using redundancy in your implementation of DriveBender ? Only on our digital photos, scanned docs that we think are important, and some home movies. How are you physically managing all those drives? - Multiple SATA cards ? - Some sort of backplane box ? I use a couple of these cards: SuperMicro AOC-SASLP-MV8 PCI-E x4 8-Port SAS/SATA The card has a pair of SAS connectors, but using SATA breakout cable turns each SAS connector into 4 SATA connectors, so each card adds 8 SATA ports. I have a server case that holds 16 drives, (15x2TB for the storage pool and the smaller 16th drive for the Win 7 OS.) The other system is a mid-tower that holds 10 drives (a mix of 2TB and 4TB totaling 28TB, plus a smaller drive for the Win 7 OS) All I have right now is a large tower case and have it maxed out with 13 drives - but changing drives is a chore and I'm stuck at 13. I feel your pain! When I bought the server case, I almost dropped another $100 for drive hot swap capability, tool-less and without opening the case. It would have been sweet, but that case held 24 drives and I thought it would be overkill. I thought to myself, who needs 24 drives? Little did I know, eh? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?
Per Char Jackson:
When I bought the server case, I almost dropped another $100 for drive hot swap capability, tool-less and without opening the case. It would have been sweet, but that case held 24 drives and I thought it would be overkill. I thought to myself, who needs 24 drives? Little did I know, eh? Do you recall the make/model? That might be on my short list.... Tangentially - and not looking for hard facts - does your gut say I would be penny-wise-pound-foolish to implement DriveBender under 32-bit XP instead of 64-bit Windows 7 Professional? I can afford the eighty bucks - and I don't want my survivors to have *too* much fun... but, having said that, I've got a bunch of XP licenses and there's no sense throwing money away... -- Pete Cresswell |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?
Per (PeteCresswell):
Tangentially - and not looking for hard facts - does your gut say I would be penny-wise-pound-foolish to implement DriveBender under 32-bit XP instead of 64-bit Windows 7 Professional? OOPS!... ignore that question. I just realized that XP does not natively recognize 3-TB drives - and, as I expand my NAS box by substituting 4-TB drives for the 3's that are there, the 3's will be re-purposed into this backup server.... So Windows 7 is the no-brainer. -- Pete Cresswell |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Which Version For Full Implementation of Storage Spaces ?
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:53:06 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
Per Char Jackson: When I bought the server case, I almost dropped another $100 for drive hot swap capability, tool-less and without opening the case. It would have been sweet, but that case held 24 drives and I thought it would be overkill. I thought to myself, who needs 24 drives? Little did I know, eh? Do you recall the make/model? That might be on my short list.... The case that I bought was the Norco RPC-450B, which holds 15 drives if you add the 5-bay adapter. My 16th drive wasn't physically mounted, but rather just laying there. I see that current Newegg pricing is only $90. The case that I wanted was the Norco RPC-4224, which now sells for a whopping $416.99 at Newegg. With that case, though, any drive can be hot swapped just by yanking it out via the front panel. No need to pull the case out of the equipment rack or open it up. A couple of guys in the avs forums bought that one and they won't shut up about how sweet it is. Tangentially - and not looking for hard facts - does your gut say I would be penny-wise-pound-foolish to implement DriveBender under 32-bit XP instead of 64-bit Windows 7 Professional? As far as I know, 32-bit XP would be fine. I took a really quick look at the site for platform requirements and didn't see it, but you could ask in their forum or just email support. For me, they've responded really quickly when I had questions. I see that the new version of DriveBender now supports UNC paths, so you can add network drives, NAS drives, etc., to your storage pools now. That could be handy. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|