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 I don't know what to do here. I have 48Gigs of ram with dual x5650's so I think that the computer is fast enough. 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. have a peek here
I would try benchmarking the drives directly connected to the controller with no storage spaces and see what happens. #8 Darkytoo, Oct 3, 2015 Marshall Simmons Member Joined: Feb 18, permalinkembedsavegive gold[–]mercenary_sysadminlotsa boxes 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago(1 child)If you're only getting 110mb/sec sequential on a zpool with three 2 disk mirror vdevs, something is horribly wrong. What if you choose mirror and the pool contains 7 physical disks, do you get a stripe or concatenation of mirrors where the submirrors are a mix of two and three With Simple disks no issues.Waiting for Server 8 RC, hope guys will fix this issueMCSE 2003: Messaging, Security MCITP: Server Administrator, Enterprise Administrator, Virtualization Administrator MCITP: Consumer Desktop Support, Enterprise Desktop https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1307411
Storage Spaces Columns
It's a super fast, but super dangerous, technology to be using when storage resiliency is at stake. Newer Than: Search this thread only Search this forum only Display results as threads More... Sunday, November 25, 2012 7:17 PM Reply | Quote 0 Sign in to vote Did anybody try any block level caching software? So I put my Storage Spaces mirror setup through the exact same kind of test.
Or at least be able to copy my files off the drive without taking years. However, this made no difference. Caching was enabled on 4 of the 5 drives, and refused to enable on the fifth. What are some of the biggest drawbacks to hardware RAID arrays?
If I had coins for either a HW RAID card or more drives (need transfer space) then I would go HW or ZFS. #18 Lost-Benji, Nov 9, 2015 Marshall Simmons DrivePool is built around working cohesively with NTFS and also calls upon another tool they offer, Scanner, to give us the bulk of what Storage Spaces/ReFS provide. Sunday, March 18, 2012 8:03 PM Reply | Quote 0 Sign in to vote I've experienced the same thing, running on a Intel Core 2 Quad (Q6600, P45 motherboard) with 5 Hopefully, Microsoft will work out the issues with ReFS and Parity under storage spaces, as the features offered are desireable, but certainly not at the performance cost being seen.
Windows 10 Storage Spaces Vs Raid
Absolutely not. https://forums.servethehome.com/index.php?threads/slow-mirrored-tiered-storage-spaces.6671/ And when is the last time you ran into NTFS inconsistencies on a RAID and had to follow through on a complete CHKDSK scan? Storage Spaces Columns ALL OPENED HANDLES TO THIS VOLUME WOULD THEN BE INVALID. If only using a GbE NIC, then SS is fine, just put a heap of RAM in and you're golden. #13 Lost-Benji, Nov 8, 2015 Chuntzu Active Member Joined: Jun
Native Windows drive mirroring (read: software RAID) has been in every Windows release since Win 2000. http://megathud.com/storage-spaces/storage-spaces-recovery.html After this change I now achieve 30-40 Mbps writing. What's confusing is when I copy this data I'm seeing network traffic sustain at close to 1Gb/s, disk I/O fluctuates wildly, but memory barely even registers (I've got 32GB on the Skip to content Tecfused Bits and Bytes Menu and widgets Search for: Recent Posts Veeam cannot see ReFS 3.1 volumes in backup (Server 2012 R2) Method ‘Upgrade' in type ‘Microsoft.SharePoint.WorkflowServices.WorkflowServiceApplicationProxy' Sharepoint
Any other thoughts? And not parity? government or corporate espionage), cultural and familial archivists, internet collapse preppers, and people who do it themselves so they're sure it's done right. Check This Out Jan 13, 2013 Share This Page Tweet Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log in with Google Your name or email address: Do you already have an account?
Would you like to force a dismount on this volume? (Y/N) y Volume dismounted. Turn all caches OFF and you'll see lovely read-modify-write parity RAID w/o write coalescing (remember, NTFS or it's ulgy brother ReFS don't to it like WAFL does) performance being ~1/4 of Examples of unexpected performance would be sequential speeds being low, I initially expected sequential speeds to that of the ssd tier if write back cache was enabled, but it turns out
Hope this helps you guys, cheers!
Original software RAID 5 array using the onboard ich9r would give me approx 90MB/s write and 250MB/s read. If you set up a single parity, it has a minimum of three disks. At first, I did get 100mb/s. 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.
I've seen 120MBps write on Black drives. Transferring over GIG LAN I see 25-50 mbs write which is tolerable I guess but I'm curious about adding in a SSD. The speeds when these were NTFS were only less than 5MB/sec different. this contact form One way to fix this is by using a cache array of SSD hard drives, but there is another fix.
I then started to do some research to figure out what was going on. Do you see high CPU when utilising parity? And only on a gig network, which I believe I am saturating. Why?