Toggle Navigation
Home > Storage Spaces > Storage Spaces Mirror - Poor ReFS Performance

Storage Spaces Mirror - Poor ReFS Performance

If it wasnt SQL then sure. 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 Offloading hash tables to flash, something newer ZFS does helps indeed but resulting performance suffer. Storage pool it is just a collection of a physical disk.CK Wednesday, August 29, 2012 9:39 AM Reply | Quote 0 Sign in to vote Happy to help :-) SS doesn't his comment is here

Long file names and large volume sizes. is your provisioning fixed or thin? permalinkembedsavegive gold[–]hunterkllSr Sysadmin / HP-UX, AIX, and NeXTstep oh my! 11 points12 points13 points 1 year ago(12 children)2012 R2 is the second iteration of storage spaces, actually. ;) permalinkembedsaveparentgive gold[–]NISMO1968Storage Admin 10 points11 points12 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.

Details here: Edited by David Trounce Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:35 PM Thursday, August 30, 2012 3:16 PM Reply | Quote 0 Sign in to vote I'm starting to think for they're disks that are passthrough / directly attached to VMs, so they appear as a bare HDD inside the VM, instead of using a VHDX. One Windows 8 Pro Machine (VM) was not joined to the S2012E domain by the process documented by Paul Thurrott, TechNET, and here. If you are thinking RAID, you are on the right mental track.

EDIT: " SAS interconnect for data synchronization is replaced with Ethernet / InfiniBand SMB3 / RDMA one and so on. I highly recommend DataOn Storage, I get my Jbods, HBAs, disks, and SAS cables from them. You really need to have read-write caching with write-back policy and use also flash as a level 2 - that's a way to go... -nismo Afaik,dedicated journal backing disksshould exactly improve ZFS, for example, has been on the market since 2005, and ReiserFS has been around even longer, since 2001.

Just a software layer to introduce problems. "Compatibility problems with Storage Spaces and Hyper-V" is more objective than than "We are sure you guys did it wrong even though we can't Who won the speed battle? Benchmarks are specifically designed to avoid being influenced by any kind of caching.

lunadesign 02/10 #3 LMiller7 --Actually, I was thinking more about the cache options that other Copy-On-Write filesystems like I'm going to try to do some testing of how dedicated journal disks, if you can suggest some other testing software to show 4kperformanceI'll be happy to post the results for

Thanks man! permalinkembedsaveparentgive gold[–]DerBootsMannJack of All Trades 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago(1 child) Lots of arrays use NVDIMMs for their cache tier then dump to NVMe / SSD to reduce writes, our NexGen This may (speculation on my part) mean that as the virtual drives become bigger and/or are more filled their performance may be depressed. Sunday, September 02, 2012 5:00 PM Reply | Quote 0 Sign in to vote ...

Dramatically! Love it so far. Scale-Out File Server layer is entirely optional and all-sufficient at the same time. For more information about the rules, posting guidelines, and subreddit policies, visit here For IT career related questions, please visit /r/ITCareerQuestions Please check out our Frequently Asked Questions, which includes lists

Then I add a backup UPS to my server, do you think that if my power is never done then the storage is safe too? permalinkembedsaveparentgive gold[–]hunterkllSr Sysadmin / HP-UX, AIX, and NeXTstep oh my! 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago(0 children)Oh yes, I know it's a file system filter driver. 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. In Server 2016 I'd consider using SOFS shares with VHDXs, DFSR and deduplication but only after a lot of testing.

Never any problems in ~18 months. We are working every day to make sure our community is one of the best. Privacy statement  © 2017 Microsoft. weblink PowerShell really is necessary to Windows administration.20 · 54 comments Fax admins: By which sword do you choose to die?18 · 46 comments Physical Windows 98 PC to Virtual34 · 26 comments Avast Business BSOD'ing Win7 Machines20

Sysadmin 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago(16 children)It would be insane to do something like that in an environment your size unless you did an extensive proof of concept first. So what does Storage Spaces attempt to achieve with ReFS? I can live without it for CSV for now, as I only use those for app data (SQL, Hyper-V) on a SOFS.

Two-way mirror spaces can tolerate one disk failure and three-way mirror spaces can tolerate two disk failures.

ZIL and L2 ARC (and DJBD and flash cache, component missing from NTFS and Windows OS out-of-box) are complimentary rather then competitive things. I'm hoping that Spaces lives up to its name when I start tossing hundreds of gigabytes of actual company data at it. The entire chart of results for my testing is shown below so you can compare hardware RAID vs Storage Spaces on each equivalent Spaces functional level in contrast with RAID: Note oops just noticed that the screenshots don't have the titles with the config. 7SSDs-simple-thin-NTFS 7SSDs-2way-mirror-thin-NTFS Edited by Dustyny1 Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:17 PM Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:00 PM Reply

they're disks that are passthrough / directly attached to VMs, so they appear as a bare HDD inside the VM, instead of using a VHDX. permalinkembedsaveparentgive gold[–]extremesanitySr. I was thinking that perhaps the problem resides at the VM level. I don't use SSD tiers though, classic drives and lots of them in each pool.

How many times has Microsoft tried to usher in the post-RAID era? They look similar, can be hot-plugged etc but they are totally different beasts! Sorry I did not get this one (( What do you do exactly? Code: Get-StoragePool "vmpool" | ft friendlyname, logicalsectorsize, physicalsectorsize friendlyname logicalsectorsize physicalsectorsize ------------ ----------------- ------------------ vmpool 512 4096 And this is how bad performance looks (5MB/s 4k writes) Compared to performance I've