24 replies to this topic

[farmeunit]

Vegetunks, on 02 December 2011 - 09:26, said:

Looks like something like this will push RAID even further down the food chain!

There is no way to replace RAID on server a system. If they drive fails, it doesn't matter what filesystem is on it.

[Tha Bloo Monkee]

What's wrong with NTFS for the time being? What do most of you "need" from ReFS anyways?

[remixedcat]

is this drive extender over again????

[Anthonyd]

Tha Bloo Monkee, on 30 January 2012 - 03:41, said:

What's wrong with NTFS for the time being? What do most of you "need" from ReFS anyways?

More than 255 chars for path.

[XerXis]

Anthonyd, on 30 January 2012 - 09:45, said:

More than 255 chars for path.

It's 260, and that is a windows limit, not NTFS which allows paths up to 2^15 characters (if I'm not mistaken)

http://blogs.msdn.co...m-hamilton.aspx

[Cereal Bawks]

farmeunit, on 30 January 2012 - 03:31, said:

There is no way to replace RAID on server a system. If they drive fails, it doesn't matter what filesystem is on it.

That's what Storage Spaces is good for. At least the iteration that'll support at least RAID6 and 10 like redundancy.

[+CPressland]

farmeunit, on 30 January 2012 - 03:31, said:

There is no way to replace RAID on server a system. If they drive fails, it doesn't matter what filesystem is on it.

Erm, I'm not talking about FileSystems, I'm talking about the new Storage Spaces thingy.

Superluminal, on 30 January 2012 - 14:21, said:

That's what Storage Spaces is good for. At least the iteration that'll support at least RAID6 and 10 like redundancy.

^^ Yeah what he said.

[Intrinsica]

Quote

In Windows 8, ReFS will be introduced only as part of Windows Server 8, which is the same approach we have used for each and every file system introduction.

Source

Seems like if it's happened with file systems in the past, there is no reason why they would change it for ReFS.

[Cereal Bawks]

Storage Spaces as-is isn't really suited for enterprise storage. Small servers maybe, but that's it. With growing disk sizes, there's a significant statistical possibility for read errors messing with array rebuilds. That's why storage solutions introduced triple parity RAID a while ago (three parity disks in an array). Right now it offers equivalents to RAID5 and 2/3-way mirrors. Latter is OK, former not to much.

Furthermore, according to Microsoft itself in their B8 blog, ReFS+SS can't cope with online repair of bad data on parity spaces. So if you want safe data that's online 24/7, mirrors are your only option.

And finally, I'm sure you'll be able to format your stuff to ReFS from command line, like with Protogon. If refs.sys is missing in the client builds, steal it from the server ones. Both versions come from the same source tree and are 100% compatible to each other.

[M_Lyons10]

Intrinsica, on 30 January 2012 - 14:35, said:

[/i]
Source

Seems like if it's happened with file systems in the past, there is no reason why they would change it for ReFS.

Yes, they said that it would release in a Server release first before coming to the Desktop OS. I'm not sure how this is news. I figure the Desktop OS will likely have some support for it, but won't use it as the Server version does...