Help with Storage Spaces on simple standalone file server (Windows Server 2012 R2)

[SonicMojo]

Hello,

 

I am deploying Windows Server 2012 R2 on a simple standalone file server and need some "best practices" on how to setup Storage Spaces in an efficient manner.

 

The intent is to install 3x4TB drives (12TB total) for use in the Storage Pool. But I am new to the Storage Spaces concepts and am very confused on how many "virtual" disks I should be creating for the pool, how many volumes and so on. Do I use NTFS or ReFS? So many questions

 

Ideally - I want to be able to do this correctly the first time to ensure efficient use of space, solid performance throughput on file transfer all while ensuring the files are duplicated across the drives in an efficient manner (I do know to use Mirror for the v-discs)

 

If anyone can walk me thru the basics of setup of Storage Spaces using a simple standalone instance of WS2012 R2 and my intended 12TB of SATA drives in the most efficient manner - I would truly appreciate it.

 

Cheers!

 

VP

 

[binaryzero]

Add your phyiscal disks to the pool, create 1 big volume, configure your backup, annnd you're good to go. 

 

Setup DFS while you're at it. 

[BinaryData]

On 2/7/2016 at 6:25 AM, Vocalpoint said:

Hello,

 

I am deploying Windows Server 2012 R2 on a simple standalone file server and need some "best practices" on how to setup Storage Spaces in an efficient manner.

 

The intent is to install 3x4TB drives (12TB total) for use in the Storage Pool. But I am new to the Storage Spaces concepts and am very confused on how many "virtual" disks I should be creating for the pool, how many volumes and so on. Do I use NTFS or ReFS? So many questions

 

Ideally - I want to be able to do this correctly the first time to ensure efficient use of space, solid performance throughput on file transfer all while ensuring the files are duplicated across the drives in an efficient manner (I do know to use Mirror for the v-discs)

 

If anyone can walk me thru the basics of setup of Storage Spaces using a simple standalone instance of WS2012 R2 and my intended 12TB of SATA drives in the most efficient manner - I would truly appreciate it.

 

Cheers!

 

VP

 

ReFS is nice, however I would stick to NTFS. Storage Spaces has a significant write speed problem. It is MUCH MUCH slower than a RAID setup would be. Reads are astronomically faster.

 

I personally ran into a problem with storage spaces, it didn't like my Western Digital RED Drives, as for a compatibility list, good luck with that one. It shouldn't be too hard.

[SonicMojo]

On 2/9/2016 at 9:43 PM, Jared- said:

Add your phyiscal disks to the pool, create 1 big volume, configure your backup, annnd you're good to go. 

 

Setup DFS while you're at it. 

Awesome.

 

Would you choose Simple or Mirror or Parity? I am thinking for home use - I may go simple.

 

But I am understanding that could cause major issues with drive failure. Would I lose the entire volume if one disk (out of 4) dies in Simple mode?

 

Mirror cuts my available storage in half but Parity looks to be a bit better.

 

Thoughts?

 

VP

[binaryzero]

I'd use Parity. 

[+rdlenk Subscriber²]

It all depends on the type of data and performance you are looking for.

 

The file system is a pretty straight forward choice. If you are dealing with very large files that are constantly in use (i.e., virtual hard disks) then ReFS is a serious option to consider but there are some drawbacks so ReFS is not a good choice for a standard file server.

 

For the disk configuration, you can think of Simple, Mirror and Parity almost exactly like we think of RAID 0, RAID 1 and RAID 5. I hasten to add they they do not work in the same way but the concept is similar enough that the comparison is valid.

• Simple - similar to RAID 0 - Most space, best write performance, no resiliency
• Mirror (2 and 3 way) - similar to RAID 1 - Least space, best read performance, best resiliency
• Parity - similar to RAID 5 - Good Space, worst performance, good resiliency

In a simple virtual disk if you lose one drive, I believe you lose everything, just like RAID 0. In most cases for things like media files or other normal documents Parity is a good option. If you are trying to do more IOPS heaving workloads like virtual machines than Mirror is the best option and you have to eat the cost of the storage (much like RAID 1 or 10). If you are doing workloads that need the fastest possible speeds (like video rendering) but don't need long term storage (or have a fantastic backup solution) than Simple is probably the best option.

 

You would also have these exact same considerations even if you were just using RAID. What is different with Storage Spaces is that you can have different configurations for virtual disks on the same physical disks.

[philcruicks]

Really depends what you want from it, I use Parity and REFS as my storage spaces is basically a media archive, so I want resilience of some sort, Parity makes the most sense as space is more important than performance for me.

 

You need to analyse your use case and base it on that, but I would really try and avoid simple.

 

Also try some tests, as mentioned you can create difference "RAID" configs for difference virtual disks on the pool, so create 1 of each and test, make sure Parity has the speed you're looking for etc..

Plus it give you some practice at managing storage spaces.

 

P.S. if you're using it for VM's use REFS (it makes provisioning vhd's stupid fast).

P.P.S if you're using it for VM's or any other types of files where there is a lot of duplicated data make sure you switch on DeDup (DeDuplication), this basically means for e.g. if you have 20 windows vm's rather than storing 20 copies of the core windows files in 20 VHD's it'll have 1 copy and point the 20 VHD's at that one copy.

you can get up to about 80% space saving depending on what you're storing (you have to do this in PowerShell so make sure you have a read up on it 1st if you don't use it a lot).

[SonicMojo]

On 2/24/2016 at 2:32 PM, philcruicks said:

You need to analyse your use case and base it on that, but I would really try and avoid simple.

Use case is storage of media files (music/video), our master Software install archive and of course user files and backups from all the other PC's in the house. Server will be 24x7 but there will never be any need for maximum throughput.

 

The heaviest thing we would ever do from this box do is stream music or video from another PC on the network.

 

All other file activity will be long term archive type storage where files are not touched for a long while in some cases.

 

Parity seems like my best choice here.

 

Cheers!

 

VP

[binaryzero]

NTFS is fine. 

[BinaryData]

Also, don't mix NTFS and ReFS. It doesn't bode well..

[conna]

Everyones advice is spot on. 

I have found that using a two-way mirror works out well. I have used ReFS every time.  

I would definitely add another drive so you have at least 4 for SS. The more the better but do it in even pairs.  4-6-8 or more.  Use SSD's. at least 2 for a two way and 3 for the 3 way.  A pair of 128GB SSD used as cache will make ReFS speed faster.  Lots of ways of using the SSD cache. Highly recommend it if you can afford it. you can always add them in later.  

The Essentials component of 2012 R2 is awesome. you can setup SS in there with a simple wizard.  Just the remote access it sets up is amazing. 

 

 

[SonicMojo]

Decided that Storage Spaces was a tad complicated and not user friendly enough for my needs. I needed the ability to pull a drive and read it on a standard workstation if need be. Decided to roll with Stablebit DrivePool instead.

 

The server is purrring along perfectly now - and nary a single file was lost during migration or now in the new 16TB pool.

 

Great product that I am glad I investigated.

 

VP

[Circaflex]

Drivepool definitely blows away storage spaces, especially in the home environment. Glad you were able to figure out a solution.