RE: Re: NAS or WHS

["Phil Harris" <phil@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, I know that RAID isn't the catch-all that most people assume it
is bu=
t
my worry was that depending on how WHS allocates file space then for the
particular use I have (media server) then it could be very vulnerable if -
for example - it simply slots files into the first available free space as
in the case of DVD folders (with VIDEO_TS structures) I can see the
situation where there's not quite enough space to store a 1Gb VOB file on
the first drive so that gets shifted over to the second leaving an almost
1Gb free space block on the first drive which would then be an ideal space
for the storage of all those much smaller .IFO and .BUP files for just
abou=
t
every remaining DVD in your collection - which means that if that first
drive goes down then you lose *ALL* the DVDs in your collection, not just
one drives worth.

If that's the case then unless the whole lot is mirrored (which is one hell
of a lot of data) then you're very vulnerable.

No?

Phil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx [mailto:ukha_d@xxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Paul Gordon
> Sent: 30 November 2008 08:34
> To: UKHA Group
> Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Re: NAS or WHS
>=20
> Hi Phil
>=20
> My understanding is the WHS storage management is actually based on
DFS
> (Distributed File System, not a sofa warehouse) like technology,
rather
> than traditional RAID as we know & love.
>=20
> Now, I see absolutely no reason whatsoever why the two couldn't
happily
> coexist, considering that when you add storage to the WHS, you have
the
> option to add (or not add) it to the servers' storage pool... If you
> choose to add it to the pool, then it is subsumed into the storage
> management mechanism and thus ceases to be an independent volume - no
> longer appears as its own drive letter for instance, - and all the
> standard shares begin to use it to duplicate the data... (presuming
you
> haven't disabled duplication)
>=20
> Alternatively, you can add storage and elect *not* to add it to the
> pool. In this case it behaves just like any other disk on any other
> Windows 2003 server...
>=20
> The WHS just sees whatever "disks" you have attached to the
server,
> pretty much regardless of how they're attached, be they SATA, IDE,
USB,
> Firewire, etc.. and I'd absolutely expect that this would/will also
> include a hardware RAID array, which after all is configured outside
> of, and entirely independently of, whatever OS you choose to put on
the
> box (of course you'll need suitable OS drivers to make best use of
it).
>=20
> I know there are lots of warnings about not doing various things with
> WHS storage, but as far as I've ever been aware, these refer to
storage
> that is in the pool.
>=20
> I'd be inclined to give it a go, - I'd be shocked & stunned if it
> didn't work, after all, WHS is 99% 2003 server, with 1% extra stuff to
> make useable by numpties....
>=20
> My main Windows 2003 server has this arrangement, 3 x 320 SATA's in
> RAID 5, yielding a 640GB useable volume. Windows' disk manager just
> sees a single large "disk" attached, which it then uses as
normal. WHS
> should be no different.
>=20
> Just my =A30.02
>=20
> Paul G.
>=20
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx [mailto:ukha_d@xxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of
> > Phil Harris
> > Sent: 30 November 2008 01:18
> > To: 'Phil Harris'; UKHA Group
> > Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Re: NAS or WHS
> >
> > Hmmm ... after a little more digging it seems that shares on WHS
can
> > either
> > be duplicated or not - seems that MS don't support
"RAID" like
> strategies
> > under WHS - is that correct? Do you really have to have
everything
> > duplicated (mirrored) to have data security or can you actually
have
> a
> > RAID
> > type of setup (which is still extendable) under WHS?
> >
> > Phil
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Phil Harris [mailto:phil@xxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: 30 November 2008 01:05
> > > To: 'ukha_d@xxxxxxx'
> > > Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Re: NAS or WHS
> > >
> > > Given all the discussion about WHS recently there's one
thing I'd
> like
> > > to know - unfortunately the amount of data I'm playing with
on my
> > > server is a bit on the hefty side (about 14Tb at the moment)
so I
> don't
> > > really want to have to start migrating all that data over to
a new
> OS
> > > just to try and see whether it works.
> > >
> > > What I would like to know is - if you have a
"pool" of storage (for
> > > example my "Movies" collection) set up as a
software RAID5 array
> can
> > > you still dynamically expand that array?
> > >
> > > Also, what happens if you shut down the server and
physically move
> > > drives around so they're on different SATA connections? Is
WHS
> > > intelligent enough to work out that the data is still intact
and
> *NOT*
> > > assume that the data needs to be rebuilt or the array has
been
> trashed?
> > >
> > > Phil
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx [mailto:ukha_d@xxxxxxx] On
> > > Behalf
> > > > Of Geoff H
> > > > Sent: 28 November 2008 10:16
> > > > To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> > > > Subject: Re: [ukha_d] Re: NAS or WHS
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for all of the responses. It looks like WHS
seems to be
> the
> > > > preferred choice.
> > > >
> > > > I shall read the forums to see what experiences people
have had.
> I
> > > have
> > > > read some of the reviews on wegotserved and the
Tranquil PC
> systems
> > > > come
> > > > out well, so this is probably my preferred choice.
> > > >
> > > > Geoff
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > ********************************************
> > Limited Time Offer - Free iPhone VAT Calculator
> > http://berble.com/index.php/component/content/article/109
> > ********************************************
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> > Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.9/1806 - Release Date:
> 22/11/2008
> > 18:59
>=20
> ------------------------------------
>=20
> ********************************************
> Limited Time Offer - Free iPhone VAT Calculator
> http://berble.com/index.php/component/content/article/109
> ********************************************
>=20
>=20
>=20
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 3651 (20081129) __________
>=20
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>=20
> http://www.eset.com
>=20



------------------------------------

********************************************
Limited Time Offer - Free iPhone VAT Calculator
http://berble.com/index.php/component/content/article/109
********************************************=20=20