locked
Vail limited to 10 drives? RRS feed

  • Question

  • I read on a preview http://www.mediasmartserver.net/2010/04/26/windows-home-server-vail-overview-and-review/ of vail that it's limited to 10 drives. Is this true? My current WHS is in a norco case and supports 22 drives. Currently I have 13 in it and more coming.

    It also says that the drives in vail would not be readable should you take them out and plug them in your windows desktop. Is this true?

    Monday, April 26, 2010 7:03 PM

Answers

  • If the 10 drive limit will be there in the final I will have a serious problem. Currently I have 14 1TB drives with HD movies, pictures and music.

    If I want to maintain my storage capacity (and let it grow in the future, which it will) I need to buy expensive RAID controllers for JBOD and all kind of tricks that in my opinion will result in a home server that is prone to failure.


    The other threads have cleared this up - the limit is there for this test version ONLY, and it's not even a hard limit; MS has seen corruption issues on arrays with more than 10 drives, so they are not recommending using more than that for now.
    Tuesday, April 27, 2010 6:27 PM

All replies

  • Yeah, I echo the above comment.  This has me seriously worried.  I'm at 12 drives myself and only see this number increasing in the future.
    Monday, April 26, 2010 7:11 PM
  • Please do not limit us to 10 drives , that seems like a good amount .. but a lot of use are up to 8 or 9 already in V1.. IMO you must up it to 20+
    Monday, April 26, 2010 7:21 PM
  • I can't say conclusively, but earlier there was word that there would be two WHS SKUs for v2; I am willing to bet that if that is the case, the lower-end one will be limited to 10 drives and the higher-end one will not.  MS is probably not going to be willing to comment on this until closer to release, but it makes sense.
    • Edited by illrigger Monday, April 26, 2010 7:25 PM typo
    Monday, April 26, 2010 7:23 PM
  • This one had me scared so I tried it in VMWare.
    I just added 11 extra HDD's to the pool in VMWare and it looks like it's happy with all 12 disks.

    Not sure if it really means anything though.. I don't have enough storage provisioned to fill them all.

    -timotl

    Monday, April 26, 2010 8:50 PM
  • It makes sense to limit to 10 drives for the home market. For the SOHO sector I can see where there may be some cases where additional capacity is needed. Going beyond 10 drives is usually beyond the intended customer base of the product as well as beyond the scope of typical hardware configurations.

    As an OEM providing support, it would make sense to limit hardware configurations. Can you imagine a support call requesting assistance to troubleshoot performance issues on a WHS where the majority of drives are attached via an unpowered USB hub?

    Having two prducts would based on capacity and functionality would help break out the usage needs of the client. The needs and requirements of a home user would vary quite a bit in respect to a SOHO customer.

    Monday, April 26, 2010 8:55 PM
  • I can't say for sure, but I would guess that this isn't a "hard stop". I think it's a technical limit beyond which Microsoft will not provide support, and it makes sense for the home market. By the time you get to 10 drives, you're adding multiple HBAs to your server.
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Monday, April 26, 2010 9:00 PM
    Moderator
  • I don't know that it does make sense for the home market. The ability to use drives of any size means you can just toss in all those old drives you have. Plus with duplication you need twice the space to protect your data. This means you need a lot of drives very quickly. Perhaps if WHS used parity instead of duplication then this drive limit would be a lot less of an issue. 

    Either way, WHS v1 supports it without issue so I don't know why the need to limit the drives exists with v2. 

    Monday, April 26, 2010 9:46 PM
  • WHS is an oem-only product, MS doesn't provide support anyway ;)

    Seriously, though; with USB 3 looming on the horizon (my new mobo has two ports, and it was $120), it won't be all that hard to get above 10 high-performance drives, even without multiple controllers.  Once your average $85 micro-ATX mainboard has 12 USB3 , 6 internal SATA and 2 eSATA ports, 10 drives isn't all that hard to envision, even for the non tech-savvy.

     

    Monday, April 26, 2010 9:55 PM
  • I don't know that it does make sense for the home market. The ability to use drives of any size means you can just toss in all those old drives you have. Plus with duplication you need twice the space to protect your data. This means you need a lot of drives very quickly. Perhaps if WHS used parity instead of duplication then this drive limit would be a lot less of an issue. 

    Either way, WHS v1 supports it without issue so I don't know why the need to limit the drives exists with v2. 

    See BulatS's post in this thread.
    Tuesday, April 27, 2010 2:20 AM
    Moderator
  • It was not to long ago when I thought 4 drives in my server would be more then enough but that was 3 years ago.  Now I have 8 drives and plan to add more as my media collection grows.  I tell you honestly I put everything on my server to make my life more convient.  The 10 drive limitation just hurts and I hope and pray that as Vail continues to be developed that its released to handle the same if not more drives then the current version of WHS.

    I do not buy the excuse 10 drives is good enough for the home user.  Let me tell you once that home user starts putting there media on there and sets duplication the drives get eaten up fast especially if they store Blu-Ray movies uncompressed.  Then the issue with not being able to read your drives in another machine is horrible.  I really think Microsoft should provide a means for the end user to be able to pull their data off drives from their server.  What happens when you have a hardware failure in your server and you need the data off the drives.

    Since the release of WHS I have been a strong supporter but if the 10 drive limit stays and your not able to pull your data off your drives on a client machine then your probably better off staying with the current version of WHS.  While different it will be similar to Vista and people wanting to go back to XP. 

    I also realize that there may not be a 10 drive limitation in the release candidate so I will hope and pray this is the case.  In the mean time I am downloading Vail and will install it on a testing server to see what its like to play with it abit.

    Sorry if I seem negative, I am always positive but this has me just upset and disappointed.

    Tuesday, April 27, 2010 3:13 AM
  • If the 10 drive limit will be there in the final I will have a serious problem. Currently I have 14 1TB drives with HD movies, pictures and music.

    If I want to maintain my storage capacity (and let it grow in the future, which it will) I need to buy expensive RAID controllers for JBOD and all kind of tricks that in my opinion will result in a home server that is prone to failure.

    Tuesday, April 27, 2010 6:19 PM
  • If the 10 drive limit will be there in the final I will have a serious problem. Currently I have 14 1TB drives with HD movies, pictures and music.

    If I want to maintain my storage capacity (and let it grow in the future, which it will) I need to buy expensive RAID controllers for JBOD and all kind of tricks that in my opinion will result in a home server that is prone to failure.


    The other threads have cleared this up - the limit is there for this test version ONLY, and it's not even a hard limit; MS has seen corruption issues on arrays with more than 10 drives, so they are not recommending using more than that for now.
    Tuesday, April 27, 2010 6:27 PM
  • Homeservershow.com podcast discussed this and the new limit is 16.
    Monday, May 3, 2010 3:50 AM
  • I guess 16 works. Anything more than that (really anything above 12) and you're probably using hardware RAID anyway.

    Thursday, June 10, 2010 8:15 PM
  • I have 10 drives supported with onboard connectors (8 SAS and 2 SATA).  A single card and I can get above this 16 drive 'limit'.  While I know that >2TB hard drives are on the way, making users systematically update such a large number of drives to get more capacity is a crazy response when V1 already supports more than 16.  I've got 8 2TB drives about 50% full now.  3 years ago I had 3 1TB drives about 50% full.  3-5 years from now with BD stuff, capacity requirements are going to be big and touching the 16 drive limit will be an issue.
    Friday, June 18, 2010 3:44 PM
  • Looks like the 10-drives are mixed up with the 10-client limit.

    I read on a preview http://www.mediasmartserver.net/2010/04/26/windo ws-home-server-vail-overview-and-review/ of vail that it's limited to 10 drives. Is this true? My current WHS is in a norco case and supports 22 drives. Currently I have 13 in it and more coming.

    It also says that the drives in vail would not be readable should you take them out and plug them in your windows desktop. Is this true?


    Have a nice day!
    Friday, June 18, 2010 7:05 PM
  • Looks like the 10-drives are mixed up with the 10-client limit.

    Have a nice day!
    No, there is no mix-up.  This beta version was originally released supporting only up to 10 drives (and has since been tested internally by MS and raised to 16).  However, this in no way means that there will be any hard drive cap once the product hits RTM (MS has not said anything about that one way or the other).
    Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:43 AM
    Moderator
  • I assume this limit only applies if using DE, and not a hardware solution? I have a 12 drive RAID6 24TB array for my data (separate mirrored boot drives)..assuming I wont run into problems here?
    Saturday, July 10, 2010 2:06 PM
  • I assume this limit only applies if using DE, and not a hardware solution? I have a 12 drive RAID6 24TB array for my data (separate mirrored boot drives)..assuming I wont run into problems here?
    I wouldn't assume that.  In fact, MS engineers have stated they're even more worried about the size of the store pool (in GB) than the # of drives.
    Saturday, July 10, 2010 3:02 PM