locked
DE vs RAID5 RRS feed

  • Question

  • From what I've read Vail's new Drive Extender when set to duplicate data, ... works below the file level on sectors and uses 12% overhead in parity. My question is what is the difference over software RAID 5? It seems very similar..

     

    Thanks

    Wednesday, May 5, 2010 12:11 PM

Answers

  • The biggest, most obvious difference is you don’t have you plan your storage needs with DE.  When you build a RAID5 you need similar disks, and you’re locked into whatever size you want.  with DE you get the duplication and can throw different disks at it, and just grow it by plugging in new disks as you go.
     
    Sean
     
    This post is "AS IS" and confers no rights.
     
    "Wingfat the Third" wrote in message news:fce4e573-44cc-4400-9b10-5b4d5437476f...
    Not the answer to my question. Maybe my needs have outgrown whs or vail as proposed. With 8 TB of data (unduplicated) I need a better answer. Thanks anyway.
    Wednesday, May 5, 2010 7:24 PM
    Moderator
  • - RAID-5 only loses one drive to allow redundancy.  This means it is FAR more efficient storage space wise.  In a 4 drive setup you have 75% of the space available to you in RAID-5 and 32% available to you in DE v2.

    - RAID-5 only allows you to have a single drive failure before all data is lost

    - RAID-5 restricts you to using drives of the same size (any larger drives will have dead space on them and smaller drives simply can't be used)

    - RAID-5 locks you into a certain controller, if it fails you have to find an identical controller or your array is probably lost

    - RAID-5 is usually faster with a good controller card

    Wednesday, May 5, 2010 8:24 PM

All replies

  • Read the "Whats new in Drive Extender for Vail" announcement at the top of the forum, please.
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Wednesday, May 5, 2010 12:27 PM
    Moderator
  • Not the answer to my question. Maybe my needs have outgrown whs or vail as proposed. With 8 TB of data (unduplicated) I need a better answer. Thanks anyway.
    Wednesday, May 5, 2010 5:31 PM
  • The biggest, most obvious difference is you don’t have you plan your storage needs with DE.  When you build a RAID5 you need similar disks, and you’re locked into whatever size you want.  with DE you get the duplication and can throw different disks at it, and just grow it by plugging in new disks as you go.
     
    Sean
     
    This post is "AS IS" and confers no rights.
     
    "Wingfat the Third" wrote in message news:fce4e573-44cc-4400-9b10-5b4d5437476f...
    Not the answer to my question. Maybe my needs have outgrown whs or vail as proposed. With 8 TB of data (unduplicated) I need a better answer. Thanks anyway.
    Wednesday, May 5, 2010 7:24 PM
    Moderator
  • - RAID-5 only loses one drive to allow redundancy.  This means it is FAR more efficient storage space wise.  In a 4 drive setup you have 75% of the space available to you in RAID-5 and 32% available to you in DE v2.

    - RAID-5 only allows you to have a single drive failure before all data is lost

    - RAID-5 restricts you to using drives of the same size (any larger drives will have dead space on them and smaller drives simply can't be used)

    - RAID-5 locks you into a certain controller, if it fails you have to find an identical controller or your array is probably lost

    - RAID-5 is usually faster with a good controller card

    Wednesday, May 5, 2010 8:24 PM
  • Don't want to start another religious debate (they both have their place depending on the usage/scenario). I wanted to add small correction for DE with duplication on the space efficiency is 44% not 32% meaning that with a 100 GB capacity disk, you can store 44 GB worth of data,

    thanks,

    -mark


    This post is provided AS IS and confers no rights. Mark Vayman, Program Manager, Windows Home and Small Business Server Team
    Wednesday, May 5, 2010 9:31 PM
    Moderator
  • Thank you all for the more detailed comparison between the two technologies. With the amount of data I have, storage efficiency and safety are both concerns. I may be forced to use vail strictly for backups while my shares reside on a more efficient solution. I may be able to connect a storage sub-system to vail for share backup and keep shares on vail unduplicated.
    Thursday, May 6, 2010 12:06 AM