Sign in
Microsoft.com
 
Microsoft
 
 
 

locked
Any chance a future version of WHS would use parity instead of mirroring? RRS feed

 > 

  • Question

  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    It would sure free up alot of space and still have redundency. Though I imagine you wouldn't comment on future plans but just thought i'd ask.
    Monday, July 7, 2008 3:45 PM

Answers

  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    (moved to the suggestions forum)

    Parity calculations, implemented at the operating system level, are why RAID 5 arrays built through the Disk Management tools in windows are so slow. For adequate performance, Windows Home Server would require a hardware RAID solution, and that would add significantly to the bottom line. So no, I doubt that you will see parity rather than mirroring.

    However, if you feel strongly about this, you might wnat to submit a product suggestion on Connect.
    Monday, July 7, 2008 5:29 PM
    Moderator

All replies

  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    (moved to the suggestions forum)

    Parity calculations, implemented at the operating system level, are why RAID 5 arrays built through the Disk Management tools in windows are so slow. For adequate performance, Windows Home Server would require a hardware RAID solution, and that would add significantly to the bottom line. So no, I doubt that you will see parity rather than mirroring.

    However, if you feel strongly about this, you might wnat to submit a product suggestion on Connect.
    Monday, July 7, 2008 5:29 PM
    Moderator
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    It would increase the cost, no doubt about that. However having to buy double the hard drives to retain redundency adds greatly to the cost as well. At least with parity we can make smaller servers that can accomplish the same thing and use less power doing it.

    Would be nice to have the option for those of us building our own.
    Monday, July 7, 2008 11:38 PM