locked
What are the Worse Features of DE? RRS feed

  • General discussion

  • Since Ken started a thread about what is the best the least we can do is also list what are DE's worse features. Simple statements no need to rant just a simple list can be either V1 or V2 they both have different faults.

     

    Unable to do a simple backup/restore of system drive in V1 (fixed in V2)

     

    Data in V2 can be striped across drives making it basically a Raid 0.

     

    Data in V2 cannot be read on other systems.


    Don Bushway
    Tuesday, November 30, 2010 2:25 AM

All replies

  • The only bad feature about the version implemented in Vail was the speed.  After all of this drama, I deleted Vail and switched back to WHS V1.0.  WHS 1.0 is much much faster than Vail.

     

     

    Tuesday, November 30, 2010 2:39 AM
    • The ability to use whatever ancient disk you have sitting around. :) Old disks are dying disks. They're smaller than modern disks, they're slower, and they are statistically much less reliable. Why anyone would trust precious data to them is beyond me when you can buy a 2 TB disk for a hundred bucks.
    • The false sense of protection you get from duplication (or RAID 1, 10, 5, 6, etc.) Local protection is better than no protection, yes, but force majeure events will trash you whole server, at which point you have two ruined disks instead of one. you want your data protected? Back your server up regularly and take the backups off-site.

    By the way, of your list, Don, your first item isn't a feature of DE. And your second item isn't true, because you won't see a performance increase from a 1 GB "stripe" size. Stripes in a stripe set are much smaller than that.


    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Tuesday, November 30, 2010 5:13 AM
    Moderator
  • My sense is that the majority (of course not all) of the people bodging up servers with lots of ancient disks are closer to the problem and its solutions than the people going to BestBuy and fetching a RAID0 WHS Vail box. On the off chance a RAID0 WHS Vail box ever gets sold at BestBuy, that is.

    The second item on your list applies to everything about file sharing and client backup with WHS. (And you can't readily backup the V1 backup database and you can't readily backup the system itself and how many PPs before there was a way to backup the shares data?) It's better than Zero protection. Maybe it protects against 90% of the ways home users can lose date. 90% is 90% better than Zero. It's 9% less than 99%. Most users are better off at 90% than where they were at Zero, even though they have a false sense of protection because there's 9% more out there that they could protect against but aren't.

    Worst things about DE? DE v1 has performance issues and does strange things with locking files at odd times and other AppCompat issues. It's a bolt on "kludge" but an elegant one. DE v2 tried to tackle the OS integration issues but added a whole new set of problems not the least of which is the driver letter per share c*** and its associated limitations. I can't get too worked up over the inability to read the disks via stright NTFS. (DE done right probably takes something like ZFS--i.e., not a bodge on top of or below NTFS but a fundamental replacement of it--and it'd have the same problem.) And without the thing actively shuffling data in the background to minimize the number of devices that a given file is actually getting stored on it will never protect data as well as v1.

    Tuesday, November 30, 2010 6:08 AM
  • Completely disagree Zaliis. Vail, even in a Hyper-V VM, is *significantly* faster than WHS. I can completely max (>100MB/s+) a GbE link to my Vail VM.

    As to what was wrong with DE? mainly that I was FORCED to use it. It should have always been optional.

    Why is DE not suitable for me? Like many people, I have a large video library (8TB+). DE is completely and totally ineffeficient at utilizing storage space. Instead of reinventing the wheel, MS should have licensed a decent FS like ZFS, or RAIDX, and created an IFS version that would work for Windows.

     

    Tuesday, November 30, 2010 9:15 PM
    • The ability to use whatever ancient disk you have sitting around. :) Old disks are dying disks. They're smaller than modern disks, they're slower, and they are statistically much less reliable. Why anyone would trust precious data to them is beyond me when you can buy a 2 TB disk for a hundred bucks.
    I beg to differ. It's precisely because data is redundantly stored that you can risk using these disks. Yes they're statistically less reliable, but home users don't use them as hard as business, so it evens out. And if you pay attention to the Event Viewer, then you'll catch when they start to fail. Further, 'modern' old disks are non-trivial in size; 100 GB is still a useful size.
    qts
    Tuesday, November 30, 2010 11:02 PM
  • My biggest complaint on DE v1 is when it stops working without telling me why or what to do to fix it.  All I get is a "network at risk" message.

    Otherwise, I love DE.

    Wednesday, December 1, 2010 12:45 AM
  • Unable to easily upgrade the system drive. 

    Ideally DE would allow you to replace the system/boot drive as easily as you can replace any other drive.  It should work as follows: add a new physical drive, tag it as a system drive, WHS duplicates system data to the new drive & marks the original system drive as available to be removed.  It would be OK if it required you to physically move the new drive into the #1 slot.

    Thursday, December 2, 2010 7:08 PM
  • DEv2: 12% overhead for mysterious "bit flip" protection. I guess this could be done way more efficiently.

    DEv1: Inability to use some NTFS features like compression (which works, but is not supported)

    DEv1: DEv1 is more or less a background task that shuffles data after it has been saved somewhere. Until it finished copying files, it still is possible to loose data even on duplicated shares.

    Friday, December 10, 2010 2:19 PM