locked
Is using 33% of the storage pool for data protect normal? RRS feed

  • Question

  • Several of the threads in this forum indicate that data protection consumes 14% of the storage pool however, I am experiencing 33% usage.

    Folders + Backups = 705 GB

    Data Protection = 236 GB

    Note: I have already turned off folder duplication and shadow copy on all folders.

    Is there a way to turn off data protection? I really do not need it because I use WHS to store a copy of all my data for centralized sharing and for PC backups.

    Thanks, Dan


    Dan T
    Saturday, November 20, 2010 3:24 PM

Answers

  • It depends on several factors, and there's no way I can think of to separately calculate the exact number yourself. But the ECC overhead is 12% "off the top" of every disk. then there will be NTFS metafiles (which must be duplicated everywhere even with duplication off, if the storage pool is to be mountable with missing disks), and probably other things that are slipping my mind.
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    • Marked as answer by ecman1 Monday, November 22, 2010 12:46 PM
    Sunday, November 21, 2010 4:51 AM
    Moderator

All replies

  • The information you're asking about is known to be inaccurate in this build. It's already been bugged...
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Saturday, November 20, 2010 8:47 PM
    Moderator
  • Thank you, I must have missed that. Do you know what the true overhead should should be? I've read a dew different things in the forum.

    Dan T
    Sunday, November 21, 2010 2:28 AM
  • It depends on several factors, and there's no way I can think of to separately calculate the exact number yourself. But the ECC overhead is 12% "off the top" of every disk. then there will be NTFS metafiles (which must be duplicated everywhere even with duplication off, if the storage pool is to be mountable with missing disks), and probably other things that are slipping my mind.
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    • Marked as answer by ecman1 Monday, November 22, 2010 12:46 PM
    Sunday, November 21, 2010 4:51 AM
    Moderator
  • I have to say that the more I learn about drive extender v2 the more inclined I am to revert back to WHSv1 or a Linux based solution. I'm not too comfortable with all these layers which increase the risk of failure in my mind. In addition the lack of basic tape backup functionality is also pushing me to bail on WHSv2. I have an LTO3 internal drive that I want to use for offsite backups of my data only. I don't need bare metal restore just need to recover data.
    Dan T
    Monday, November 22, 2010 2:20 AM