Thoughts on my storage\RAID plan? RRS feed

  • Question

  • After waffling for a couple months as to whether to use RAID or not, I decided to try to wait until the DE bug is fixed and build a server without RAID.  Then it occurred to me that even if the bug is patched in June, it could be another 6-12 months before we are sure it is reliable.  I can't wait that long, so I am now planning this:


    Run 4x 1TB drives on an 8 port RAID card in RAID 6, for about 1.85TB.  The array would then be broken into 1TB and .85TB volumes, and only the .85TB volume would be used for WHS.  I should be able to get by with that much space until DE is fixed.  After the patch is verified as safe, I would present the unused 1TB volume to the DE pool.


    That would leave 4 ports open which I could use later using online capacity expansion of the array, presenting 1 or 2TB volumes at a time to WHS.


    I figure that gives me ~5TB of well protected storage space for data, a roomy .85TB landing zone, hot swapping, and more space efficiency as I would not need to mirror folders.  Even more space could be added using the MB SATA ports, which I would have to protect by mirroring everything.


    Is this a sound plan, or am I missing something?  I understand that this is not a preferred or supported setup as far as MS is concerned, but without a firm date for bulletproof DE functionality I need to come up with a solution.


    It occurred to me that I could just break the array when DE is fixed and present individual drives, but that seems like a waste if I already have the hardware and a working setup.

    Tuesday, April 1, 2008 10:13 PM


  • The patch will be reliable when it's released, no matter when that is. That doesn't mean it will fix everything that everyone has claimed here in the forums is "the data corruption issue", it means that KB846676 will be fixed, and probably any other related issues. The non-related issues include things like dodgy network hardware (switches, cables, routers, etc.), BIOS issues, NICs (or other hardware) that doesn't support, and really shouldn't be used with, Windows Server 2003-based systems, bad drivers, ill-behaved software, etc. (The usual suspects...)
    Wednesday, April 2, 2008 11:45 AM