none
How Efficient is Duplication in Home Server? RRS feed

  • Question

  •  

    Does Windows Home Server use true duplication (mirroring) of data or does it use something more efficient similiar to RAID5?

     

    What I'm getting at is this: With mirroring, you use up twice the space. With a scheme like RAID5 you use up only 1/x of your space for redundancy where x is the number of drives you have. For example, if I have 4 disks in an array only 1/4 of the total space is for redundancy while with mirroring you would always use half your space for redundancy.

     

    I know that the backups in Home Server use Single Instance Storage, I'm wondering specifically about duplication of shared folders.

     

    - Hannes

    Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:31 PM

Answers

  • Yes, it is similar to Raid1 in that, you use twice the space for duplicated data. However, unlike Raid1, it is selective. You only duplicate what you choose to, and don't duplicate what you don't want to.

     

    Wednesday, November 21, 2007 1:08 AM

All replies

  • Yes, it is similar to Raid1 in that, you use twice the space for duplicated data. However, unlike Raid1, it is selective. You only duplicate what you choose to, and don't duplicate what you don't want to.

     

    Wednesday, November 21, 2007 1:08 AM
  • Note that backups don't use Single Instance Storage per se, though the storage technology uses the same concepts.

    As for data protection, WHS does, as another poster has said, store two copies of files in shares designated for duplication. However, there's a great deal of data on a WHS PC that doesn't need to be duplicated, e.g. the backup database. Backups don't really need to be duplicated (in the home envorinment) because the PCs that they are backups of serve as the duplicate copies. If your server fails and the backup database is toast, you repair the server and back up your PCs again. In a traditional RAID scenario, all data is on the RAID array, even things you don't need backed up.
    Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:49 PM
    Moderator
  • Still Raid 4/5/6 is clearly a solution MS should invest in WHS.  From other posts asking for RAID 4/5/6 I've heard excuses saying that its too much for the consumer to do, which is a silly stand point when MS is currently marketing WHS for the "set it and forget it" mentality.


    WHS easily has a ton of great features.  Hopefully we see more integration with the Zune and Xbox 360.  But selective RAID 1 truly is the poorest man's raid. 

    It just seems like WHS is half a product.  I wonder if Drobo works with WHS.  But why do I have to buy another $500 device to handle the seamless RAID system?
    Friday, November 23, 2007 7:48 AM
  • This argument has been done to death! If you want a raid system, there is nothing stopping you integrating it into a WHS installation. If you look through the forum, there are numerous people who have successfully managed it. Just don't expect Microsoft to support it.

    It really sounds like you need to read the technical info papers regarding the form of storage being implemented in WHS - it certainly isn't a poor mans raid as you say. In fact, I could well see this storage system being used in other products in the future and is ideal in a 'home' situation, where it's likely that there will be multiple computers running the same operating system and having multiple copies of the same data/photos etc scattered around the house. This poor system as you call it, will only ever store one copy of all that data, instead of multiple copies of everything. Could you point me to any raid system that would be able to intelligently differentiate data and selectively store only single instances?

     

    Colin 

    Friday, November 23, 2007 4:45 PM