Vail uses to much drive space

All replies

• 

  

  0

  Sign in to vote

  First off I want to say that Vail is looking pretty good, I am glad Microsoft decided to build a new WHS based off of Win2k8 and bring WHS to current level of technology. The product looks alot more refined than v1 of WHS.

  That being said, and with the understanding that this is beta software here is the problem I have with Vail.

  This server was built today so this is a totally fresh install that has been running for about 6 hours.

  Primary OS: 250 gig (not a pool member) showing 46 gig of 60 gig free

  Drive 1: 2TB (pool member)

  Drive 2: 2TB (pool member)

  Drive 3: 250 gig (spare drive not pool member)

  Total Pool size: 3726 gigs

  This server is currently connected to 2 PC's with the connector software, a 3rd PC (media center) is not currently running connector software and is not part of the backup cycle.

  29 gigs of data has been moved over in addition to 132 gigs of client computer backups.

  Now comes the part I am not liking. "Data Protection"

  How is it that I can have less than 150 gigs total stored on this server yet I am using 620 GIGs of data protection space? Now I know from reading that duplication and shadow copies is going to be your answer, BUT I have turned off duplication and shadow copy for most of the shares that will not be storing critical data.

  Settings:

  Andrea share: 1.9 gigs of data - Duplication ON and Shadow Copy ON

  Client Computer Backups: 132 gigs of data - Duplication ON and Shadow Copy OFF

  Documents: 1.2 gigs of data - Duplication ON and Shadow Copy OFF

  John Share: 0.3 gigs of data - Duplication ON and Shadow Copy ON

  Music: 0.9 gigs of data - Duplication ON and Shadow Copy ON

  Pictures: 0.2 gigs of data - Duplication ON and Shadow Copy OFF

  Public: 22 gigs of data - Duplication ON and Shadow Copy OFF

  Recorded TV: 0.2 gigs of data - Duplication OFF and Shadow Copy OFF

  Shadow Copies: 1.3 gigs of data - Duplication OFF and Shadow Copy OFF

  Videos: 0.2 gigs of data - Duplication OFF and Shadow Copy OFF

  So where is my other space going? Even if we were to copy the data 3 times ( one copy on each drive for duplication and one copy for Shadow Copy) we would only be up to 450 gigs not 620 gigs. And Shadow Copy hasn't even made its run yet as it is only showing 1.3gigs used. So where is the extra 170 gigs going to?

  WHS is starting to make that 4TB of drive space look like it is not going to go very far after I start really putting data on it.

  Thanks,

  John

  Please read the release notes (specifically, the Storage section).

  • Marked as answer by JohnSmith2 Friday, August 20, 2010 3:58 AM

  Friday, August 20, 2010 3:41 AM

  Moderator
• 

  

  0

  Sign in to vote

  Upon reading the section in the release notes on 'storage', one can only get a very scary

  impression of data backup in Vail to this point in the development cycle. I would hope

  there are measures (fixes) being taken to improve the reliability of data backed up on

  Vail, whether shares or client backups. As it stands right now, I have no faith whatsoever

  that 'any' backed up data on Vail can be considered even moderately safe.

   

  To me this is a dismal track record regarding data storage safety up to this point in the

  development of WHS, whether talking about v1 or v2. How can anyone really honestly

  recommend WHS of any flavor to the general home user as a reliable data backup system.

   

  Art [artfudd] Folden

  --------------------------

  "kariya21 [MVP]" wrote in message

  news:5ec23492-b6c4-41eb-92ab-b5f785de1c98@communitybridge.codeplex.com...

   

  First off I want to say that Vail is looking pretty good, I am glad Microsoft decided to

  build a new WHS based off of Win2k8 and bring WHS to current level of technology. The

  product looks alot more refined than v1 of WHS.

   

  That being said, and with the understanding that this is beta software here is the problem

  I have with Vail.

   

  This server was built today so this is a totally fresh install that has been running for

  about 6 hours.

   

  Primary OS: 250 gig (not a pool member) showing 46 gig of 60 gig free

   

  Drive 1: 2TB (pool member)

   

  Drive 2: 2TB (pool member)

   

  Drive 3: 250 gig (spare drive not pool member)

   

  Total Pool size: 3726 gigs

   

  This server is currently connected to 2 PC's with the connector software, a 3rd PC (media

  center) is not currently running connector software and is not part of the backup cycle.

   

  29 gigs of data has been moved over in addition to 132 gigs of client computer backups.

   

  Now comes the part I am not liking. "Data Protection"

   

  How is it that I can have less than 150 gigs total stored on this server yet I am using

  620 GIGs of data protection space? Now I know from reading that duplication and shadow

  copies is going to be your answer, BUT I have turned off duplication and shadow copy for

  most of the shares that will not be storing critical data.

   

  Settings:

   

  Andrea share: 1.9 gigs of data - Duplication ON and Shadow Copy ON

   

  Client Computer Backups: 132 gigs of data - Duplication ON and Shadow Copy OFF

   

  Documents: 1.2 gigs of data - Duplication ON and Shadow Copy OFF

   

  John Share: 0.3 gigs of data - Duplication ON and Shadow Copy ON

   

  Music: 0.9 gigs of data - Duplication ON and Shadow Copy ON

   

  Pictures: 0.2 gigs of data - Duplication ON and Shadow Copy OFF

   

  Public: 22 gigs of data - Duplication ON and Shadow Copy OFF

   

  Recorded TV: 0.2 gigs of data - Duplication OFF and Shadow Copy OFF

   

  Shadow Copies: 1.3 gigs of data - Duplication OFF and Shadow Copy OFF

   

  Videos: 0.2 gigs of data - Duplication OFF and Shadow Copy OFF

   

  So where is my other space going? Even if we were to copy the data 3 times ( one copy on

  each drive for duplication and one copy for Shadow Copy) we would only be up to 450 gigs

  not 620 gigs. And Shadow Copy hasn't even made its run yet as it is only showing 1.3gigs

  used. So where is the extra 170 gigs going to?

   

  WHS is starting to make that 4TB of drive space look like it is not going to go very far

  after I start really putting data on it.

   

  Thanks,

   

  John

   

  Please read the release notes (specifically, the Storage section).

   

   

  Friday, August 20, 2010 7:59 PM
• 

  

  0

  Sign in to vote

  WHS 1 is solid as a rock right now.  Been using it since pre-release and am impressed.  Now VAIL should not be used as an actual product beyond a test environment because it's not even released.  It's in preview, beta, whatever.   Don't use it for data that's important.  PERIOD.  Use WHS 1..

  ---

  athlon 3400, 2gb ram, 7 drives totaling about 6.5 tbs.

  Friday, August 20, 2010 10:38 PM
• 

  

  0

  Sign in to vote

  Good advice, but there are some of us who don't have any extra machines. I have this one, a "real" beta machine, my 64 bit Vail machine and my laptop. Although this is a combination work/beta machine, there are some betas I just won't put on it, so I need that "real" beta machine and can't use it as a server. Even if I had a couple more machines, I don't have room to set them up. :(

  ---

  Nancy Ward
  Windows 8 BetaFerret

  "Enchanter" wrote in message news:4aeae83e-33d8-43a3-8604-fc9b2d8fc99b@communitybridge.codeplex.com...

  WHS 1 is solid as a rock right now.  Been using it since pre-release and am impressed.  Now VAIL should not be used as an actual product beyond a test environment because it's not even released.  It's in preview, beta, whatever.   Don't use it for data that's important.  PERIOD.  Use WHS 1..

  ---

  athlon 3400, 2gb ram, 7 drives totaling about 6.5 tbs.

  ---

  Nancy Ward

  Saturday, August 21, 2010 4:08 AM
• 

  

  0

  Sign in to vote

  Nancy, my honest advice for people who don't have the hardware to run Vail in parallel with V1 is to stick with V1. Particularly with the refresh build released recently; it absolutely doesn't look like a build I want to trust.

  That doesn't mean you can't test the build, but it does mean that you can't "just use it". If you can set up a VM lab using your preferred virtualization tool, that's likely to be ideal; virtual Vail, virtual clients, etc...

  I'm pretty sure Microsoft doesn't like this advice very much (I get my best bugs out of "just using it" and I bet a lot of others do too), but it's actually just common sense for betas in general. Betas are not trusted, even by the vendor.

  ---

  I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)

  Saturday, August 21, 2010 2:43 PM

  Moderator
• 

  

  0

  Sign in to vote

  Thanks, Ken, but I already have the data from this machine on an external hard drive, as well as on DVDs, so if something really goes awry, I will be OK. I'd just have to reinstall all the programs and utilities, but wouldn't lose my data. Which is a pain in the tush, but . . .

  Yeah, I know that's contrary to what I've said, but some betas are "just worth it". Like you, I don't trust this version of Vail completely, but since my data's backed up otherwhere, I'll risk it.

  Thanks for the good advice, though.

  ---

  Nancy Ward
  Windows 8 BetaFerret

  "Ken Warren [MVP]" wrote in message news:bbb1242c-a39e-4bc8-8fcd-bb0c21f98e3b@communitybridge.codeplex.com...

  Nancy, my honest advice for people who don't have the hardware to run Vail in parallel with V1 is to stick with V1. Particularly with the refresh build released recently; it absolutely doesn't look like a build I want to trust.
  
  That doesn't mean you can't test the build, but it does mean that you can't "just use it". If you can set up a VM lab using your preferred virtualization tool, that's likely to be ideal; virtual Vail, virtual clients, etc...
  
  I'm pretty sure Microsoft doesn't like this advice very much (I get my best bugs out of "just using it" and I bet a lot of others do too), but it's actually just common sense for betas in general. Betas are*not* trusted, even by the vendor.

  ---

  I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)

  ---

  Nancy Ward

  Saturday, August 21, 2010 4:01 PM
• 

  

  0

  Sign in to vote

  Indeed ...

   

  BUT:  this kind of preview/beta is for testing purpose. Not only for self testing, but essentially for bug tracking. And what the best way for a good bug tracking? I think a "normal use" or "production use" (as we say here) is the only way to put this kind of OS in the real world and find bug or improvement to do.

  First time I tested WHS V1 and Vail, it was with an non-production Virtual Machine (VirtualBox on my home computer). Both worked fine but it was impossible to see how the OS hang large amount of data's, and networking resources...

   

  Since I use this OS on my home server I can see where are the improvement to do, the bug to correct and more... So I can make better returns on the connect site.

   

  BTW, I'm totally agree that if you use this as production use, you MUST have separate saves of your datas in case of ... and you have to be aware that it's a preview/beta product with all the little inconvenience that mean. So do I have 2 separate USB drive with all my personal data. I can suffer all the crash possible on the WHS server, it's just a question of time to go (: fresh reinstall, re-put datas, etc. )

   

  "Ken Warren [MVP]" wrote in message news:bbb1242c-a39e-4bc8-8fcd-bb0c21f98e3b@communitybridge.codeplex.com...

  Nancy, my honest advice for people who don't have the hardware to run Vail in parallel with V1 is to stick with V1. Particularly with the refresh build released recently; it absolutely doesn't look like a build I want to trust.

  That doesn't mean you can't test the build, but it does mean that you can't "just use it". If you can set up a VM lab using your preferred virtualization tool, that's likely to be ideal; virtual Vail, virtual clients, etc...

  I'm pretty sure Microsoft doesn't like this advice very much (I get my best bugs out of "just using it" and I bet a lot of others do too), but it's actually just common sense for betas in general. Betas are not trusted, even by the vendor.

  ---

  I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)

  
  

   

  Saturday, August 21, 2010 4:26 PM