locked
Second drive disconnected unexpectedly, now data exists in the "landing zone" rather than on the secondary drive RRS feed

  • Question

  • I've got a WHS box w/ PP1.  Recently, my second drive lost USB connectivity unexpectedly.  This caused WHS to start storing data (while drive 2 was offline) to the landing zone.  I got the drive back online, but Drive Extender has yet to move the changed data to the secondary drive.  Is there anyway to force it to tombstone that data and move it over to the secondary drive?

    My WHS box is only 2 months old, so it has always had PP1.  I have read that prior to PP1, people used LZreallocator to move data off of the landing zone.  I'm wondering if it will accomplish what I'm looking for, or if there is a more simple solution.

    If you need additional info, please let me know.

    Thanks,
    Phil

    Thursday, March 12, 2009 6:34 PM

Answers

  • pslax15 said:

    Now, I realize that storing data on top of an array is not "officially" supported by MSFT on WHS.  However, the type of array that I'm using offers additional flexibility in the case of drive failures, upgrades and data protection so I prefer this configuration.

    Because of this, I am not using folder duplication (too much disk cost associated with this).  So my concern now is that a failure of the primary drive (Drive 1) will result in the loss of data.

    So is there any way to get WHS to relocate the data from one storage drive to another?

    RAID is unsupported. It's not a question of "officially" supported or not, RAID is no part of the Microsoft vision of the product for a variety of reasons. So while Microsoft is interested in all the different Windows Home Server hardware configurations out there, RAID configurations are perhaps less interesting than many others. And they're probably not going to bother fixing issues that are related to unanticipated interactions between components of Windows Home Server and your RAID drivers, etc. 

    My honest recommendation would be to spend 180 USD (note that this is significantly less than the cost of a decent RAID controller and 4x 250 GB drives) and buy yourself two 1 TB drives. Hook them up and let Windows Home Server use folder duplication. That's a supported configuration, and it works.

    Failing that, there is no supported way to get those files off the D: volume. However, there is a tool that a forum participant has developed that functions in a manner similar to LZReallocator. You'll find a discussion of it over in the Developers forum. It's unsupported, use at your own risk stuff. And it does things which are at least mildly "bad" in WHS terms because it will cause the server to throw network health warnings while it's working. Given that this problem is cosmetic on a normal server, I recommend against the use of this tool. But it's there, and I don't think it's actually caused any problems other than the temporary network health warnings.

    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Thursday, March 12, 2009 9:27 PM
    Moderator

All replies

  • There's no need to move the data off the D: partition. Windows Home Server no longer uses that drive as a "landing zone"; instead files are written straight to one of the drives in the storage pool (which could still be D: if you're low on disk space). 
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Thursday, March 12, 2009 7:19 PM
    Moderator
  • My drives are laid out as follows:

    Drive 1 (250 GB):

    C: OS (20 GB, default)
    D: (~230 GB, second partition of drive one - as I understand it, this is where tombstones are placed when data is written directly to additional storage drives)

    Drive 2 (~750 GB):

    D: (second "drive," in reality an array of 4 drives that is presented as 1 to WHS - this is where 99.9% of my data currently resides.  I know this by using the "Duplication Info" add in to view which drives data is stored on.)


    Now, I realize that storing data on top of an array is not "officially" supported by MSFT on WHS.  However, the type of array that I'm using offers additional flexibility in the case of drive failures, upgrades and data protection so I prefer this configuration.

    Because of this, I am not using folder duplication (too much disk cost associated with this).  So my concern now is that a failure of the primary drive (Drive 1) will result in the loss of data.

    So is there any way to get WHS to relocate the data from one storage drive to another?
    Thursday, March 12, 2009 7:45 PM
  • pslax15 said:

    Now, I realize that storing data on top of an array is not "officially" supported by MSFT on WHS.  However, the type of array that I'm using offers additional flexibility in the case of drive failures, upgrades and data protection so I prefer this configuration.

    Because of this, I am not using folder duplication (too much disk cost associated with this).  So my concern now is that a failure of the primary drive (Drive 1) will result in the loss of data.

    So is there any way to get WHS to relocate the data from one storage drive to another?

    RAID is unsupported. It's not a question of "officially" supported or not, RAID is no part of the Microsoft vision of the product for a variety of reasons. So while Microsoft is interested in all the different Windows Home Server hardware configurations out there, RAID configurations are perhaps less interesting than many others. And they're probably not going to bother fixing issues that are related to unanticipated interactions between components of Windows Home Server and your RAID drivers, etc. 

    My honest recommendation would be to spend 180 USD (note that this is significantly less than the cost of a decent RAID controller and 4x 250 GB drives) and buy yourself two 1 TB drives. Hook them up and let Windows Home Server use folder duplication. That's a supported configuration, and it works.

    Failing that, there is no supported way to get those files off the D: volume. However, there is a tool that a forum participant has developed that functions in a manner similar to LZReallocator. You'll find a discussion of it over in the Developers forum. It's unsupported, use at your own risk stuff. And it does things which are at least mildly "bad" in WHS terms because it will cause the server to throw network health warnings while it's working. Given that this problem is cosmetic on a normal server, I recommend against the use of this tool. But it's there, and I don't think it's actually caused any problems other than the temporary network health warnings.

    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Thursday, March 12, 2009 9:27 PM
    Moderator