Everything, Everything

2020: J F M A M J J A S
2019: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2018: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2017: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2016: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2015: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2014: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2013: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2012: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2011: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2010: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2009: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2008: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2007: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2006: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2005: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2004: J F M A M J J A S O N D
Storage Spaces Dual Parity
Sunday 6th March, 2016 10:18 Comments: 0
I stumbled across this message in a TechNet forum and this may explain why write performance is relatively slow, and why you need so many disks to enable dual parity (and why disk space seems to disappear):

Storage spaces uses erasure coding for its dual parity scheme, which optimizes recovery for the common case (single disk failure). This comes at the cost of higher overhead, which is 3 columns of "parity" information instead of the traditional 2. So for a 7 disk, 7 column dual parity space the amount of usable capacity is (7-3)*disk size, so you get 8TB with 7x2TB disks.

I get the impression that Storage Spaces is only of (limited) benefit to some home enthusiasts, some medium sized businesses, and perhaps large business that solely use Microsoft products. It sounds to me that the flexibility and easier support doesn't necessarily outweigh the benefits of software or hardware RAID setups. Which is a shame as I'd quite like to use it instead of doing rather more rigid software RAID5 in Windows.
© Robert Nicholls 2002-2020
The views and opinions expressed on this site do not represent the views of my employer.
HTML5 / CSS3