I added my SSD volume to the VM and deleted the storage spaces volume. 5 nor 6 would work as it would tell me I lacked sufficient space.Įxecuting the same command xcopy /j I seemed to be averaging around 209Mb/s (26.1MB/s) To get the dual parity drive to work I actually had to add a 7th disk. I then deleted the volume and recreated it as a dual parity drive. This is actually faster than what I remember getting previously (around 20MB/s) and this is through a VM. I then deleted the volume and recreated it as a single parity drive.Įxecuting the same command xcopy /j I seemed to be averaging around 348Mb/s (43.5MB/s) I mapped to my DataRAM Disk drive and copied a 1.5GB file from it using xcopy /j The first thing I did was create a stripe disk to determine my maximum performance amoung my 6 volumes. Set-PhysicalDisk -FriendlyName PhysicalDisk6 -MediaType HDD Set-PhysicalDisk -FriendlyName PhysicalDisk5 -MediaType HDD Set-PhysicalDisk -FriendlyName PhysicalDisk4 -MediaType HDD Set-PhysicalDisk -FriendlyName PhysicalDisk3 -MediaType HDD Set-PhysicalDisk -FriendlyName PhysicalDisk2 -MediaType HDD Set-PhysicalDisk -FriendlyName PhysicalDisk1 -MediaType HDD Get-StoragePool -FriendlyName TieredPool | Get-PhysicalDisk | Select FriendlyName, MediaType New-StoragePool -StorageSubSystemFriendlyName *Spaces* -FriendlyName TieredPool -PhysicalDisks $disks I used this powershell script to create them: For my weak testing, I only tested sequential performance.įirst thing I did was create my storage pool with my 6 volumes that reside on the RAID-10. The DataRAM RAMDisk drive should crush both of them for read and write performance under all situations. The Samsung SSD volume has a small sequential write advantage, it should have a significant seek advantage, as well since the volume is dedicated on the Samsung it should be significantly faster as you could probably divide by 6 to get the individual performance of the 4x10GB volumes on the single RAID. Performance for each set of volumes is:Ĥx4TB RAID-10 -> 220MB/s write, 300MB/s readĢ56MB Samsung 840 Pro SSD -> ~250MB/s write, 300MB/s readĭataRAM RAMDisk -> 4000MB/s write, 4000MB/s read The volumes are broken down into 4x10GB volumes on a 4x4TB RAID-10 array, 1x10GB volume on a 256GB Samsung 840 Pro SSD and 1x10GB volume on a RAMDisk (courtesy of DataRAM). They have the exact same volumes, 6x10GB volumes in total. Does this fix the performance issues in 2012? How does the new 2-disk parity perform? This allows you to use fast media like flash to be a staging ground so writes complete faster and then the writes to the fast media can transfer that data to the slower storage at a time that is more convient. Maybe they want to adjust their use case to volumes under 1GB?Īnyways, with 2012R2 there maybe some feature enhancements including a new feature for storage spaces 'tiered storage' and write back caching. I have no idea who thought anything like that would be acceptable. If you setup a Storage Spaces parity volume at 12TB (available space) and you have 10TB of data to copy to it just to get it going it will take you 8738 seconds, or 145 hours, or 6 straight days. I find this statement to be a bit amusing because trying to back up anything 20MB/sec takes forever. Microsoft's justification for it is that it's not meant to be used for anything except "workloads that are almost exclusively read-based, highly sequential, and require resiliency, or workloads that write data in large sequential append blocks (such as bulk backups)." Windows Storage Spaces parity performance on Windows Server 2012 is terrible.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |