Umfriend
-
Posts
1001 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
54
Posts posted by Umfriend
-
-
On 7/27/2018 at 6:12 PM, Jaga said:
Two reasons I structured it that way for him. 1) That was the only way I saw to get >2 copies on just 2 drives with duplication working. 2) You still get redundancy in the event one volume is unusable due to physical sector damage, or file system corruption, full drive failure, etc.
Oh, I fully agree with your solution to the OP's requirement, just questioned the requirement. The requirement also slows write performance as a single file needs to be written twice to the same HDD and perhaps this even increases the likelihood of a drive failure (not sure but I would guess that writes do add to wear & tear). Three duplicates is rather secure already, on top of that I would sooner look into actual backup solutions (incl. offsite/rotation).
Edit: I never paid much attention to read striping but when I did I never thought it worked well. @OP: You've got at least 11 HDD/SSD's attached, how/what MB? I would not be suprised if the 8xSDDs were attached through some sort of card/device that affected read-striping.
-
Your reasoning is sound but I wonder whether DP will then duplicate for Pool2 and Pool3 as Duplication requires different *physical* HDDs.
In fact, if D1 or D2 fails, you lose both duplicates on that HDD so why have two copies on one HDD anyway?
-
10 hours ago, Christopher (Drashna) said:
Shoot, I just saw this: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/get-started/windows-server-1803-removed-features
Not sure if they're completely removing it, as in removing the Essentials SKU as well.... But sounds like they're discontinuing the SKU too
Here they say " LTSC will be available in all editions and deployment models (Core, GIU, Nano) Standard, Datacenter, Essentials etc. " - So there is some hope I guess. But I fear they're going to can it and this was just an error.
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/serverguyuk/2018/03/21/windows-server-2019-announced/
-
No other folders within T:\ that show a x1+? If there is/are, then you may need to expand some more until you found them.
-
Doesn;t the x1+ in the screenshot for the Folder Duplication window (to the right of the OP) show that there is at least one folders for which duplication is set? Simply expand the DrivePool folder and check which folder is the culprit, no?
-
As I read it, Essentials is going down post 2016 edtition. TBH, it makes no sense to have an Essentials Edition and not have an Essentials Role in the Standard Edition. Unless they feel Honolulu does a better job. But then maybe, just maybe, we would get a SOHO/SMB edition using Honolulu. It just doesn't seem as straightforward as the normal dashboard at all.
-
I used Z once, only to find that the printer with some media card slot wanted it itself or would not print at all. Same for some Blackberry devices caliming Z. So yeah, hi up but not Y and Z.
I use P, Q and R.
-
12 hours ago, Christopher (Drashna) said:
But honestly, getting a software package to backup systems like WHS/WSE is ... as expensive or more so, than the cost of WSE, in most cases. Which is a real irony.
That was my conclusion back in 2011 and I don;t think it has changed (but I have not really looked except for Macrium which currently I think is not for me and not as good as WHS even).
To my horror, I just found out that M$ is abandoning the Essentials role (and thus I assume Essentials entirely) in Server 2019, which I would go for! Apparantly the intended replacement is Microsoft 365 for business (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/business). The site reminds me of the marketing spoof where M$ re-designs the ipod packaging: No clue what it says. And boy, is it expensive!
So it may be I need to go WSE 2016 and that wil be EOL for me. I hate it that I'll have to invest quite a bit of time and only be able to rely on this until early 2022.
-
18 hours ago, GDogTech said:
Definitely you. I'm not at all agitated. I was just trying to express another way of looking at it. I knew when I wrote it however, that sometimes it can APPEAR that way, so I actually tried to avoid that in the way I wrote it. Maybe I didn't do such a great job with that, but rest assured I am NOT agitated. I'm also not bashful or timid. When I *am* agitated, and I want you to know it, you will, without any doubt.
Must be the CAPS that confused me. OK.
I have never bought any of Walsh's ebooks. I have reviewed a couple of previews and no, IMHO, it is not that they have a tremenduous amount of good info, more an easy way in that helps to plan. I am still upset about him killing the forums indeed.
I have looked at the site of Macrium. It seems to me that, unless I get some paid version that runs into quite a few bucks perhaps, backups are arranged through each individual client. Is that right? If I want to manage client backups from the Server, would I need Site Backup (@ EUR547)? I am also confused about the distinction they make between file/folder backups and images/clones of disks. I also wonder why they raise MS SQL backup capabilities (given that MS SQL itself is very able to backup/restore and WHS also creates backups)?
-
On 7/7/2018 at 5:27 AM, GDogTech said:
BTW: Regarding the backup thing, consider this: Macrium Reflect is fully network aware, and full or incremental image backups can be scheduled to happen automatically, in the background, at any degree of bandwidth, at any chosen time, written to any network share or connected PC, with post-backup verifications and terminations. All this is in the FREE version. The Paid version allows differential and file backups as well. So, if backup is the only reason YOU are using WHS2011, then I ask you: Why are YOU using it?
It must be me but you sound a bit agitated? If I said something wrong then sorry.
The reason I am *still* using WHS2011 is that it is a one stop shop that includes both client and server backup. I know people have had issues with client restores, not me. Used it quite a few times either in case of issues or for migrations from HDD to SSD for example. Always worked like a charm for me.Either file/folder recovery or BMR (and the latter is an absolute must) Moreover, at the time I went and bought WHS2011 (as you said, very cheaply), I did not know about Macrium or any other backup solution that worked as well and automated as WHS2011. I was aware of backup solutions that would not do BMR and image-backup solutions that would not do file/folder restores and took a lot of space if you wanted more restore points. Other uses like streaming video across my network, network shares for a small office at home can be done with Windows Pro. RDP as well. Now the reason I am considering going WSE is really only because of backup/restore. If there is a better or just comparable product out there then I may well choose to go the W10Pro route.
Terry Walsh of wegotserverd.com (although I can't reach it ATM) has published a number of ebooks about using both WSE and W10 as home/SOHO servers. You might want to take a look at those. I never read one really but thet seem pretty decent and if I ever go WSE of WPro I would really consider studying one of these.
-
I was going to ask the same thing about CALs... but more impotantly, I do use client backups and I really really like it in WHS, saved me a couple of times already. But if you have another way of securing your clinet backups, then I would not rerally know why you should have the hassle of using WSE to be honest. IN other words, what do you use WHS 2011 for that a regular Windows (Pro) machine can't deliver?
-
3 hours ago, Jaga said:
My personal opinion is that MS is losing out on a segment of the market with inadequate pricing models for home professionals. I'd gladly pay 2x or even 3x the price of W10 pro for a suitable server version with limited CALs (or non-domain model).
Looking at the M$ store, I see W10 Pro at euro 259 and WSE 2016 at 707, that is less than W10 Pro x3, no?
-
Still happily running WHS2011. The only thing I am missing is that I would like to also have a desktop replacement as a VM so that I can work off of a very light laptop (which WSE does not offer either though). AFAIK, WHS2011 is still supported for security and will remain so until somewhere in 2021. I intend to go Windows Server Essentials (WSE) anytime before then. Might be tomorrow, may be 2021.
AFAIK, WSE 2016 is a lot like W10, GUI wise for sure. WSE2012 is much like Windows 8. But consider this: If you go 2012, you will face end-of-support earlier again. I'd go WSE 2016 and there are cheap versions out there if you look for it, albeit a bit shady (I had an issue with a similar Office license).
AFAIK, WSE has a dashboard and Scanner and DP will be visible in the dashboard. Having siad that, when I want to check DP, I choose the DP directly, not through the Dashboard.
My main issue with WSE 2016 (and the same goes for 2012) is that you actually need to know quite a bit more about it. For instance, all clients will join the Domain by default, unless you use a Registry hack. I don't even know what a Domain is, why I should want it and how it changes the user experience for my small group of IT-illiterate users. Then there is that WSE will establish itself as a DNS server. Should be fine if it is on 24/7, liek with me, but how do I look for online help if on a client if the DNS server is down? Things like that bug me. WHS2011 was/is simply very simple to use and if you want to you *can* make it more complicated.
-
WHS2011 sets the networks share accounts to "Full control" for everyone, and then falls back to NTFS permissions for actual access rights.
Not quite when you use the wizard. If you select to grant access to specific people, the default is no access at all. Not sure how you would create a shared folder otherwise.
-
It may be because I run DP on a server platform (WHS 2011), but I can control access rights for network users to specific folders that are in the pool. No way a user could view, let alone modify, data outside of those folders.
-
Yeah, it would be great if the was an option to have the output in CSV or, my favorite, pipe-delimited format. Just needs a record type identifier in the first column.
-
Although Process Explorer is a great idea, I find that Resource Monitor, which comes with any Windows installation AFAIK, is easier to use and helps identify such issues rather often already.
-
Julius, I am 48 and have been using tapes and disks to store data since 1982 (Tandy TRS-80 Model III).
Yes, DP may save you from HDD failure due to its duplication but that is about the only fail-safe it provides (same as RAID and I agree on the recovery issues with RAID. DP is, to my mind, far easier at the expense of additional space (compared to RAID 5/6)). Yes, a good backup policy can be cumbersome to implement and, especially, adhere to. Nevertheless, modifications, deletions over the network (as Christopher said, no recycle bin then), fire and theft etc. are not covered by DP. It may be that it is safe enough for you but I would never advise that DP is good as a backup.
In my case, I run WHS2011 (will move to WSE someday), with DP x2. I also run a daily Server Backup which is scheduled and needs no manual intervention (and I could set it up to backup every hour if I wanted). The Backup HDDs are rotated offsite on a weekly basis. Can I still lose data? Sure. But at least I can restore *most* at all times.
An alternative, of course, mught be the cloud. For example, DropBox retains all versions if you have a professional subscription (including deleted files) and it is offsite at the same time. However, I do not like the cloud personally.
Edit: Ransomware! I forgot to mention ransomware.
-
On 28/04/2018 at 11:22 AM, amateurphotographer said:
Thanks, am confused.
If I save a file to the pool using the above example then I only have the single pool copy until 1am when it is copies to a backup drive. if i set the balance to be at 1am only then surely its the same.
Later on
If I delete the file from the pool during the dayon then it remains on the backup drive until the pool balances at 1am the next day.
No. If you have x2 duplication and you save a file then it will be duplicated instantly. If you delete it, both duplicates are deleted instantly.
Balancing is the procedure by which the usage of the pooled HDDs is made to comply with the balancing rules. As an example. DP writes, by default, to the HDD with the most space available. If you have two HDDs with equal space available and data gets deleted from one of these then balancing would fill it up again.
A simple advice: Do not assume DP has anything to do with backups. It does not. It helps you increasing uptime and easing recovery in case of a HDD failure (assuming you have at least x2 duplication and not 2 HDD failures at the same time or during recovery) and allows for a BFVHDD (Bif Fing Virtual HDD) but that is it.
For backups, that is copies of files which protect you against HDD failure, system failure, fire and theft etc., look for real backup solutions. If, for instance, you are running a server OS, use Server Backup for instance (and rotate backup HDDs offsite).
-
One difference is that if you accidentally delete a file, it will be gone. DP is _not_ a backup and you're setting yourself up for trouble when trying to use it as such.
-
Hmm, I don;t get that first pic. It mentions DrivePoolDisk1 and 2 as Pooled but also als non-pooled below? Are drives these mounted as folders or something? What is also weird is that the Other on both appears to be equally sized, something I rarely see in Pools.
-
Do you run server backup? Server backup can leave stuff in sysvolinfo, terribly annoying, but it tends to clear out when space becomes limited. There was a time that I was OCD enough to try and empty it all out but it is always a pain with first not having access rights (which infuriates me to no end, it's my own goddarn HDD!), then having to take ownership and even that failing. But generally, AFAIK, there is no need to worry.
-
6 hours ago, Merwinsson said:
While I didn't realize you can create a pool using other pools, I don't see how this helps. In Umfriend's example above pool W will behave exactly like a x2 pool with all 8 disks - a new file can end up anywhere on D1 thru D8, and its dup likewise. I want new files to go to D1 thru D4 ONLY, and dups to D5 thru D8 ONLY. In my original example I was requiring that a dup end up on a very specific disk based on where the original was placed, but I'm relaxing that and saying dups can go anywhere on D5 thru D8, but they should never go on D1 thru D4. It would be nice to have more definite and configurable duplication rules or a plugin to access them. For example, the Drive Usage Limiter plugin UI is close, but no cigar.
Actually, no. One copy would be on D1 to D4, the other on D5 to D8. This is because Pool W will regard Pool U and Pool V as single HDDs and never place both duplicates on only U or ony V but rather one on U and one on V. If you then use the optional Ordered File Placement plug-in, you would fill D1 and D5 first, then D2 and D6 and so on (this does assume that D1 is od equal size as D5, D2 as D6 and so on). Some organise otherwise with the File Placement Rules. I wouldn't know but it may require that you offload data first indeed. But the question remains, why bother?
-
Couldn't you use hierachical Pools for this?
1. Set-up Pool 1 (say U:\) with HDDs D1 to D4, no duplication, file placement as desired
2. Set-up Pool 2 (say V:\) with HDDs D5 to D8, no duplication, file placement as desired
3. Set up Pool 3 (say W:\) with U:\ and V:\, x2 duplicattion. Done!Having said that, what do you mean by "go hunting thru 8 disks to find a file should the pool break"? If it is about one HDD failing then ypu do not need to sift thure disks as DP would re-duplicate the files that were on that HDD for you, for free and automativally (once you have removed the failing HDD from the Pool and provided you have sufficient space). And for that scenario, 1 Pool of 8 HDDs is better even.
SSD & Archive Disks Source / Duplicate placement
in General
Posted
That's a nice collection of hardware!
The 8TBs, Archives or regular HDDs? Connected to the main board ports?
I am not sure how DP determines the drive to read from, I think it is the "bus speed" which may not actually be the HDD speed. Chris would know.