Hello. I am looking for a basic storage server that can just house files and shares (with maybe some messing around with vm’s and encoding in the future) . I was wondering if storage server 2016 got rolled into server 2016, or if storage server 2012 was the end of the SS line? I do have access to this stuff as a student, but wonder if it is also worth the hassle over OMV, freenas Xpenology.ect
There were technet articles on SS2016 but it looks like microsoft memory holed them.
With any MS product you’re basically going to be stuck using NTFS or ReFS for filesystem. I would trust neither of them with my data, freenas provides ZFS which is significantly more bulletproof.
If you want to use windows for storage, you would probably use storage spaces on windows server, and then connect to it via your preferred method.
2 Likes
NTFS or ReFS for filesystem
I’ve been having a hell of a time with corruption on ReFS Cvfs drives at work this year. It really doesn’t play well with VMs…
If you are going to use Window Cluster Fileshare Services then please stick to NTFS and keep good backups of it. If you can, learn to use Freenas or another storage appliance.
2 Likes
Every time I bring up or hear about ReFS, I hear about someone battling corruption, definitely not a good sign. While NTFS appears mostly stable, it lacks features that are a staple of good filesystems (such as check-summing) and isn’t very sane regarding fragmentation etc.
So, what filesystem would you go with if you had to set up a server this week? Did BTRFS ever get it’s bugs ironed out? It seems that EX4 & NTFS are the staples of the Linux & Windows worlds, but what are the other good ones to go with?
The only issue of note with BTRFS currently is the RAID 5/6 write hole, which is only an issue if you’re using RAID 5/6. If you want a turn-key storage appliance, you can’t go wrong with FreeNAS which uses ZFS.
- BTRFS is great, snapshots are very useful. I use it both single disk and in RAID10
- XFS is a very good filesystem, it’s very fast but similar to EXT4 in featureset; it doesn’t have the features on its own that make it good for a storage server.
- F2FS is a great filesystem for flash devices, on SSDs it can’t be beat. There is a bug where it doesn’t sanity check between versions; which could be an issue in the future; it doesn’t have the features on its own that make it good for a storage server.
For what you’re looking to do, your best picks are BTRFS or ZFS. ZFS is best, but not as well supported on Linux: not an issue if you’re using FreeNAS, BSD, or illumos
If you wanted to go absolutely mad, the best way to go would be XFS + CEPH across multiple computers for a storage cluster.
1 Like
That depends on what the system requirements are.
If the ONLY requirement is “store stuff and don’t lose it” my choice would be an implementation of ZFS.
If there are possibly other requirements such as integration with backup tools, Windows management experience, or enterprise support i might consider a SAN from an enterprise storage vendor, a Windows box, or something else.
It depends how important all of the factors are - the risk of bit-rot for example may be considered low enough vs. the backup regime you have and the lack of experienced admins for ZFS that Windows may be preferable. But we aren’t privy to your situation…
FYI
Xfs is what red hat uses on glusterfs
Using xfs with glusterfs or ceph isn’t “on its own”
Then I dont understand the phrasing.
Excuse my ignorance.
XFS itself doesn’t provide the features, but using in tandem with something that does, such as Ceph or Gluster is a powerful combination.
While NTFS appears mostly stable, it lacks features that are a staple of good filesystems (such as check-summing) and isn’t very sane regarding fragmentation etc.
In my opinion this is actually a selling point. ReFS is not supposed to have corruption issues. They are supposed to “automatically” be resolved. The issue is when you run into a scenario Microsoft hasn’t really tested, then you have no tools that can address certain issues or corruption. There is nothing like being on a call with Microsoft where they laugh and say “I hope you had good backups”.
NTFS has been around for a while and a lot of the issues have been addressed or have manual fixes. If an engineer is stuck doing something with really important data on Windows VMs, I would be careful with ReFS and research Clsuter Shared Volume configurations carefully as there are lots of issues.
This is really only poignant when comparing NTFS and ReFS. There really isn’t much comparison to be made when ZFS enters the mix.
If using Windows, NTFS is unfortunately the best you’ve got.
1 Like