I am an extreme moderate

January 14, 2012

A quick look at Windows 8 storage virtualisation

Filed under: Uncategorized — niezmierniespokojny @ 7:15 am

A couple of days ago, Microsoft’s Steven Sinofsky blogged about some cool new Windows 8 storage features that could be valuable for about anyone.
For home users, Win 8 offers a nicely implemented data protection scheme where you have multiple drives in the system and in case some of them die, you don’t lose any of your photos, music, emails or whatever you find valuable.
OK, Windows could do it for a while with RAID. But the new ‘Storage Spaces’ are much more flexible and usable. In fact, it looks like the best implementation that I’ve seen.

Here’s how it goes:
First, you have a pool of drives. You can add a new drive at any time and your available capacity (and performance) will increase.
On top of it you create ‘Spaces’. They are much like partitions, but:

  • They are thinly provisioned. The total size of all spaces can be bigger than your drives can hold. In fact even a single space can be bigger. Obviously, you won’t be able to store thus much, but it’s useful, because you don’t have to decide up front how to carve your drives to separate partitions. And when you add drives, you can leave your partitions untouched, the system will just start using them.
  • They provide RAID-like protections. You can use RAID 1, 5 and 6-like schemes.
  • I just love the data protection implementation. It’s different because it’s not at the drive level. Having just 1 drive pool, you can protect different data in different ways. In example, temp doesn’t need any protection. For system, RAID-1 is probably the best because it offers the best performance. And for important data I would use RAID 6 because it’s very secure and rather cheap.
    I don’t think there is anything as good available anywhere and I’m sure – not for home users. The closest thing is provided by ZFS, but it’s less flexible:
    You have a similar separation of pools and filesystems.
    You can have any RAID-like protections at the pool level
    You can have RAID-1-like protection at filesystem level

    This means that if you want to use the cheap protections (RAID5-6) in ZFS, the way to do it is by having it on the pool level and no protection at the filesystem level. So you must have it for all filesystems in the pool or for none. Also, it prevents you from adding drives one by one. You have to add an entire RAID group at the time.

    OTOH the Microsoft’s thin provisioning implementation is quite ugly. For most uses you don’t want to have any partition size at all. It should take just as much as space as it needs, w/out any limits. Or – better – there should be limits, but ones that you can increase freely. That’s how ZFS implements it.
    [ADD] Microsoft explained in their FAQ that you can increase size of a Space. So it’s practically as good as others in this regard. [/ADD]

    OK, I covered 2 options available for home users. There’s also a 3rd one, BTRFS.
    How does it stand against them when it comes to virtualisation features? Not well, but could be worse. There’s only RAID-1. And at the level I’d describe as being between the pool and filesystems. All files use the same protection, but you can add drives with different sizes one by one. Thin provisioning works like on ZFS.

    There’s one virtualisation feature here that ZFS has and others don’t – hybrid storage pools. You put both HDDs and SSDs in a single pool and the system uses them according to their capabilities. I don’t see any reason for MS not to add it at some point though.

    Also there’s one thing that is not virtualisation in itself, but it’s an important feature that can be implemented only at the level that provides RAID. Protection from silent data corruption. ZFS and BTRFS offer it. Microsoft doesn’t talk about it, so I guess they don’t. But it’s likely just a matter of time. In the Steven’s blog I see nothing standing on the way.

    2 Comments »

    1. Not a comment on FileSystem compression though….

      Comment by Yann Collet (@Cyan4973) — January 15, 2012 @ 1:36 pm

      • Because I wanted to talk about storage spaces, not about all that relates to Windows storage. 🙂
        And, besides, there are few people who can say a lot about NTFS compression and I’m not such person. Actually I’d like to be one, but it’s not worth reverse engineering Windows. But as you made me think about it, there are FOSS implementations of NTFS and I just checked that NTFS-3G contains compression code taken from another free NTFS implementation (Linux-NTFS). It’s not the same code that Windows uses, which is a big deal. How relevant is it to actual Windows compression performance? I guess barely. Still I have no idea why there seem to have been no isolated benchmarks of the algorithm. I think, I’ll add it to FSBench. Don’t hold your breath though, I’m extremely busy recently.

        Comment by niezmierniespokojny — January 16, 2012 @ 8:13 pm


    RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

    Connecting to %s

    Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

    %d bloggers like this: