次の方法で共有

Case Studies on Storage Spaces, Scale-Out File Servers with SMB3 or both

  • [アーティクル]

There are many customers out there using Storage Spaces and Scale-Out File Servers with SMB3 since their initial release in Windows Server 2012 a few years back.

Every once in a while, someone will ask me for details on how these technologies were deployed by customers. The best source for those examples is the Microsoft Case Studies site.

The list below includes case studies on how a customer deployed a solution using Storage Spaces, SMB3 file servers or both combined:

And you should also note that the recently release Cloud Platform System (CPS) is another example of a solution that uses both Storage Spaces and Scale-Out File Servers with SMB3:

If you’re focused on gathering data about the performance of Storage Spaces and Scale-Out File Servers, there are a few interesting white papers available:

For more information about Storage Spaces or SMB, you can check these blog posts:

Comments

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    @Wes

    For your first scenario, you should be able to use the same SSDs for both WBC and Tiering. However, the column count and data copies applies to all tiers in your virtual disk. To use 6 columns and 2 copies, you would need at least 12 SSDs and 12 HDDs. With 12 HDDs but only 2 SSDs, you would need to use 1 column and 2 copies.

    On your second scenario, you would need to create the second HDD-only virtual disk without using tiers. You need to use the -Size parameter instead of the -StorageTierSizes parameter and the -PhysicalDisks parameters (with only the list of HDDs) instead of the -StorageTiers parameter.
  • Anonymous
    January 12, 2015
    Hi Jose, thank you for all the fantastic information. I am setting up a new hyper-v host and we have twelve 10k SAS drives and two 240gb SSD drives. I'd like to create a sizeable WBC, and then set aside the rest of the SSD space as a separately addressed drive letter. Is this possible, or do I lose the extra space if I want to use these SSDs to cache with?

    this is successful after setting the SSDs to journal usage but I can't use my extra SSD space: New-VirtualDisk -StoragePoolFriendlyName test -FriendlyName maindisk -UseMaximumSize -ResiliencySettingName mirror -ProvisioningType Fixed -NumberOfColumns 6 -NumberOfDataCopies 2 -WriteCacheSize 16GB

    if I don't set my SSDs to journal usage, and then try this: New-VirtualDisk -StoragePoolFriendlyName test -FriendlyName maindisk -StorageTiers ($tier_hdd) -StorageTierSizes (120GB) -ResiliencySettingName mirror -ProvisioningType Fixed -NumberOfColumns 6 -NumberOfDataCopies 2 -WriteCacheSize 16GB

    it keeps saying "You must specify the size info (either the Size or UseMaximumSize parameter) or the tier info (the StorageTiers and StorageTierSizes parameters), but not both size info and tier info." I don't understand why this error is coming up, since I am specifying the storagetier and storagetiersizes without any size parameter...

    thanks!!
    Wes

  • Anonymous
    January 12, 2015
    The comment has been removed
  • Anonymous
    March 13, 2015
    The comment has been removed
  • Anonymous
    March 02, 2016
    Nice with a little insigt of Microsoft's Windows Build Team :)
  • Anonymous
    September 27, 2016
    Hi Jose, We met back in August/September 2014 in Redmond, after a Dell supported Clustered Storage Spaces deployment where we experienced performance issues. When we met with you and some of your colleagues you described our issue as "excess disk cache flushes". We're now back to a clustered solution which again we're experiencing the same performance issues with event log entries in the SMBServer |Operation Log folder as we had back in 2014. Researching the events that occurred previously and finding new resources I found a paper concerning the PerfMon Cluster CSV File System Flushes counter. I'm looking for your opinion of what an acceptable value is. We're seeing the values on four volumes as 419,000.000;293,530.000;118,125.000 and 804,080. In task manager the response times(ms) are 500-1000ms which ramp up over a period of time and then drop down to the 10-50ms and then repeat again. Also in task manager the disk performance has 10-20mbs of disk writes. Performance on VMs goes from ok to a drastic poor performance. Can you shed any light on this? What would be acceptable values? We'll be submitting a ticket with MS tomorrow. Thanks.Dave