Windows 8 and 8.1 Forums


Confused on Storage Spaces with Parity and free space

  1. #11


    Posts : 1,925
    Windows 8.1 Pro


    Everything is a tradeoff. If you are concerned about losing storage, and are willing to deal with the added complexity of RAID, then use RAID. It's really that simple.

    If you want the simplicity of Storage Spaces, and the ability to just add more drives as they fill up, and are willing to sacrifice some storage for that simplicity, then use SS's.

    Everything in life has tradeoffs. Complaining about what is does not solve anything.

      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  2. #12


    Well I think complaining a bit is in order when a 6gb volume cannot store more than 4 gb of data. That's a 33% loss that I would not expect to be happening. I've not seen the behavior with any other storage system before.

    My post was to get confirmation and a possible explanation as to why it was doing what it was doing. It wasn't really to complain, but rather to understand.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  3. #13


    Posts : 1,925
    Windows 8.1 Pro


    Quote Originally Posted by pparks1 View Post
    Well I think complaining a bit is in order when a 6gb volume cannot store more than 4 gb of data. That's a 33% loss that I would not expect to be happening. I've not seen the behavior with any other storage system before.

    My post was to get confirmation and a possible explanation as to why it was doing what it was doing. It wasn't really to complain, but rather to understand.
    You've not seen that behavior from other storage systems before BECAUSE THERE ARE NO OTHER STORAGE SYSTEMS THAT DO WHAT STORAGE SPACES DOES.

    You don't expect it to behave that way because you are expecting it to behave like RAID, BUT IT IS NOT RAID.

    Storage Spaces has a unique requirement, that no other storage system has. IT CAN CREATE VOLUMES LARGER THAN THE PHYSICAL CAPACITY OF THE DRIVES and CAN GROW TO MEET THE FULL CAPACITY BY SIMPLY ADDING MORE DRIVES WITHOUT RECONFIGURATION.

    Those features are what drives the way Storage Spaces behaves. If you don't like that behavior, then it means that those features are not important enough to you. If space utilization is more important to you than convenience, then don't use Storage Spaces. It's that simple.

    This is not a bug. This is not a design flaw. This is how it is supposed to operate. It won't be "fixed".

    This is the same problem you have with Windows 8. You want it to be something that its not. So you complain about non-stop as if complaining will somehow magically make it into what you want it to be.

    It's like you're complaining that a pick up truck doesn't have the same handling as a sports car. You keep complaining that all the other vehicles you've driven have great handling, so you don't understand why the pickup truck's is worse. It's not designed for taking corners at 120mph, it's design to haul stuff around. If you kept on complaining about this, people would eventually want to strangle you.

    At some point, you have to just accept that things are what they are. Otherwise, you just end up annoying everyone you talk to.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  4. #14


    Quote Originally Posted by Mystere View Post
    This is not a bug. This is not a design flaw. This is how it is supposed to operate. It won't be "fixed".
    So, when you create a 6GB volume and that already takes into account all of the overhead and parity space, you are fine with it being full after about 4GB of actual data rather than 6?

    I don't feel it's unreasonable to assume that a drive showing up under Windows Explorer as having 6GB of capacity would actually hold quite close to 6GB, but as I have shown, it really holds closer to 4GB of data. That's 33% data loss. When you start dealing with multi-terabyte drives that could equate to 300-600GB of "lost" space in addition to the parity. That's insane.

    Like I said, I created a Storage space that consisted of 3 x 4GB drives, with parity. That's 12GB of RAW space, but it was "full" when I placed 4GB of data on it. So, if a user buys 3 x 4TB hard drives for say $409 each (Western Digital RE WD4000FYYZ Internal Hard Drive - Newegg.com), they would have 12TB of RAW space, but might only get 4TB of storage before having to get some more drives. REALLY?????? Unsure if I would trade a bit of ease of administration for that much potential unused space.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mystere View Post
    It's like you're complaining that a pick up truck doesn't have the same handling as a sports car. You keep complaining that all the other vehicles you've driven have great handling, so you don't understand why the pickup truck's is worse. It's not designed for taking corners at 120mph, it's design to haul stuff around. If you kept on complaining about this, people would eventually want to strangle you.
    My argument is more akin to saying a pickup truck is rated to tow 8,500lbs...but yet when you attach a 5,000lb trailer the truck is unable to move.
    Last edited by pparks1; 05 Mar 2013 at 15:14.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  5. #15


    Posts : 5,707
    Windows 8.1 Pro


    Quote Originally Posted by pparks1 View Post
    Well I think complaining a bit is in order when a 6gb volume cannot store more than 4 gb of data. That's a 33% loss that I would not expect to be happening. I've not seen the behavior with any other storage system before.

    My post was to get confirmation and a possible explanation as to why it was doing what it was doing. It wasn't really to complain, but rather to understand.
    This is most likely due to the block based architecture of Storage Spaces, if it was a file object based architecture, that loss wouldn't happen. Those "slabs" are probably the cause. There is some wasted space it seems, but since this is a new technology that will be improved later, I'd just take the hit and move around it and when it gets improved I'll be able to talk about them old days how we had to deal with losses like that.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  6. #16


    Quote Originally Posted by Coke Robot View Post
    This is most likely due to the block based architecture of Storage Spaces, if it was a file object based architecture, that loss wouldn't happen. Those "slabs" are probably the cause. There is some wasted space it seems, but since this is a new technology that will be improved later, I'd just take the hit and move around it and when it gets improved I'll be able to talk about them old days how we had to deal with losses like that.
    It's fine, if you guys are willing to lose 66% of your RAW space and that's acceptable, by all means...have at it. I'd instead go for a 50% at most loss, setup an external NAS device and run a regularly synchronize job that kept the storage drive and the backup drive synchronized. But that is just me.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  7. #17


    Posts : 5,707
    Windows 8.1 Pro


    Quote Originally Posted by pparks1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Coke Robot View Post
    This is most likely due to the block based architecture of Storage Spaces, if it was a file object based architecture, that loss wouldn't happen. Those "slabs" are probably the cause. There is some wasted space it seems, but since this is a new technology that will be improved later, I'd just take the hit and move around it and when it gets improved I'll be able to talk about them old days how we had to deal with losses like that.
    It's fine, if you guys are willing to lose 66% of your RAW space and that's acceptable, by all means...have at it. I'd instead go for a 50% at most loss, setup an external NAS device and run a regularly synchronize job that kept the storage drive and the backup drive synchronized. But that is just me.
    33%.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  8. #18


    Quote Originally Posted by Coke Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pparks1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Coke Robot View Post
    This is most likely due to the block based architecture of Storage Spaces, if it was a file object based architecture, that loss wouldn't happen. Those "slabs" are probably the cause. There is some wasted space it seems, but since this is a new technology that will be improved later, I'd just take the hit and move around it and when it gets improved I'll be able to talk about them old days how we had to deal with losses like that.
    It's fine, if you guys are willing to lose 66% of your RAW space and that's acceptable, by all means...have at it. I'd instead go for a 50% at most loss, setup an external NAS device and run a regularly synchronize job that kept the storage drive and the backup drive synchronized. But that is just me.
    33%.
    Nope, 66%

    Remember, you had 3 x 4GB drives. So, 12GB total. Set up the Parity Storage space and you lose approx 1/3 to the Parity setup. Then, I had created a 6GB volume out of the approx 9GB that should have been there. But when I got to 4GB used, I was totally out of space. That means 4GB out of 12GB was usasble, or 8GB out of 12GB was not. 8/12 is 66.66666%
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  9. #19


    Posts : 5,707
    Windows 8.1 Pro


    Have you tried using the PowerShell commands for Storage Spaces to look around each individual drive? I think there are some that MIGHT be of some use to see what's going on here.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Confused on Storage Spaces with Parity and free space
Related Threads
Hi there Getting fed up with loads of different Physical HDD's I've decided to use the Storage Spaces facility and create a 9TB storage spacel. Previously I used simple spanning but pooling volumes into a storage space seems to be the way to go now. Since I've already archived my main...
How Create a New Pool and Storage Space in Windows 8 Storage Spaces lets you group drives together in a storage pool. Then you can use pool capacity to create storage spaces. Storage spaces are virtual drives that appear in Windows Explorer. You can use them like any other drive, so itís...
storage spaces parity right? in Installation & Setup
set up parity with 6 3TB drives (2.7 TB) and end up with it looking like this... I though windows storage spaces took only one disk for parity? imgur: the simple image sharer also tried multiple times same result
I have a storage space consisted of 3 X 2 TB hd drives in parity mode. I used the drives writing 3,06 TB of files, that means I didn't used the whole available disc space (actually 2 X 1,81 TB available and 1 X 1,81 TB as parity). I added a new 2 TB drive to expand the array. But windows calls me...
How to Rename a Storage Pool, Storage Space, and added Drives in Windows 8 Storage Spaces lets you group drives together in a storage pool. Then you can use pool capacity to create storage spaces. Storage spaces are virtual drives that appear in Windows Explorer. You can use them like any...
How to Add or Remove Drives from a Storage Pool in Window 8 Storage Spaces lets you group drives together in a storage pool. Then you can use pool capacity to create storage spaces. Storage spaces are virtual drives that appear in Windows Explorer. You can use them like any other drive, so...
How to Delete a Storage Space in a Storage Pool in Windows 8 Storage Spaces lets you group drives together in a storage pool. Then you can use pool capacity to create storage spaces. Storage spaces are virtual drives that appear in Windows Explorer. You can use them like any other drive, so...
Eight Forums Android App Eight Forums IOS App Follow us on Facebook