Home file server
I’ve been meaning to do something more sophisticated (and rather higher-capacity!) than the current setup for ages. Right now it’s a Ubuntu box with a 320GB disk running Samba.
At a hardware level the plan is to nab a pair of 1TB SATA disks. They can be had for ~AU$250 each. But I’d like to get more than 1TB of storage out of them while also having some data duplicated. Some data matters enough to want it mirrored, some is essentially throwaway stuff: nice to have, but if I lose it I really don’t care that much.
The traditional way of doing this on a UNIX-like system would be to allocate part of the disks to a mirror, and part to a stripe or concat volume. The downsides of doing this are reasonably obvious: if you lose one disk you lose all the data on the concat/stripe, and you have to allocate the storage up front.
(Gross simplification, I know, as you can probably recover data if it was a concat rather than a stripe, but there’s a certain amount of stuffing about involved and I wouldn’t exactly guarantee it working.)
So I’ve been reading about Windows Home Server with some interest. They have a sneaky trick: there’s no mirroring at a disk level, instead you can tell it to mirror individual files or directories and those will then be copied to two drives.
So there’s no need to allocate storage up-front — and in fact WHS won’t let you do that anyway — just mark stuff to be duplicated and it takes care of things. If you lose a disk, you lose anything that was stored on it that wasn’t duplicated, but you don’t lose access to stuff that was stored on other disks because it’s not doing the concat/stripe thing.
There’s a known data corruption bug in the current release version of WHS, so I wouldn’t trust that. But there’s an update being tested at the moment (they’re up to RC4) which is supposed to fix that and improve write performance. That it also introduces an exciting new problem when the disks are approaching full is uninspiring but the development group seems to be aware that it’s a problem and planning to address it, so…
I’ll be grabbing the 2×1TB disks soonish and will at least give WHS a try. The fallback position is the “traditonal UNIX” approach. I don’t see that I have anything but UNIX-geek cred to lose by trying Microsoft’s tool.
(Incidentally, this granular duplication model is something the Linux weenies miss when they ridicule WHS and start in on how people should just use a Linux box instead.)
Popularity: 9% [?]