No more ReFS outside of the Workstation?

[Dabombinable]

Just now, themctipers said:

as long as I can recover data .. It stores important shit because I can't trust a HDD (all of mine are failing except for my Seagate 80g refurbished from 2004)

You can't recover data off a dead SSD. With a HDD there is at least a chance that a live linux distro will allow you to recover it. Though if my 2TB HDD dies I'd lose a lot of data as my 1TB external drive (which was slower than most $5 USB sticks) kind of had an incorrect power adapter accident.

[themctipers]

2 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

You can't recover data off a dead SSD. With a HDD there is at least a chance that a live linux distro will allow you to recover it. Though if my 2TB HDD dies I'd lose a lot of data as my 1TB external drive (which was slower than most $5 USB sticks) kind of had an incorrect power adapter accident.

Hm.  

[LAwLz]

6 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

Well, or just implement one of the many excellent file systems that already exist that are better and more modern than NTFS. But Microsoft doesn't do that. They like to make their own instead of going for the industry standard if possible.

Yeah that would be nice too.

 

They probably can't do that though because of the massive mess that is Windows. NTFS is incredibly tightly integrated into Windows. They couldn't even get ReFS to work without reusing the semantics engine from NTFS for ReFS.

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, themctipers said:

Hm.  

As @Dabombinable said, recovering data from an SSD is very difficult, if not impossible.  It's almost like trying to recover data from RAM (not quite as bad, but pretty close).

[Mira Yurizaki]

2 hours ago, themctipers said:

Hm.  

The problem with recovering data from an SSD is:

• The SSD controller may be using a compression method and it may be proprietary
• The data is likely striped out over the chips. I'm under the impression that SSDs really work like a RAID0 for flash chips. So if one of those chips is bad, you're not recovering the data.

[Doobeedoo]

Urm why do this. I have Enterprise edition on my main machine though. 

[Bananasplit_00]

4 hours ago, themctipers said:

as long as I can recover data .. It stores important shit because I can't trust a HDD (all of mine are failing except for my Seagate 80g refurbished from 2004)

i tust HDDs a LOT more then SSDs tbh. they can be recovered in most cases and live longer as far as i know.

[themctipers]

21 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

i tust HDDs a LOT more then SSDs tbh. they can be recovered in most cases and live longer as far as i know.

Mine all has bad sectors except for the Seagate. 

[Bananasplit_00]

Just now, themctipers said:

Mine all has bad sectors except for the Seagate. 

no bad sectors on any of mine last time i checked, not even the RaptorX 10k rpm 150GB screwball from like 200X something

[Jito463]

51 minutes ago, themctipers said:

Mine all has bad sectors except for the Seagate. 

I've had several WD's fail on me, but I've not had a single one of my four Hitachi/HGST (which is now part of WD) give me any issues.  And I've most of them for many years.  One even has 5 years, 7 hours of 24/7/365 run time (43,807 hours), while another has been running for 7 years, 3 months, 4 days and 1 hour (65,377 hours).  The other two are only 1-2 years old, but no errors there, either.

 

Quite frankly, either you just happen to be getting some bad drives - which is possible - or there's some other contributing factor causing them to fail (power fluctuations, heat, etc).

[bobhays]

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Gotta love forced updates, right?
I wonder what feature Microsoft will remove from the Pro version and try to sell back in a more expensive version later.

NIC teaming support? Nah, that was already removed and made server exclusive.

Local GPOs to disable some things? Oh no, they have already started removing some GPOs and making them Enterprise exclusive.

Remove support for ReFS? Oh wait, that's what this thread is about.

 

This is the problem with forced updates. Microsoft are not strangers to fucking their customers over if it will benefit them. Giving them full control over your computer is a bad idea and they have already abused it at several points.

 

 

Edit:

My only consolation is that ReFS is pretty shitty so I hadn't moved over to it yet.

Microsoft need to get serious and develop a proper file system. NTFS is ass and ReFS is terrible for the average Joe and not all that great for the intended audience either.

What are the problems with Refs? 

[WMGroomAK]

3 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

I've had several WD's fail on me, but I've not had a single one of my four Hitachi/HGST (which is now part of WD) give me any issues.  And I've most of them for many years.  One even has 5 years, 7 hours of 24/7/365 run time (43,807 hours), while another has been running for 7 years, 3 months, 4 days and 1 hour (65,377 hours).  The other two are only 1-2 years old, but no errors there, either.

 

Quite frankly, either you just happen to be getting some bad drives - which is possible - or there's some other contributing factor causing them to fail (power fluctuations, heat, etc).

I've had issues with Seagate drives myself and think the main issue is heat dissipation and how they sit in the enclosure.  Changed the backup system to power down the drives over the weekend and seems to have improved their lifespan so was probably more of a heat related function...

[Jito463]

Just now, WMGroomAK said:

I've had issues with Seagate drives myself and think the main issue is heat dissipation and how they sit in the enclosure.  Changed the backup system to power down the drives over the weekend and seems to have improved their lifespan so was probably more of a heat related function...

I tend to steer clear of Seagate myself.  Even more so, now that their consumer drives don't list the RPM speed; which means it's either 5900 RPM or they spin up and down as needed (most likely the former).  They've just never felt that trustworthy to me.

[LAwLz]

17 minutes ago, bobhays said:

What are the problems with Refs? 

Depends on what you compare it against.

If we compare it against NTFS, ReFS falls behind in terms of performance (last time I checked NTFS was about 7% faster, and that's with all the features that make ReFS "resilient" turned off). It also lacks a lot of features such as encrypted file system.

[seagate_surfer]

37 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

I tend to steer clear of Seagate myself.  Even more so, now that their consumer drives don't list the RPM speed; which means it's either 5900 RPM or they spin up and down as needed (most likely the former).  They've just never felt that trustworthy to me.

We are sorry that the spec information for certain drives is not appearing to be clear. Some of our current consumer drives list them very clearly in the spec sheet, others it's a little harder to find, we are sorry for the confusion there, it is not done intentionally and we'd be happy to clear up the RPM speed on a particular drive if given the model number. There are many times that we make these clarifications on forums proactively. Thank you for pointing this out.

[Jito463]

10 minutes ago, seagate_surfer said:

We are sorry that the spec information for certain drives is not appearing to be clear. Some of our current consumer drives list them very clearly in the spec sheet, others it's a little harder to find, we are sorry for the confusion there, it is not done intentionally and we'd be happy to clear up the RPM speed on a particular drive if given the model number. There are many times that we make these clarifications on forums proactively. Thank you for pointing this out.

You may want to check with corporate on this, as the website officially states that there will be no reporting of RPM speeds for consumer drives going forward.  I even made a thread about it back in April.

And also see this post in the thread:

 

[seagate_surfer]

5 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

You may want to check with corporate on this, as the website officially states that there will be no reporting of RPM speeds for consumer drives going forward.  I even made a thread about it back in April.

And also see this post in the thread:

 

Some drives do, however, have it stated clearly in the specifications/manuals for the drive, for example:

Here is an official product manual  including drives from our current consumer desktop BarraCuda line. Under the introduction section, there is a list with a heading of "These drives provide the following key features:" The first item on the list is 7200 RPM spindle speed. 

Here is another example: At the following general specification link for BarraCuda Pro drives, there is a column labeled Spindle Speed (RPM) where it shows those drives as 7200 RPM.

Here is a spec sheet for our FireCuda SSHD 2.5" drives, the heading of the sheet states 5400 RPM.

There are numerous examples with the drive speeds being listed, including in our IronWolf NAS drives and SkyHawk surveillance drives, sometimes it is not listed as clearly, but as mentioned, we would be happy to help provide information where needed for specific models. The reason we are on these forums is to be a resource for users.

[jagdtigger]

2 hours ago, themctipers said:

Mine all has bad sectors except for the Seagate. 

So what, i have a 200GB WD that has 10+ bad sectors but its still kicking...  BTW i think the problem is on your side because aside from that old geezer none of my HDD's have bad sectors(2x4TB WD Red, 1TB WD Green, 3TB WD Green, 2TB Samsung, 4x10TB Seagate Ironwolf[these are the newest ATM])...

Its pretty dumb to store important data on only one drive and place. At least run a RAID1 array with HDD/SSD + 1 offline backup.

[leadeater]

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

My only consolation is that ReFS is pretty shitty so I hadn't moved over to it yet.

Microsoft need to get serious and develop a proper file system. NTFS is ass and ReFS is terrible for the average Joe and not all that great for the intended audience either.

Eh? ReFS works fine for me and is amazing for VM hosting due to it's metadata only VHDX cloning features. Veeam also uses that feature to do zero I/O synthetic fulls. ReFS also supports inline data tiering. Really the only feature that was lacking is deduplication and that has recently been added.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

It also lacks a lot of features such as encrypted file system.

ReFS does support bitlocker though so that isn't really an issue, you can also use SED/FIPS disks as well.

 

Performance is also fine and even if 7% was still what the difference that's not enough to have an actual impact or to out-way the benefits. Here's a 4 SATA SSD array which achieves almost perfect scaling, that has more to do with Storage Space though.

 

 

Only time anyone really complains about ReFS performance is when they are using Storage Spaces parity and didn't use a journal disk for write-back caching, every parity array needs write-back caching to get decent performance even ZFS. What you're really seeing is the difference in maturity of the product and collective industry knowledge of how to use it correctly.

[vorticalbox]

22 hours ago, themctipers said:

Linux is better than windows at NTFS and making sure MY FILES DONT GO MISSING

if you're using Linux why would you be using ntfs? 

 

How does ReFS stack up against zfs on Linux? 

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, vorticalbox said:

if you're using Linux why would you be using ntfs? 

Compatibility.

23 hours ago, themctipers said:

Linux is better than windows at NTFS and making sure MY FILES DONT GO MISSING

Could you elaborate further? Sounds like either user error or something somewhere got corrupted.

[suicidalfranco]

5 minutes ago, vorticalbox said:

if you're using Linux why would you be using ntfs? 

 

compatibility probably. I would love to use btrFS or ZFS or ext4 everywhere, but i'll always need an NTFS thumb drive or external drive if i want to, say watch movies on my TV who can only read fat32 or ntfs

[vorticalbox]

26 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

compatibility probably. I would love to use btrFS or ZFS or ext4 everywhere, but i'll always need an NTFS thumb drive or external drive if i want to, say watch movies on my TV who can only read fat32 or ntfs

i use zfs on my main pc. What's wrong with fat32 or exfat for compatibility? 

[suicidalfranco]

4 minutes ago, vorticalbox said:

i use zfs on my main pc. What's wrong with fat32 or exfat for compatibility? 

exfat is not as widely adopted as ntfs or fat32, and fat32 as the less than 4gb file limit