chkdsk question


i designing new storage system in 80tb range.  we've traditionally used raid cards , ntfs, looking @ refs , storage spaces.  1 of big benefits of refs not having run chkdsk.  on new volume though, storing larger files - files in 2gb range.  fact volume not full of bunch of small files mean chkdsk run "fast", @ least in comparison bunch of smaller files?  i'd love stick ntfs because it's been around long, , want figure out if our workload might make more feasible.  thanks!

hi,

not run “fast” when storing larger files in volume. refs designed work extremely large data sets—petabytes , larger—without performance impact. file system, refs not resiliency, great maintaining extremely large amounts of data.

more detailed information, refer article below:

windows server 2012: refs replace ntfs? when should use it?
http://blogs.technet.com/b/askpfeplat/archive/2013/01/02/windows-server-2012-does-refs-replace-ntfs-when-should-i-use-it.aspx

best regards,

mandy

please remember mark replies answers if , unmark them if provide no help. if have feedback technet subscriber support, contact tnmff@microsoft.com.



Windows Server  >  File Services and Storage



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Azure MFA with Azure AD and RDS

WIMMount (HSM) causing cluster storage to go redirected (2012r2 DC)

Failed to delete the test record dcdiag-test-record in zone test.com