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

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

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

Azure MFA with Azure AD and RDS