Interesting. Can you run a benchmark Vs. raw StarWind volume? Well..not really since its currently mounted as CSV. But other VM's on the target operate fine, even with dynamic vhd's, so I'm leaning towards a problem with that particular vhd, or the fact that its a second vhd attached to the vm (all...

Actually, the d drive is a fixed size and the c is dynamic...and the c drive is faster! It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. They are both on the same starwind target, even benchmarks show the d drive to be abysmally slow compared to the c drive..... I may just rebuild the VM and see if it still...

So I have a file server, it has two VHD files, C drive and D drive. Previously the VM was running on a non-clustered hyper-v host, ran fine, no issues. Moved it to the starwind native san hyper-v cluster, and now the D drive is super slow.....on the old box it was on 1 gbps connection and I could ma...

You`ve got three option to accomplish this: 1.Store the backups on the HA device, put one node localy, and the other one on the DR site. Please note that you need to have low latency (<5ms) and high speed (Gbps or more) channel between site to achieve this plan, so upgrading of your data link is ne...

I'm curious about this as well, I'd like to have an offsite backup of my HA volume and have been toying with ideas.

Have a 100mbit link to the other site.

Suggestions?

After running tests between Win2k8 and Win2k12 using the same jumbo packet and optimizations listed under this post: http://www.starwindsoftware.com/forums/starwind-f5/recommended-tcp-settings-t2293.html It would seem that Win2k8 wins out ever so slightly. Test setup: Win2k12 VM in vSphere host HDT...

Sure. Both are 6 x 512GB Samsung 840 Pro SSD's in RAID 10, 64k stripe, GPT partition set to 64k, 2GB of Starwind Cache One is Server 2008, no i/o accelerator, second is server 2012 with loopback accelerator installed. Screenshot shows different test lengths but they were the same, I had changed that...

Using the Dell H710p with Samsung 840 Pro series.

After performing more testing we are pretty happy with the performance now with the io accelator. It is much more consistent and obviously peaks out higher although I was more worried about consistency in response times.

I finally got around to setting this up this morning, we are not seeing a 2.5x increase, for us it's closer to 50% improvement, which is still pretty good. Went from 650MB/s to 900+MB/s It's still a huge hit over the performance of the local array. So much so that we are considering just scrapping t...

Hey Anatoly, thanks for the links. I'm actually waiting for support to email a download link for something to fix the loopback performance on the servers. I believe its a new IOCTL but I don't have any details than what was gleamed from my other thread. Performance for me was better to a remote node...

Can you create a new VM using the iscsi storage? Or is it only when trying to migrate the existing one?

2012 has issues with CSV backups, regarding DPM (or any vss I think).

That's why we are sticking with 2008 for now. We use DPM extensively so we can't really go with an unsupported setup.

I will say that clustering and csv was a lot easier to configure on 2012 than 2008R2.

Yup. 2012 is faster and different. But you need to "tweak" it. Unfortunately it's not just a registry setting or whatever. See this: http://blogs.technet.com/b/wincat/archive/2012/12/05/fast-tcp-loopback-performance-and-low-latency-with-windows-server-2012-tcp-loopback-fast-path.aspx Drop...

Well I had this on Server 2012 beforehand with similar issues, and I was under the impression that Server 2012 had much much faster loopback as it never made it all the way to the TCP/IP stack like it does in server 2008. But if you want to 'leak' me something to see if it will fix it I will be more...

And here is the SSD array without using Starwind. Quite a bit of difference.