ReFS KB for best pratice and risks?

[myFist]

Hello!

Is there any KB-Article for ReFS best practice and risks?
And is my listing complete and right?:

- 64k Cluster-Size
- NFS vPower is not supported on a refs volume
- thin provisioning, ODX, TRIM/UNMAP is not supported for the "logical volume"
- supported devices: RAID controllers listed in WHQL or local disks
- iSCSI with WHQL RAID controller is also supported
- risk of corruption of the whole filesystem if a raid controller without enabled-writeback function is in use because in case of an crash the refs-metadata cant finish their transactions
- Backup of an VM with ReFS and enabled CBT is not supported? (https://forums.veeam.com/veeam-backup-r ... 45720.html)
- Additional: Driver Version 10.0.14393.2097 is the latest without considerable issues

And is it supported to partition a single logical volume in for example 1 TB NTFS and 9 TB ReFS?

Best regards
Robin

[PTide]

Hi,

As you've might have already noticed, there is a pinch of rapidness and a grain of unpredictability in the ReFS world Therefore I'm not sure if it'll makes sense to roll-out a KB right now. We'll discuss that internally with team, and I will update this thread based on the result of our conversation.

Thank you for bringing this up though.

[myFist]

That's right, but if Veeam tells us during a repository creation: ReFS 64kb is recommended (!), then you should not keep from the administrator what is supported currently and what not. I just noticed my listing by reading the ReFS threads and Gostev's digests.. I dont think that every administrator who created a ReFS repository read all these threads and knows the current "best practise"

But can anybody confirm please, that this list is correct?

[csydas]

Hi Robin,

Given that Microsoft thinks it's okay to slip in secret ReFS changes without any KB notes and that the Veeam guys here have basically had to pull teeth from Microsoft, I think it's safe to say that anything goes with ReFS at this point. We're running it more or less along the guidelines you have, but the repository has been demoted to a tertiary "nice to have" storage, but it's been relegated for servers we can afford to lose.

One of my biggest wishes for the next update is that Veeam removes the ReFS suggestion from the Repository wizard. Microsoft has demonstrated that they're not ready to take ReFS seriously, or any aspect of 2016 for that matter, with too many things being pushed off to Server 2019. (or later!)

Treat ReFS like that friend that is always late or flakes. It's great when they're there, but don't hold your breath for anything special here.

[Regnor]

- NFS vPower is not supported on a refs volume

I havn't read about that; do you have a quote or KB for that?

[myFist]

I have only taken down it because Windows does not support NFS on a ReFS volume.. but maybe Veeam does support their vPower NFS service on ReFS volumes?

[Regnor]

I think this only counts for the NFS Server feature of Windows Server and not for NFS in general.

[DeadEyedJacks]

It is correct that ReFS can't be used as source for any NFS export, doesn't matter whether that's Microsoft NFS service or Veeam NFS service. Also remember that both services can't coexist on same server and port.
I've a distinct NTFS volume for Microsoft NFS service for this reason. NB also tend to run Veeam NFS vPower on Proxy servers rather than Repository server or Management server.

[Regnor]

Do you have something official regarding Veeam NFS?
I've just tried it myself and didn't experience any problems.

[PTide]

The only information I was able to find regarding MS supporting NFS shares located on ReFS volumes was this old thread. Unfortunately, it seems that there is no a single word about the topic in MS documentation. As for vPower NFS placement on ReFS volume - you can choose ReFS volume for vPower NFS, you can even perform operations that will utilize it (Instant Recovery, for instance, I have just tried myself), but we haven't tested such scenario thoroughly. Although it seems to work, I wonder what would be the benefits of using such setup?

Thanks

[Regnor]

I don't see any benefits but if the primary repository is formated with ReFS then one will also use Instant Recovery with it.
If it's not supported or tested by Veeam then ReFS should boy be recommended.

[PTide]

Actually there is no requirement to place your mount server on the same server where your repository is. Besides, system drive is never formatted as ReFS, therefore you can always stick with the default settings and place vPower folder on there.

Thanks

[Regnor]

I was thinking about the repository itself as I thought we're publishing the backup files directly from the repository via NFS.
So it is supported if the cache folder is put on a NTFS volume but the backup data is on ReFS?

[PTide]

That's right, it is supported.

Thanks

[Regnor]

Great, thanks

Sorry @myFist for hijacking your topic...

[backupquestions]

It seems to work, but is it still "not supported"?

If not, what is the easiest method to move it to C drive?

[veremin]

It might be worth clarifying this question on Microsoft forum, since limitation is coming from their side. Thanks!