Anyone else experimenting with Storage Spaces and find that the Tier should be where Resiliency Setting are defined?
It would make sense to have Tier's will various resiliency settings.
(Write-Intensive SSD) - Raid 1/10
(Write-Intensive SSD) - Raid 5/6/50/60
(Read-SSD) - Raid 1/10
(Read-SSD) - Raid 5/6/50/60
(7k HHD) - Raid 1/10
(7k HHD) - Raid 5/6/50/60
Command might look like this:
New-StorageTier -StoragePoolFriendlyName "Archive Storage Pool" -FriendlyName "(Write-Intensive SSD) - Raid 5/6/50/60" -MediaType SSD -ResiliencySettingName Parity -PhysicalDiskRedundancy 2
Maybe one would need to include what disks in the pool to use for this Tier also similar to adding disks to the StoragePool but it would require them to be a subset of the disks already in the pool.
Then you could mix multiple Tiers with a Virtual disk to achieve various performance requirements or storage reliability/capacity/usage requirements. If data is not used it could move through various Tiers to ultimately land on the slower capacity based Tier.
If you fill Tier 1 space then data could be written to HHDs with Raid 1/10 and still get better performance than standard HHD with Raid 5 or Raid 6 and then later as data is progressed it can be moved to Raid 5/6/50/60.
I heard that Parity is not supported with Tiering also but when I tried it via the command line there was no objection to the configuration so perhaps that either old data floating around or its just the GUI that does not offer Parity with Tiering?
Just some thoughts.