DPM 2012 & Large Disk Sectors RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hello,

    I ran into a problem with DPM 2010 when I tried to set it up on a machine that had disks presented with 2048 or 4096 byte sectors.  It would not accept any disk with a sector size greater than 512 bytes.  Apparently, that was a well known problem with DPM 2010 so I abandoned the install.

    I would now like to install DPM 2012 but I am reluctant to unless this problem has been addressed.  Since many RAID controllers change the sector size that is presented to the OS (sector size may actually be 512 but the OS sees 2048) it is difficult to set up a server with a significant amount of disk space and have DPM function on it.  Does anyone know if this has been fixed in 2012?



    • Edited by Bert Penney Saturday, April 7, 2012 11:35 PM
    Saturday, April 7, 2012 11:33 PM

All replies

  • Anybody?
    Tuesday, April 10, 2012 7:29 PM
  • Hello

    Sadly I cannot answer your question, but I figured I'd share that I feel your pain - this requirement is NOT very clear in DPM documentation - and in fact I only discovered it after having a number of issues with DPM and working with MS PSS - who eventually noticed this after fixing all the other issues we had.

    I really hope this is being addressed in 2012 - it'd be good to know for sure.

    Tuesday, August 14, 2012 11:19 AM
  • Hi

    This is still an issue, even with DPM 2012.
    Does anyone know if there are any plans to support advanced format (4k) disks in DPM 2012 soon? I've read this on this forum:
    "In Windows 8, a new VHDX format is created that supports > 2 TB data storage and 4k sector disks. Therefore only in Win8 the backup is supporting 4k sector disks."
    Source: click
    So, can we expect DPM 2012 to be upgraded to use the VHDX format with the release of WS12 and Win8 (or earlier)?


    Tuesday, August 14, 2012 1:27 PM
  • On the one hand, it's nice to know that I am not alone on this issue.  On the other hand, it is disconcerting that after 4 months, I still haven't received a single response from a Microsoft person.  I have abandoned any plans of implementing DPM partially because of problems in getting it configured and running properly but mostly because it can't/won't support sector sizes greater than 512 bytes.  For me, that is a show stopper especially since 4K sectors size isn't bleeding edge technology.


    Tuesday, August 14, 2012 2:39 PM
  • Hi

    I agree it's not really ideal - we have our DPM deployments working fine in the majority of cases, and the 4K issue aside DPM is excellent - a breath of fresh air compared to the madness that was Backup Exec that went before it.

    The 4K issue does seriously need addressing as it is an increasing issue, and is certainly the main source of DPM pain for us now - it rather limits our options for sure.

    Tuesday, August 14, 2012 2:47 PM
  • I most likely didn't spend enough time with the product to become anywhere near proficient with it.  I just ran into configurations problems - due primarily to my own lack of understanding of the product - but I was prepared to hunker down and fight it out.  When I ran into the sector size problem, though, I decided that it was too much effort and abandoned it.

    This problem goes beyond DPM as well.  Hyper-V won't tolerate large secor sizes, either.  I find it ironic that two product that, by their very nature, have high disk space demands (Hyper-V and DPM) won't support the larger sizes.  Windows itself and, as far as I can tell, SQL Server will accept them so why not all products?


    Tuesday, August 14, 2012 7:30 PM