SSD Optimizer and data distribution

[JasonC]

I am curious about how the SSD Optimizer distributes data.  I was expecting it to be a little more evenly spread across my disks, but it seems like 1 disk in particular gets a lot, although everyone is getting some data. I'm just eyeballing this, but the one that is obviously more full looks to be in the 80% range, while  5 others are around 50-60, and 3 are around 30%. The disks are not uniform in size, but I don't feel like that would account for the relative % changes, because the smaller disks(2TB) are also showing the least full.

 

I currently have only the SSD Optimizer and Scanner plugs enabled. Perhaps I'm expecting too much, if I want a more even distribution, should I re-enable Volume Equalization? I was under the impression enabling any other balancer would interfere with the SSD optimizer, or not produce any benefit..

[Christopher (Drashna)]

The default strategy is the place files on the disk with the most available free space. 

 

This applies to the SSD Optimizer balancer, as well.  The exception is if you've enabled the "Ordered File Placement options.

[JasonC]

The default strategy is the place files on the disk with the most available free space. 

 

This applies to the SSD Optimizer balancer, as well.  The exception is if you've enabled the "Ordered File Placement options.

Hmm ok, I don't think that's working right for me, or I'm misunderstanding the strategy. The distribution still seems off to me(consider Samsung03 to be a known outlier, it was removed and re-added recently).

Of my 4TB disks, one is clearly getting more data put on it then the others, and I don't have an ordered file placement options set. And even other smaller total capacity disks that have more free space most be getting less data loaded to them.

 

SEAGATE01 - 05 are all identical disks, but clearly Seagate01 is getting more then everyone else.  The HGSTs and Samsung disks even, although smaller disks have more free space.

 

Does this seem outside of the expected behavior to you?

 

 

[MatthewW]

Same.  These are very similar sized drives (224 and 233 GB after formatting).  Two are being ignored--and these are queued downloads over some time, not a bunch of pre-allocated files hitting the same drive or anything.

 

 

[Christopher (Drashna)]

The Samsung and HGST drives are smaller than the Segate drives? 
If so, then that means that hte seagate drives will get the data before the others.  The default strategy is to place files on the disks with the most available free space, measured absolutely, not by percentage.