Thanks for the quick response.
> Specifically, the reason for the multiple disk requirement is the Real Time Duplication feature.
> This feature specifically writes out all copies of the files, to the disks in the pool in parallel.
Ya, I figured as much while writing my message and thinking about it. But needing 2 SSDs in order to be able to use the Landing Zone is asking a lot; they're not cheap, and motherboard SATA connectors are at a premium too. So far, without having tried either, I prefer DrivePool over DriveBender simply because support is much better here, but DB does not need 2 SSDs for its Landing Zone...
> The reason this is a big feature is that when a program opens a file, it locks it.
> That means it can't be moved, copied or otherwise altered while the file is open.
> This includes data on the pool, and definitely affects the ability of our software
> to duplicate the data.
Yes, I was going to get there, and ask about locks and duplication at some point, in another thread. So you are saying that Real Time Duplication hooks low enough on the storage stack that you can duplicate even while the file is locked?
> And why does this matter? Well, for instance, if you have a database program,
> and you're storing the database on the pool, the files will ALWAYS be locked. So,
> StableBit DrivePool would not be able to duplicate the files. However, you absolutely
> can turn off Real Time Duplication (we don't recommend it), which means you'd
> only need the one disk. However, this means that the data is only duplicated at a
> specific time, and once per day. If the files are locked during that time, then the
> data doesn't get duplicated.
Hmmm, that might be ok with me; Thanks for mentionning it!
We can, I assume, specify how often the duplicating job runs and when?
> As for Ordered File Placement Balancer Plugin (it doesn't replace any other
> balancers, but it *is* included in the SSD Optimizer due to technical reasons),
> it changes the pool's default "new file placement" strategy, which is to place
> new files on the disk with the most available free space... This balancer will
> also tend to keep the contents of a specific folder on the same disk (but it's
> not guaranteed).
Yes of course, if you always fill one disk before the others, content will tend to be grouped by folder, but I was hoping that "Folder Balancing" (for lack of a better term) had been added to DP (it was mentionned in another old thread in this forum). Ideally I'd want to fill disks using the default settings (most empty disk first) but grouped by folder. To repeat the example the other guy used, I'd want all 10 tracks of a music CD on a single physical disk (which 10 files are all in one folder) just to make things simpler when accessing the disks when the pool is offline, while still filling-up disks most-empty-first...