Jump to content
Covecube Inc.

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Past hour
  2. Mostly right, yes. Though, if you have drives on your account these will show up, but as "in use" drives. You can force mount them on the new system. You'll want to run a CHKDSK pass on the drives, in this case. And once the drives are mounted on the new system, and StableBit DrivEpool is installed, it shold see these drives as pooled drives (if they were pooled) and recreate the pools. From there, add disks to the pool, and it should "just work" for you. Or copy files from the CloudDrive pool to a new local pool. In this case, contact us at https://stablebit.com/c
  3. Yup. Specifically, it uses the Volume ID for the drives, which shouldn't change ever, normally (cloning the drive *may* change it, though). So DrivePool is very resilient about moving drive around, even to other controllers (as long as they show up correctly).
  4. Unfortunately, we see this from time to time. I think it's something to do with Invision's security stuff
  5. Yesterday
  6. Shane

    Warning issued

    Weird. Your account had been flagged, but I can't see any reason for it. Should be fixed now.
  7. Outstanding. Thanks a bunch for the quick reply.
  8. Hi I'm new to both DrivePool and CloudDrive and so I just wanted to check that what I plan to do will work as a backup solution. I have a PC which I built as a general repository for all our important digital stuff and a media server. The machine has a pool of HDDs in duplicated mode which stores backups for various Pcs in the house, but I wish to also have a copy of these backup files off site. To this end I've used CloudDrive to create a couple of 1TB drives which are connected to separate MS OneDrive accounts. So that I can make most efficient use of the space I've then used DrivePool
  9. hawky358

    Warning issued

    Hello, I've been on the forum for many years, never posted though. I posted my first question a few days ago and now I get the following message: There is nothing in notices or somewhere where I can acknowledge this. Can someone please assist?
  10. If you uninstall DrivePool, any existing pools will retain their content and be automatically re-detected when you reinstall DrivePool. Their duplication levels should be kept, but you may need to recreate any custom balancing/rules you had for them.
  11. No need to worry, Drivepool is not affected by changing which bay any of its drives is in. So long as it can see the drives locally, you're good.
  12. Sorry for the threadnecro, but due to some Best Buy sales, I was able to replace the four low-capacity drives with four 16TB monsters. However, because of the way my enclosure is put together (insufficient airflow), it looks like I'm going to have to separate them due to heat issues (as reported by Scanner). As such, I'll be repositioning these drives in my bays so that they're not immediately next to any other drives (they're low-capacity, so I'll probably just pull and retire them). This isn't gonna screw anything up, will it? Is Drivepool's drive identification bay-dependent or inde
  13. Looking for a little guidance so as to avoid making any errors that could cause damage. Avira Antivirus updated and for some reason the settings are different so it flagged all of my Stablebit Drivepool (and Stablebit Scanner) files on my WHS2011 system. I suspected this was a heuristic error on Avira's part, but did some searching in the forum to confirm that was true. My issue is that for whatever reason Avira is unable to restore the program files back into the correct spots, so instead it just dumped them into a folder on the desktop called "RESTORED". Clearly that is not very he
  14. Last week
  15. Nice catch. I'm guessing the large difference in the example screenshots is because you have NTFS compression enabled?
  16. Are you going to head back to StableBit DrivePool and make some updates and add some of the posted suggestions? This is fantastic software and I hate to see it stagnating.
  17. Generally well-developed. Scanner will also still report - as you found - that the drive itself is flagging a problem even if Scanner can't recognise exactly what the problem is.
  18. So if Scanner is using a generic interpretation rule on the drive, it may not be interpreting the drive correctly? Or should the interpretation rules be generally well developed for the major brands and models?
  19. The problem is that SMART is not a strictly formalised standard; every manufacturer has their own implementation (sometimes differing even between models) using different scales and ranges and formats. Manufacturer A might use values between 100 and 199 at location 235 to measure an aspect of their drives while Manufacturer B might use values between 0 and 65535 at location 482 for that same aspect; and those values may not even be in the same scale (e.g. celsius vs kelvin vs fahrenheit for temperature). And so on ad nauseum. This means that if the particular SMART software you're using d
  20. Thanks for the insight. I installed HD Sentinel and it is saying the Spin Retry is the cause of the failure prediction. Which is interesting because Scanner shows that with a value of 0. Aren't these SMART values stored on the disk itself? How can each program shows different values? Are they displaying differing interpretations?
  21. If Scanner is suggesting the drive might fail, then I would try to move that data off and get that drive offline as fast as possible. Once offline, then I would suggest running some diagnostics on the empty drive. You already have Scanner, but I would also suggest downloading the free version of Hard Disk Sentinel for a second opinion. In my experience, once these monitoring programs detect something they don't like, it is best practice to assume imminent drive failure. Only once did my programs detect a false positive on a drive. I removed all data from it and took it offline. Fortunate
  22. Overnight Scanner service read the SMART details of a Seagate 6TB drive and decided that the drive is in imminent danger of failure and started evacuating the drive. However, all the Attributes are showing as green. Same model drive in this machine has similar attributes, but is not predicting failure. I noticed both drives are using generic interpretation rules. I triggered an interpretation rule update to be sure there weren't wrong rules being applied. CrystalDiskInfo shows no problem with either drive. I would appreciate any help interpreting what is go
  23. Hello, I've noticed recently that Drivepool deals with "Size" vs "Size on disk" differently inside and outside of the pool which causes drivepool to think the drive is bigger than it is. From what I can tell: When files are outside of the pool it uses the "Size on disk" i.e. "Used space" reported by Windows + "Free space" and calculates the size of the drive. When files are in the pool it uses the "Size" not "size on disk" to calculate used space + "Free space" to calculate size of the drive. This causes a discrepancy in the size it believes the drive to be and ca
  24. I have several of these Seagate ST2000DM001 2TB drives with 2-3 million LCC that are 6 to 8 years old with only this LCC issue. Gradually replacing or using for other things.
  25. Earlier
  26. +1 for this, or "Daily upload limit". Throttling upload speed also limits the amount of overhead request data to download from the cloud, so by limiting upload speed, you are de facto limiting download speed.
  27. Plex would be dependent on the caching and throttling settings you have set in CloudDrive. Plex might influence the amount of data pulled based on your "Transcoder default throttle buffer" value and bandwidth limits in Plex Server settings. If I'm attempting to play cloud videos on Plex, I do notice an additional 1 to sometimes 5 second delay before the video starts, but I see similar latency in the cloud disk access times. Plex can't start playing the video until it buffers enough from CloudDrive. In my experience, Plex will fill the transcoder buffer to the limit specified, and request as ma
  28. Partition the larger ssd(s) so dp sees more than three but dont add all the ssd's to the ssd optimizer plugin - so one or more are still archive disks so the placement rules will work or use the third ssd as the archive disk and not part of the ssd optimizer etc etc
  29. Hmm. Tricky. I've done some testing; the SSD Optimizer balancer conflicts with the requirement to keep certain files on the SSDs because the Optimizer wants to flush the cache disks despite the File Placement rules (even if it does not do so on the first balancing run, it will do so on a subsequent run) regardless of the File Placement Settings in the Settings tab. I'm not sure if that's a bug or if it is working as intended... though I suspect maybe the former. I'll play around with it some more and see what I can come up with. EDIT: @Christopher (Drashna) is it possible to get the
  1. Load more activity


  • Create New...