For my server I have been investigating several storage solutions. My latest test was with DrivePool (and Scanner/CloudDrive) combined with Snapraid. I was inspired by this video:
DrivePool + Snapraidyoutube.com/watch?v=kDCMpVgZb4g
Tested that on a test setup and it is easy as 1 2 3.
When I deleted a volume and created a new one to simulate a drive failure to test Snapraid recovery I removed the "failed" hard drive from my pool, did the recovery with Snapraid (which worked like a charm). Then added the drive back to my pool: but what DrivePool then does is creating a new hidden drivepool folder with a new guid, also the old data is then not visible. If I then by hand move all the data from the old DrivePool guid folder to the new one it becomes visible again.
Not a very big issue, but I wondered if I did something wrong, or this is normal behavior of DrivePool. I would think it would have recognized the existing DrivePool folder and use that guid so all data is back again without moving files manually.
Any ideas about this?
Also when doing some more testing I changed in one occasion the drive letter of the newly created volume: the new drive letter did not become visible in Snapraid, also not after a PC reboot. Then I read that sometimes this occurred and that resetting all settings should help, and yes that did bring up the drive.
I was really doubting if I should go for only DrivePool duplication or DrivePool without duplication and using Snapraid for parity. After a lot of reading and trying myself I now am convinced I should go for the DrivePool + Snapraid config: a litte bit more setup to do (mainly scheduling a script, but there is a nice one to start with from codeplex), but I do get protection against bitrot, and for my five 4TB drives I will get 16GB of protected storage (against one disk failure at a time).
Anyone has some arguments to talk me out of this and only use DrivePool with duplication? For me the main win for that would be simplicity, but at the expense of space (not my number one problem), but also no protection against bitrot.