Jump to content
Covecube Inc.

Umfriend

Members
  • Content Count

    894
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    46

Everything posted by Umfriend

  1. Not that I am aware of. Can you explain a bit more? What is the setup - 1 PC local only or are we talking a server and shares? Get any error message? Can you give an example of a file that you can access one way (what is the full path and filename) but not the other (which full path and filename are you trying)? Any messages on the DP dashboard/GUI? What does the Pool look like (screenshot)?
  2. Umfriend

    Missing Disk

    Well, you currently have a Pool, say P:\. Just go into the Poolpart.* folder on the F:\ drive and copy the contents to P:\
  3. Umfriend

    Missing Disk

    I am not entirely sure but I would consider: 1. Remove F:\ and select the force or somesuch option 2. While you're at it, remove the SSD 3. Locate the relevant data on F:\ (in the PoolPart.* folder) and copy (my preference) or move that into the Pool. The data should spread over Disk 1, D, E and H 4. Remove Pool L, any drives in there. If not possible, see of Pool L comes up after reboot. 5. Format F:\ 6. Add F:\ to the Pool 7. Pool L should be gone but if it is still there then you should be able to clean it up 8. DP will reallocate files to F:\ once it re-balances That's what I would try and if step 3 succeeds then it should be rather risk free.
  4. And does the new 8TB HDD get used after balancing?
  5. My guess is that that found.000 file is very large? In any case, other than CHKDSK as a first step, I am not sure what to do.
  6. Power drain? Switching SATA cables (assuming the machine is powered off, otherwise less sure) should not affect DP / the Pool. I fear we're not really in DP-area but data recovery area and I am not that well versed in that.
  7. OK, so I can't be sure but I think these drives have an issue. So I am not sure what to do but my guess is running a CHKDSK on these drives is a good first step.
  8. No worries, we're all friendly here and just trying to help. So with default settings the new 8TB HDD would indeed be used and data would be offloaded of some other HDDs. On the SSD Cache / SSD Optimizer, I *think* you are right but I never tried it myself so I am not entirely sure. But there is documentation on the website and you can search the forums, it is a treasure for info.
  9. Umfriend

    Should I uninstall

    Well, duplication can be turned off easily and DP will remove excess duplicates. Not sure how you got duplication on just two drives. Some screenshots might help. The balancing that has occurred will be harder to revert. Why don't you want balancing? The only reason to uninstall I can see is if you don;t want to use the software. DP itself is able to reorganise as you want.
  10. I don't understand. At default settings, DP would already re-allocate files so that you would have an optimal distribution. Optimal in that case means that each drive has (approximately) the same amount of free space. If you have SSDs as cache and Scanner then you want to have Scanner at top, then SSD Optimizer. You can use the Disk Space Equalizer, I think to get all drives filled to [x]% but see no reason to do that. IMHO, with DP, default settings work very well without complicating matters. I think I understand you "seeded" the drives. That is perfectly fine. DP will rearrange files afterwards.
  11. Are you showing hidden files and folders as well? I would expect two PoolPart.* folders on these drive...
  12. Is thjat 192 read or write. I don't know. SMR drives do well on read and sequential writes. Random writes though above a certain limit though, ouch. If 20MB/s is a cap you experience on all drives writing through DP then there is a different issue. Time for some research, e.g. waht do you get on writing to those drives directly? You need to measure this with large, non-single file transfers I think.
  13. So on the two drives that have close to 100% other, what you may want to do is called "seeding": 1. Stop DP service 2. On each of these drives, move the data in the current Poolpart.* folder to the new Poolpart.* folder 3. Start DP (or reboot) 4. Let DP remeasure / rebalance. With the 12TB, if you have a precise product number you could see if, perhaps, it is a SMR drive (although AFAIK, there are no 12TB SMR HDDs by WD
  14. Can you see if Scanner is scanning that drive at that time?
  15. In RAID might work. Just adding a few drives as SSD Cache may run into the same problem I fear. Also, one SSD, even if it is SATA, will outperform 4 HDDs I think. I am assuming you don't have actual SAS-drives. Depending on the actual chipset, two RAIDed SSDs might do the job fully.
  16. Assuming there is no duplication, wouldn't a single 2TB SSD suffice as a cache? Way simpler for a somewhat specific use case IMHO.
  17. Actually, if you have duplication then this procedure is, IMHO, incomplete. When you move files out of the poolpart.* folder, DP may remeasure and suddenly find duplicates are missing and re-duplicate. If you have duplication, you can just power off the machine, physically remove the drive, reboot and then remove the missing/faulty drive from the Pool through the GUI. Remeasure/re-duplicate and it is done. If you do not have duplication, then I would attach the new drive, stop the drivepool service (so DP will not interfere), copy the data from the faulty HDD poolpart.* folder to the new drive (to ensure you do not perform any unnecessary writes on the faulty drive), power off, physically remove the drive, reboot, start drivepool service if necessary, remove faulty drive from the Pool through the GUI, add the new drive to the Pool, stop the service, move contents on the new Drive to the poolpart.* folder on that drive, restart drivepool service, remeasure and it is done. I think.
  18. I read this is as asking how to identify the actual physical drives in the case. I physically label my drives and stack them in the server according to their labels. Without something like that, I have no clue how you would be able to identify the physical drives...
  19. Moving data to the Pool while retaining the data on the same drive is called seeding and it is advised to stop the service first (https://wiki.covecube.com/StableBit_DrivePool_Q4142489). I think this is because otherwise DP might start balancing while you are in the process of moving drive-by-drive. I am not sure but I would think you would first set settings, then do the seeding. (I am pretty sure that) DP does not "index" the files. Whenever you query a folder DP will on the spot read the drives and indeed show the "sum". Duplicate filenames will be an issue I think. I think that DP measures the Pool it will either delete one copy (I think if the name, size and timestamp are the same or otherwise inform of some sort of file conflict. This is something you could actually test before you do the real move (stop service, create a spreadhseet "Test.xlsx", save directly to a Poolpart.*/some folder on one of the drives, edit the file, save directly to Poolpart.*/some folder on another drive, start service and see what it does?). DP does not go mad with same folder names, some empty, some containing data. In fact, as a result of balancing, it can cause this to occur itself. I have no clue about snapraid. I would speculate that you first create and populate the Pool, let DP measure and rebalance and then implement snapraid. Not sure though. You may have to read up on this a bit and there is plenty to find, e.g. https://community.covecube.com/index.php?/topic/1579-best-practice-for-drivepool-and-snapraid/.
  20. Yes, DP does not need nor use drive letters for the underlying drives.
  21. Do you have this option checked in Scanner: Settings -> Advanced Settings and Troubleshooting -> Advanced Settings -> DirectoIO -> Unsafe check.
  22. I had DP running on a Celeron 430 or somesuch, 8GB without any issues. DP is rather lean and simply does not need much.
  23. If you are comparing single SSD vs a Pool of spinners, then yeah, the SSD will load way faster. However, if you compare a single HDD vs a Pool of spinners then the difference should be negligible (or perhaps sometimes a bit better but I have hardly ever seen that happening).
  24. And here I was thinking HBA==IT.... Turns out I was wrong.
×
×
  • Create New...