Umfriend

Simple. Assume you have 13 Pooled HDDs. Each contains a hidden PoolPart.* folder. You direct Windows Explorer to P:\ (which I assume is the drive letter you assigned to the Pool). DP will read the PoolPart.* folders on the 13 HDDs and merge the results. Then you select the folder Movies. DP will read the PoolPart.*\Movies folder and merge the results. Etcetera ad infinitum. There is no reason I can think of to have the merged results stand-by for the entire folder structure. That would be slow. And even then, with large Pools if they remeasure/rebalance, then a complete list will be neccessary in order for DP to check dupliction consistency and construct a file movement strategy so it would have to read the entire structure (not the actual files) and that is done rather quickly as well (and transparent to the user, you won't even notice it is working on it).
This may sound slow but the 13 HDDs will be read simultaneously. There are many users here and I have yet to come across one that complains about DP being slow, whether read or write (except perhaps for the read striping not giving a benefit to some, such as me).

1x128 SSD for OS, 1x8TB, 2x4TB, 2x2TB, 1x900GB. The 8TB and 1x4+1x2TB are in a hierarchical duplicated Pool, all with 2TB partitions so that WHS2011 Server Backup works. The other 4TB+2TB are in case some HDD fails. The 900GB is for trash of an further unnamed downloading client.So actually, a pretty small Server given what many users here have.

1x128 SSD for OS, 1x8TB, 2x4TB, 2x2TB, 1x900GB. The 8TB and 1x4+1x2TB are in a hierarchical duplicated Pool, all with 2TB partitions so that WHS2011 Server Backup works. The other 4TB+2TB are in case some HDD fails. The 900GB is for trash of an further unnamed downloading client.So actually, a pretty small Server given what many users here have.

That is quite a few disks! Glad it helped and you got to work it out.

The Disk Space Equalizer plug-in comes to mind.
https://stablebit.com/DrivePool/Plugins

It may have to do to with other balancers. If you have Volume Equalization and Duplication Space Optimizers active, they may need to be de-activated _or_ you need to increase the priority of the Disk Space Equalizer plug-in such that it ranks higher than the other two (but if you have StableBit Scanner, that one should always be #1 IMHO).
I have not actually used that plug-in myself though.
Edit: Did you activate e-measure though?

The Disk Space Equalizer plug-in comes to mind.
https://stablebit.com/DrivePool/Plugins

I used Z once, only to find that the printer with some media card slot wanted it itself or would not print at all. Same for some Blackberry devices caliming Z. So yeah, hi up but not Y and Z.
I use P, Q and R.

I used Z once, only to find that the printer with some media card slot wanted it itself or would not print at all. Same for some Blackberry devices caliming Z. So yeah, hi up but not Y and Z.
I use P, Q and R.

That was my conclusion back in 2011 and I don;t think it has changed (but I have not really looked except for Macrium which currently I think is not for me and not as good as WHS even).
To my horror, I just found out that M$ is abandoning the Essentials role (and thus I assume Essentials entirely) in Server 2019, which I would go for! Apparantly the intended replacement is Microsoft 365 for business (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/business). The site reminds me of the marketing spoof where M$ re-designs the ipod packaging: No clue what it says. And boy, is it expensive!
So it may be I need to go WSE 2016 and that wil be EOL for me. I hate it that I'll have to invest quite a bit of time and only be able to rely on this until early 2022.

Still happily running WHS2011. The only thing I am missing is that I would like to also have a desktop replacement as a VM so that I can work off of a very light laptop (which WSE does not offer either though). AFAIK, WHS2011 is still supported for security and will remain so until somewhere in 2021. I intend to go Windows Server Essentials (WSE) anytime before then. Might be tomorrow, may be 2021.
AFAIK, WSE 2016 is a lot like W10, GUI wise for sure. WSE2012 is much like Windows 8. But consider this: If you go 2012, you will face end-of-support earlier again. I'd go WSE 2016 and there are cheap versions out there if you look for it, albeit a bit shady (I had an issue with a similar Office license).
AFAIK, WSE has a dashboard and Scanner and DP will be visible in the dashboard. Having siad that, when I want to check DP, I choose the DP directly, not through the Dashboard.
My main issue with WSE 2016 (and the same goes for 2012) is that you actually need to know quite a bit more about it. For instance, all clients will join the Domain by default, unless you use a Registry hack. I don't even know what a Domain is, why I should want it and how it changes the user experience for my small group of IT-illiterate users. Then there is that WSE will establish itself as a DNS server. Should be fine if it is on 24/7, liek with me, but how do I look for online help if on a client if the DNS server is down? Things like that bug me. WHS2011 was/is simply very simple to use and if you want to you *can* make it more complicated.

One difference is that if you accidentally delete a file, it will be gone. DP is _not_ a backup and you're setting yourself up for trouble when trying to use it as such.

DP has offered hierachical Pools since rencently, version 2.2.0.744 or so. If you're on an older version you'd need to update. Not sure if there has been a stable release already with this feature. I am running .746 BETA (an early adopter exactly for this feature).

Sure.
So DP supports pool hierarchies, i.e., a Pool can act like it is a HDD that is part of a (other) Pool. This was done especially for me. Just kidding. To make DP and CloudDrive (CD) work together well (but it helps me too). In the CD case, suppose you have two HDDs that are Pooled and you use x2 duplication. You also add a CD to that Pool. What you *want* is one duplicate on either HDD and the other duplicate on the CD. But there is no guarantee it will be that way. Both duplicated could end up at one of the HDDs. Lose the system and you lose all as there is no duplicate on CD.
To solve this, add both HDDs to Pool A. This Pool is not duplicated. You also have CD (or another Pool of a number of HDDs) and create unduplicated Pool B witrh that. If you then create a duplicated Pool C by adfding Pool A and Pool B, then DP, through Pool C will ensure that one duplicate ends up at (HDDs) in Pool A and the other duplicate will en up at Pool B. This is becuase DP will, for the purpose of Pool C, view Pool A and Pool B as single HDDs and DP ensures that duplicates are not stored on the same "HDD".
Next, for backup purposes, you would backup the underlying HDDs of Pool A and you would be backing up only one duplicate and still be certain you have all files.
Edit: In my case, this allows me to backup a single 4TB HDD (that is partitioned into 2 2TB partitions) in WHS2011 (which onyl supports backups of volumes/partitions up to 2TB) and still have this duplicated with another 4TB HDD. So, I have:
Pool A: 1 x 4TB HDD, partitioned into 2 x 2TB volumes, both added, not duplicated
Pool B: 1 x 4TB HDD, partitioned into 2 x 2TB volumes, both added, not duplicated
Pool C:  Pool A + Pool B, duplicated.
So, every file in Pool C is written to Pool A and Pool B. It is therefore, at both 4TB HDDs that are in the respective Pools A and B. Next, I backup both partitions of either HDD and I have only one backup with the guarantee of having one copy of each file included in the backup.

Sure.
So DP supports pool hierarchies, i.e., a Pool can act like it is a HDD that is part of a (other) Pool. This was done especially for me. Just kidding. To make DP and CloudDrive (CD) work together well (but it helps me too). In the CD case, suppose you have two HDDs that are Pooled and you use x2 duplication. You also add a CD to that Pool. What you *want* is one duplicate on either HDD and the other duplicate on the CD. But there is no guarantee it will be that way. Both duplicated could end up at one of the HDDs. Lose the system and you lose all as there is no duplicate on CD.
To solve this, add both HDDs to Pool A. This Pool is not duplicated. You also have CD (or another Pool of a number of HDDs) and create unduplicated Pool B witrh that. If you then create a duplicated Pool C by adfding Pool A and Pool B, then DP, through Pool C will ensure that one duplicate ends up at (HDDs) in Pool A and the other duplicate will en up at Pool B. This is becuase DP will, for the purpose of Pool C, view Pool A and Pool B as single HDDs and DP ensures that duplicates are not stored on the same "HDD".
Next, for backup purposes, you would backup the underlying HDDs of Pool A and you would be backing up only one duplicate and still be certain you have all files.
Edit: In my case, this allows me to backup a single 4TB HDD (that is partitioned into 2 2TB partitions) in WHS2011 (which onyl supports backups of volumes/partitions up to 2TB) and still have this duplicated with another 4TB HDD. So, I have:
Pool A: 1 x 4TB HDD, partitioned into 2 x 2TB volumes, both added, not duplicated
Pool B: 1 x 4TB HDD, partitioned into 2 x 2TB volumes, both added, not duplicated
Pool C:  Pool A + Pool B, duplicated.
So, every file in Pool C is written to Pool A and Pool B. It is therefore, at both 4TB HDDs that are in the respective Pools A and B. Next, I backup both partitions of either HDD and I have only one backup with the guarantee of having one copy of each file included in the backup.

HI Jeff, how large is the Pool, the backup destination and do you use duplication?
Edit: Ah, the original post says it does. In that case, you might rearrange your Pool hierarchical. E.g.
unduplicated Pool A: DIsk 1 and Disk 2
unduplicated Pool B: DIsk 3 and Disk 4 and DIsk 5
Duplicated Pool C: Pool A and Pool B.
Then you would backup either the HDDs of Pool A or those of Pool B, whichever takes your fancy. THis is what I do with my WHS2011 Server (although, it is rather small storage-wise)

Yeah there will definitely be some adjustment to the new forum software. 
there is a lot more functionality, but it is a lot more "under the hood" stuff, or will take a bit to get used to.
Also, there are probably settings on our end that will require tweaking, to get "just right", as well. 
 

"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a truckload of tapes" - but the latency....oh.

Then again, the OP apparantly can build a rough simple version in just a week so perhaps a second developer can be hired soon?

Really OT but I know some here used to visit there as well. Has Terry Walsh ditched the forums he had on wegotserved? If so, what is a good alternative?
 
Sometime this year I will build a new server running WS2016 essentials and as I have got no real clue about VMs I need some advice. Basically I want to build a big-ass Server for client backups and file sharing and, running on the same HW but isolated wrt access, a virtual desktop. The idea is that I can then someday buy a very light laptop that would basically be a VDI(?) and actually run my work things on that VM/RDP (but without any danger of damaging the actual Server part of the Server).

The only concern I would have is how DP would deal with removal of drives. Say you have a pool of 4 drives, 2x duplication and videos go to drive 3 and 4. Removing drive 3 would then result in, uhm, what?
 
I think this is why my experience with DP 2.x on removing/adding is somewhat dissapointing. I have a 2x2TB pool, 2x duplication. Had to remove 1. I'm sure I did not use Best Practice but it is unclear to me what the best way is to deal with this. So I am sort of an idiot with weird self-induced problems but I can see something similar becoming an issue with folder placement restrictions / directives.
 
It does appear, to me, somewhat contradictory to the fundamental notion of a Pool (or _my_ notion of a Pool) and I would not use it and would fear for user-induced data loss. Setting up seperate Pools seems a way more consisten way to go.
 
Anyway, do what you want. I got DP&S and I'm very happy with what I got!

Uhm, I actually want DP to be as simple and fast as possible and would prefer not to have fancy placement stuff in there. But then, I consider the File Placement Rules evil as well. My fear would be that as DP does more, it becomes more vulnerable to bugs and user mishaps. I wonder (but I may be well off here) whether using seperate HDDs and then defining libraries in Windows would not be a more logical solution for the suggested function here.
 
One of my main concerns is that (and I have looked at the UnRAID link provided above briefly) either DP can not guarantee placement as expected, causing issues when one expects to recover easily, or must check and produce error reports. Let's say for instance that you want a certain folder on one HDD, the folder size is 3TB and the biggest HDD is 2TB. What should it do? It may then spill over to others (this is what happens with File Placement Rules if I am not mistaken) but unless this is reported clearly, a user may still be off as bad as with random placement (where the user knows placement is "random"). If it is reported clearly then the user must still micromanage. DP may also say there is not enough space but you might have a 10TB Pool with 5TB free and still run into this. Another concern is that DP would have to become more context-aware when placing files or balancing and, when free space becomes limited, may need to reshuffle entire folders to make room for an addition to another. The UnRaid document alludes to such issues as well with their implementation of split levels (and as far as I can tell it does not do a reshuffling at all but errors out on free space even if in the aggregate there is a lot available).
 
I prefer DP to offer a single virtual drive and manage placement as it seems fit (use least occupied HDD or fill all equal %-age), run as unattended as possible and, if you have duplication, it will recover itself (for instance if you have a hierarchic Pool with one base-Pool/string as Amazon Cloud Drive Unlimited with a 500 Mbit connection and local HDDs as the other base-Pool/string). If it becomes bloated with user options and suffers in stability then that would, IMHO, be a bad thing.
 
Anyway, just my 0.02$ worth.

This is a storage / file sharing server, right? Way overpowered. But it will last you for years, YEARS, and you might do other things with it as well.
 
One thing, I think you selected internal memory consisting of one stick only. You can do this but it is better to have two sticks with half, so 2 x 8GB sticks. Very often, you can find kits or pairs of 2 x 4GB or 2 x 8GB etc. exactly for this reason.
 
If budget is not really an issue, go for it. Otherwise, you can do far cheaper. For instance, no reason to have a Z170 MB. Why not look at ASUS PRIME B250M-K and comaprables? About $80 I'd think and has what you need I think. An I3-7100 would save tens of dollers. The case is very nice but depending on where you would place it, cooling and sound may not be that much of an issue. It's not like this one is going to use a lot of power anyway. I would consider either a cheap case or a very expensive one. And not sure why 8GB, 4GB might do very well and 8GB definately will (2 x 4GB!). On the PSU I am unsure. It seems overdimensioned and I would think you can get by for some $60.
 
I am confused about using DP with two pools and (only) two HDDs?
 
You definately want to connect by cable unless you simply can't. I would not know of any reason to have WiFi- on the Serbver.

I had never considered defcon's suggestion but boy, does it make sense! It's ust that I am not interest in a rack itself. and these are horizontally orientated where I think I'd really like a vertical solution. But if you have some spare space in a dark corner somewhere (also helps with any noise issue) then this may be a vastly superior solution.
 
Sure, it is 2nd gen / Sandy Bridge, but so is the still popular i7-2600K. Here you get 2 x 6 Cores, that is like 24 threads at 2.2GHz!!! And at 80W TDP, cooling can be rather quiet. Kickass server platform.
 
I'll definately think about it.

Actually, I do not have that much storage, compared to most here I am a midget. My Server storage layout is as follows:
1. 250 GB SSD for OS
2. One Pool, duplicated, 2x2TB HDDs - These are for all the file sharing stuff.
3. One Pool, duplicated, 2x4TB HDDs, these are for the Client Backups.
4. One 750GB HDD for media that is unimportant.
5. One 2TB HDD as spare in case one of the others fail (which will not help if one of the 4TB fails).
5. Two 8TB HDDs for Server Backups, one is always offsite, typically rotated weekly.
 
I am never *that* concerned about power supplies actually. AFAICS, that is only important if you want to run *many* drives, especially as they may require quite a bit at the same time when starting up I think. I have a decent 350W.
 
As for the case, this is an issue for me. I want the HDDs to be easily accesible. So I bought a http://www.icydock.com/goods.php?id=155which allows for 5 3.5" hot-swap bays (but I would recomend the tray-less variant, fool that I was to buy this one) and something like this http://www.icydock.com/goods.php?id=141 for a 6th 3.5"slot (which is used for the Server Backup HDDs). For this, you would need a case with 4(!) external 5.25" slots. There are not many nowadays that offer that and I am actually using a very very old case (2003?). But I would like to go a little bit bigger and something like this http://www.silverstonetek.com/raven/products/index.php?model=rv03&area=en might work for 2x5 HDDs for storage (in my case I would have Pools of 5 HDDs with enough spare room to have Scanner/DP take one or two offline in case of issues) and 1 HDD for Server Backup and 1 2.5" for unimportant media (not duplicated, not backed up, I use old laptop HDDs for this).
 
However, it is a rather expensive, a case + three conversion kits. I'd rather find a case with hot swap bays in place. Unfortunately, I have not found them aside from rack-mounts but that is another ballpark entirely for me and not that cheap either... Should you go for 10-15 HDDs, then I think a 450-500W PS might be worth while.
 
Also, what I am still missing is a UPS which is actually a requirement IMHO.
 
But yes, it starts with: How much storage do you need and what is it you want the Server to do. Next, given how much storage you need, do you need this to be acccesible through a hot-swap bays or is it OK to open that case in case you need to replace/upgrade? In the latter case, it becomes easier and cheaper expect for the one backup HDD should you intend to make off-site backups (which I *highly* recommend). After we know that, it becomes easier to make suggestions, given a budget.