Jump to content
Covecube Inc.


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  1. No one with ideas or suggestions for drives that should be available for the pool not showing up? ??
  2. Hi, I've been using the above for at least two years with no issues. The main host is W8.1 Pro running a virtual host of WHS2011. There is a 16 drive pool on the host, and a four drive pool on the WHS2011 guest. These four drives are offline in the host so they can be assigned as physical drives in WHS, and that all works fine But recently I had two drives of four in a non-duplicating pool on WHS fail within days of each other. It was a hardware failure on one, and a big chunk of sectors in the other. WHS got all confused and couldn't do anything useful, and there was too much dat
  3. Alex, I just read your analysis. Are those times shown in minutes? Or what? I'm not sure what they means, since drive throughput at certain times is the issue. I don't think you're quite duplicating the setup here wrt client computers, as your backups seem to be quite smaller, and do not take into account what happens when the global files I referenced start becoming huge and you can actually see the effects of the slow reads and writes specifically on those files. That's when much time is wasted in the total backup time, by those being referenced repeatedly for each cluster of blocks sen
  4. Alex, Christopher, Any news on this issue? --Bill
  5. Right. Ok, running 481 and with FileBalance_BackgroundIO set to False, I'm not seeing any significant change in ON the pool IO. It could be ever so slightly higher, maybe 5-10%, but since I can't really AB the exact same scenarios I can't be sure. For the most part it's still sub 30MB/s on any of those operations. --Bill
  6. Yes, I updated to .467 some time ago, and will upgrade again (later today) to .481 after WHS gets done with its post-backup gyrations. Thanks Christopher, I will make the FileBalance_BackgroundIO change when I have the service down for the version upgrade to .481. --Bill
  7. Hi Alex, I've pretty much come to the conclusion that it's not balance or duplication i/o related. I'm not using duplication on this particular pool, and there seems to be very little (if any) background balancing ever occurring. The four drives in this pool are way out of balance from a usage standpoint, and very little seems to be done to change that. A visual guess at the usage numbers: Drive 1 (G) at 15-20% Drive 2 (H) at 55% Drive 3 (J) at 50% Drive 4 (K) at 1% (designated as a feeder) Balancing is set for once per day at 7pm, and balancers in order are: Arc
  8. That makes sense, but in practice, at least in WHS2011 during backups, it doesn't seem to hold up. If I'm interpreting what happens in WHS in the backup phase correctly, the very time consuming tasks involve pretty large files that are somehow being appended to or inserted into from smaller files. I don't know how they are actually accomplishing this, but it's hard to imagine they are reading and writing to the entire file for that length of time, and ending up with a larger file of the same name. The sequences seem to be: 1. Read system and block information of the backed up compu
  9. Haven't heard anything from StableBit yet, but have continued my testing. And rather that to rely on stats displayed by the Disk Performance display in DrivePool, which as Christopher suggests, only shows what is going through the DrivePool driver, I have taken to monitoring drive read/write speeds in the Windows Performance monitor software, which can display the data as updating text or different graph types. Independently of that, I have checked other possibilities by 1) disabling all balancing plugins (no difference) and 2) enabling one drive as a feeder (non duplicating pool) which i
  10. A suggestion, if possible. Could the code in Disk Performance be changed so that instead of showing one filename (unknown as to whether it is the read or write file, when you hover over the up arrow, it shows the read filename, and hovering over the down arrow shows the write filename? Could be very useful if practical in the code. --Bill
  11. I think I have a handle on what's going on with this. The reason it looks like a file is being copied is because it is, sorta. Actually one is being appended or inserted into another each time there is an exchange of data packets from the WSS client software. There are other data files transferred, but there are two of particular concern because they grow in size. The two are: GlobalCluster.4096.dat and S<ID #>-<backup client #>.<drive-letter>.VolumeCluster.4096.dat eg S-1-5-21-2138122482-2019343856-1460700813-1026.F.VolumeCluster.4096.dat This
  12. I'm performing some backups right now to a single 3T drive with no Drivepool in the loop at all. It's very fast, reaching and holding at GigE cable speeds (900Mbits or better). During this, the drive is writing in real time and more than keeping up. There are no long pauses of heavy drive activity and the blocking of network traffic. It looks like the WHS client software on the machine being backed up, writes to the net in typically 40G chunks, 4G at a time. It does it one right after another as *.new files. Those accumulate until there's a little burst of small control files and a commit
  13. You're saying what I'm saying, which is what I'd expect to happen. But when you watch the Disk Performance area under Disks in DrivePool UI, it clearly is doing a specific copy, with both an up and down arrow showing the same throughput, and that's always copying one of the file types I mentioned to the same drive. It will be the only drive whose LED is on 100%. As soon as that stops, all the network activity and normal multi-drive activity resumes. It's very strange. Whatever OS is connecting to the physical drives will manage them, virtual or not (if they are declared as physical
  14. Thanks Christopher. I will do that over the weekend, along with another test I want to try. I'd have to ask the question that if WHS only knew about the drive pool as a unit (a single 'drive'), how would it know how to copy to the same physical drive it was reading from? I don't believe it could, thus my suspicion of another culprit. --Bill
  • Create New...