Jump to content
Covecube Inc.

vnguyenquangdo

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Good morning, I am planning to setup a virtualized environnement, where WSE 2012 R2 will run within a VM, on top of an hypervisor. Both Hyper-V and ESXi offer the capability to directly attach a physical HDD to a VM: in this case the HDD is not seen by the host anymore (ie the hypervisor), but is seen by the guest. It would appear, at least with ESXi, that this is really a passthrough mechanism, so the SMART data of the drive are accessible (need to check on Hyper-V). I'm curious (although I will test it anyway), as anyone ever tested this ? Regards, Vincent
  2. vnguyenquangdo

    HDD spindown

    Good morning This is not necessarily a question related to DrivePool itself, but in an attempt to reduce power consumption of my NAS running Server2012E, I tried to enable HDD spin down To no effect I'm afraid: - first I could not find the options in the control panel, as they are by default 'hidden' - even after 'unhiding' them and changing the various options, the spindown does not seem to happen As anyone been able to successufully use HDD spindown ? thanks Vincent
  3. Good morning I plan to acquire DrivePool, but one point I'd like to check first though: will it be possible to transfer the licence easily when changing the motherboard (something which is planned quite soon) ? Specifically, I will keep the OS identical, swap the motherboard, and restart I have read somewhere else I will likely need to deactivate the licence first, swap the motherboard afterward, and reactivate ? Regards Vincent
  4. Thanks for the feedbacks To Shane, many thanks for the link, interesting read indeed. I understand fully your position, and I also understand the added complexity. That would have been a nice to have, but I agree this use case has advantages and disadvantages. Not being able to read the HDDs on a standard PC would be one of these major disadvantages. I'm still comparing FlexRaid and DrivePool for my usage. For now I'm tempted to use both :-). Although I must admit DrivePool is way easier to use (it did take a little bit of reading to understand FlexRaid mechanisms) Which actually does raise a point: is there any known issues to use FlexRaid and DrivePool in combination (windows server 2012 essentials) ? Regards Vincent
  5. Good morning, Still running through my test drive of Drive Pool, which so far does meet most of my needs A few points though on the UI (they are minors, but I think they are relevant to many): - The small arrow to access a pool parameters, especially folder duplication, is really really hard to find the first time around - Enabling folder duplication on a specific folder is not straightforward, a shortcut would be welcome. Right now you need to click the 'pool option' arrow, then select 'File Protection', then 'Folder duplication', which is actually the second option. then you can select the folder you want to duplicate. Since 'Folder duplication' is probably the option most users will ever use once a pool has been created (and probably the single reason why customers buy Drive Pool in the first place), a one click shortcut on the main page would likely be welcome - Likewise, what about a 'Enable Folder Duplication' option when right clicking on a folder within Windows Explorer ? - I would recommend a one page overview of all duplicated folders, as it's easy to lose track of which ones are duplicated (or not), especially with a lot of subfolders - The overall window size is relatively small, it could benefit to be bigger, to display both performance and pool information Regards Vincent
  6. Good morning, I have been testing Drive Pool over the last 24h, and this is indeed an interesting product. However I'm wondering if it would be possible to add 'parity type' security at the folder level Kind of RAID5, but at the folder level. This would have the obvious benefit of not requiring twice the size of the data to be protected. It would obviously require three HDD (or more), the lowest size being able to cover the parity data required. Example: - 2 x 4TB HDD, with 1TB of 'duplicated folders' - 1TB HDD With only folder duplication, this would require 1TB of extra space With parity, the parity and data information would be spread across three HDDs, resulting into an actual data usage of 1.5TB Adding a fourth HDD would even further reduce the footprint to 1.25TB Is this something currently investigated ? Regards Vincent
×
×
  • Create New...