Jump to content
Covecube Inc.

cocksy_boy

Members
  • Content Count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About cocksy_boy

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. @Christopher (Drashna) the crashed interface was in the stand alone UI. When it happened the second time, I looked in the WHS dashboard and it seemed to be working fine there, but the main Scanner stand alone UI / app had frozen.
  2. Hi @Christopher (Drashna), yeah its version 2.5.6.3336. I've done it and added the hyperlink to this thread as the request link / ID.
  3. Odly, the UI on the stand alone app has crashed again in WHS 2011. However, if I go to the WHS dashboard, the UI screen is duplicated in one of the tabs, and it works correctly there, with no issues at all. I wonder if there is some kind of issue with the WHS "server" dashboard, and the main UI for the app?
  4. yeah - that's exactly how mine was. After a reboot, it seems absolutely fine - I didn't kill the scanner dashboard in task manager, I just rebooted the WHS.
  5. yeah - i ended up rebooting and it all seemed fine afterwards - it showed that all the discs had been scanned, so not sure what caused the GUI to crash.
  6. Hi All, I installed Scanner to check my drives on my WHS last night and set it off when i went to bed. This morning I RDP'd in and its completed a couple of drives and has a few more to go, however the UI appears to have completely frozen / crashed. The Server is still functioning OK, but none of the buttons / interface / scanner screen seems to do anything, and I can't minimise / maximise / close the window. Looking at Task Manager, it says the scanner is "running" and not crashed / not responding. Looking at resource monitor, Scanner.Service.exe is doing lots of disk reads so appears to be going OK, but I can't do anything in the interface / window at all. Any ideas? It's probably worth mentioning that WHS is running in a VM on ESXi, and some of the drives are passed though and some are virtual drives. Some of the drives scanned are virtual (so pointless to scan), and some are passed through. The reason I want to use the interface and stop the scan is to stop scanning the virtual drives, and tell it to only scan the actual physical drives that are passed through!
  7. thank you - that's really useful to know!
  8. Thanks @Spider99. for the second point, I presume I'd need an additional sets of licences for each program on the "client" to check the "server" remotely?
  9. Hi All, I have DP installed on my WHS2011 home server machine, but am planning to migrate my server to W10 instead. I currently don't run Scanner, but am thinking about adding it to my W10 system after migration. My question is: I plan to use W10 as a server without it being logged in (as I understand that is better from a security perspective), but want to check if both scanner and DP will load and work on boot, before a user is logged in? And then secondly, is there any way to remotely access any kind of status information for either DP or scanner, without having to remote desktop into the W10 server? Thanks in advance!
  10. OK, thats a good enough reason for me not to mount as a folder - I'd be bound to screw it up by and delete all by mistake!
  11. Hi @Jaga- random thread hijack - apologies @thepregnantgod: Are there any advantages of mounting pools (and / or drives) as shortcuts rather than drive letters, other than freeing up drive letters? And if you just unmount the physical drives in Disk Management, I presume DP can still see them and convert them to a pool which can either be mounted as a drive letter or as a shortcut? Cheers!
  12. Well and truly hijacked, but no worries - it's good chat!!!
  13. Caveat: I'm not a virtualisation expert, just a home user who enjoys messing with tech! Basically, you can pretty much attach as many virtual disks to a VM as you want. I have one virtual drive for the guest OS and then multiple virtual drives based on the various data stores (music, photos, films, documents, etc), and spread across various physical disks using drivepool to give a software RAID-type redundancy, and a separate disk dedicated to backup. It is possible to pass through physical disks directly to virtual machines and cut out the need for a virtual drive, but there are compatibility and other various issues which mean this isn't always the best idea or even possible. You can quickly swap a virtual disk from one VM to another, and depending on the operating system / hypervisor, it can be possible to connect it directly to a desktop PC and access the data on it. There are lots of advantages of using virtualisation, and specifically a hypervisor like ESXi or Hyper-V Server, is that they take up very little resource overhead on a PC / server set up as a "host". So, a half decent specced server with a decent amount of RAM, processing power, network, and disk space can run multiple operating systems on one hardware. Mine is not quite as advanced as some set ups out there yet, but lots of people run multiple VMs on one host with, for example: virtualised active directory, firewall, web server, backup, SAN, game server, home data server such as FreeNAS / UnRAID, streaming / data sharing etc. As each individual system (usually) only uses a small amount of resource at any one time, they can all be running on one set of hardware at the same time. The beauty is that it is very good for testing: if you want to try a new version of windows, or a new firewall, you just create a new VM, fire it up and play with to work out whether you actually want it or not. I think it was created primarily to work in large server environments where traditionally each system would be run on a separate physical machine. This is expensive from both set up and running costs (think electricity for power and cooling), and is also means that a lot of the processing power of a single piece of hardware is not used for a large proportion of time. e.g. if you had 4 physical servers that were using 20% of their memory &/or processor power on average, you could covert them all into VMs running on one set of similar hardware with roughly 20% capacity spare. This would save on hardware and running costs and multiply this over many servers then the savings can be big. There's also lots that can be done with redundancy, fall-over, clustering, pooling or resources, its easy to move a VM to another machine and just power it on, etc, etc. hopefully that's helpful?!
×
×
  • Create New...