Jump to content
Covecube Inc.

cocksy_boy

Members
  • Content Count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cocksy_boy

  1. After posting, I found an issue I had missed: the disk was marked as Read Only in disk management. After running DISKPART from cmd I managed to remove the read-only tag using the command attributes disk clear readonly and it appears to be OK now.
  2. Hi All, I had a really odd error that has left one of my pools not working correctly. I shit my system down as per normal and when i bought it back up, Drivepool sent me an error saying a disk was missing. The disk appeared in Disk Management but was not initialised. So I shut down and checked the connections, and rebooted a couple of times and the drive came back up, Drivepool found it and subsumed it back into the pool. However, whenever I try and write to the pool, or the individual drive that disappeared and came back, I get the windows error: Catastrophic Failure (Error 0x8000FFFF). Googling this wasn't much help, so I thought I'd remove it from the pool and re-add it, which is when DrivePool came up with the error: "The Media is Write Protected". The other drive in the pool is fine, but I can't do anything in the pool or the other drive. Any ideas how to resolve this?!
  3. As per the title, I did a scan and it came up with a file system damaged error on one of my disks. After a lot of work with chkdsk, I think I've fixed it (or at least chkdsk reports no errors any more), so I'd like to run a file system scan within scanner, but not do a full surface / sector scan if possible (to save time). Is this possible at all, or is the only option just to do the whole lot? TIA.
  4. @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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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?
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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!
  10. thank you - that's really useful to know!
  11. 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?
  12. 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!
  13. 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!
  14. 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!
  15. Well and truly hijacked, but no worries - it's good chat!!!
  16. 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?!
  17. Hmmmm - i like your thinking here about nesting the hypervisors / hosts.. I'll have a little think and see if I can work out how to do it with limited disks...! Cheers.
  18. DP works fine with both VHDX's and VMDKs - the guest operating system just sees them as physical drives and DP works fine - it has been on my system for the last few years. The problem is that VHDX's are incompatible with ESXi and VMDKs are incompatible with Hyper-V, so the migration is tricky!
  19. Unfortuantely as the old is in VHDX format and the new is in VMDK (former for Hyper-V and latter for EXSi), they can't both be on a single system at the same time. Otherwise, yes, that would be the perfect way to do it!
  20. Thanks - you've hit the nail exactly on the head.... Ive got backups as well and the duplicates for all of the important data - the other is going to have to risk it for the period when I don't have dupes or backup.... hopefully not too long! I'm having to have to split the vmdks across the available disks exactly as you suggested. I think I'll copy the data into a single vmdk and then add a second vmdk at a later stage and turn on duplication when I've confirmed all the data has copied across ok. Fun times!
  21. Thanks guys; what I neglected to mention was that my set up is in VMs, and as part of my migration I'm changing from hyper-v to ESXi... It's adding a little complication as I need to either convert the vhdx to vmdk or set up one machine with hyper v to copy from and the other in ESXi to receive the copy... Both methods requie twice the amount of space as there is data.... It's like one of those little grid tile puzzles with a single space that you need to shuffle all the pieces around to make the picture!!
  22. Hi, I've been doing some shuffling of data to some new drives and installation to a new system. The problem i have is that I've not quite got enough internal disks or system infrastructure in my home environment to simply copy all my data from the old to the new, so I'm having to do it bit by bit (no pun intended). I've come to a minor conundrum; and my question is: is it better to a. Add 2 empty disks to a pool, turn on duplication and then copy the data to the new pool and let it duplicate as it copies the data to the pool? or b. Copy the data to a new single disk, then add another disk to the pool and turn on duplication? Option b is going to be slightly less risky for me as it means I have less data to shuffle round and am able to another copy of it while I an writing to the new pool. I can then check and make sure there is no issue before wiping the other drive and adding it to the poo, although it might then take a long time to duplicate the data (about 2.5 TB). I suspect option a will be more efficient, as it will simultaneously write to 2 disks, rather than to one then duplicating to another later on, but are there any other issues / pros / cons? Any help greatly appreciated!
×
×
  • Create New...