Jump to content
Covecube Inc.

Ultradianguy

Members
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Ultradianguy last won the day on December 10

Ultradianguy had the most liked content!

About Ultradianguy

  • Rank
    Member
  1. According to Christopher, this is expected behavior. I could use the ignore command from CMD but since the drive was damaged, I just removed it permanently, so not worried about it getting added back. But apparently the Remove command does nor prevent DP from recognizing a drive and adding it back in.
  2. Thanks for the input. Due to other computer problems unrelated to DP, I ended up having to restore a system image from a few days before the problem with the drivepool service started, so that fixed the issue with no service.
  3. Wow - all of that? I was just going to uninstall and reinstall. Why did you remove everything from the pools and re-create?
  4. Just a bit more information - it turned out that although the pool drive folders were all there, they appeared empty, though the files were still on the underlying drives. However, when I run the service from the command line, it does work, and the pooled drive does become fully accessible. So - the question is how do I get the service re-registered into the Services panel - and why does the installer fail? Is it safe to uninstall and then try reinstalling? (I can never use the phrase "is it safe" without thinking of the movie Marathon Man). Thanks!
  5. Hi - I've had drivepool running fine for quite some time (other than being slow). Today I noticed that the UI was stopped looking for the service. Went into Services to restart and the service was gone. Determined that Bit Defender had quarantined the service executable, which I restored. Couldn't get it to show in Services panel though. Tried running the service from command line and it started successfully, but still doesn't show up in the Services panel. I've tried restarting the system - no help Figured I should reinstall drivepool, but the installer doesn't get past initializing, and eventually says it failed, with an error code about "The pipe is closing". I'm attaching the log file. Strangely, the pooled drive is still accessible despite the service not running - I don't know if that is expected or not. I haven't tried uninstalling drivepool yet - wanted to make sure that wouldn't make anything work. It clearly started with Bitdefender quaranting the service, but not clear to me why I can't get things reset. StableBit_DrivePool_(64_bit)_20191126144326.log
  6. Ultradianguy

    DrivePool SSD Cache

    Hi Chris and others - I'm pretty confused about the SSD optimizer and how plugins work together. I've read in some older threads that if you use the SSD optimizer you should disable other balancers - but that means losing a lot of important functionality, which is not at all redundant with SSD optimizer. I thought the point of the SSD plugin was that files would initially go to the SSD, and then from there, would gradually be moved to other disks, duplicated on the archive disks and balanced according to rules. It doesn't make sense to me that these would be in conflict with the SSD optimizer . This would imply you must choose between faster writing to the pool or having files end up where you want. Also - I read that you need to have as many SSDs as you your max duplication - is that right? Again - this doesn't seem to make sense if the SSD is a temporary location. If I turn off real time duplication, do I still need multiple SSDs? If SSD optimizer is highest prioirty - shouldn't off loading to archives happen before all the other balancers? It seems to me that this plugin should be designed to not worry about duplication since that would reasonably be for long-term storage. Or at least there should be an option to say - "don't worry about duplication until you get stuff onto the archive (non-SSD) disks." Also - someone had said that using multiple balancers result in them "fighting with each other". Again - this seems to contradict the prioritization. If two balancers would result in different arrangements - shouldn't the one with higher priority win in situations where they conflict? So - for instance - if Drive Usage is first - and it says put unduplicated files on drives 1 and 2 and 3 but not 4, and the next balancer is equalize distribution across disks based on unduplicated files percentage, my assumption is that DP will balance unduplicated files across disks 1,2 and 3 but NOT 4 since the higher priority plugin says don't put them there at all. However, one poster implied that after doing the first balancing, DP would then re-balance according to the next balancer - even if it conflicts with the previous. If so - it isn't really prioritization - it's just sequencing. If that's really the case, then one really should only use one balancer, which again, makes them much less useful. I'm hoping what I read was incorrect. Is this not the way it works? If it isn't, we need some better documentation on how these interact. I have assumed that I can use as many plugins as I'd like, with the understanding that prioritization position determines which have the most "say" over arrangement. I
  7. I'm setting up snapraid to use along with drivepool - lots of threads on here I've seen. However, I'm running up against a couple things I haven't seen mentioned. Unlike some others, I AM using some duplication and some DP balancing. I realize that snapraid won't be able to complete parity until the balancing settles down - that's fine. Once it's all rebalanced, the drives I'm using with snapraid will have static media files. Question 1: I have some files that will work better outside of the pool - such as image backups. I've seen people recommend setting the base folder for snapraid as the poolpart folder rather than the root of the drive - though I've never understood the reason for this. But doing that would presumably exclude files outside the pool. Would I be better off just setting the data drive to the root rather than the hidden poolpart file? (Maybe if I understood the reason for doing the latter, this would be clear). Also - as snapraid does the sync, it's reporting files that it thinks are copies but have different file data than the "other file" with the same date and size. Those files appear to be file backups of a database that gets saved frequently in dated folders. Snapraid says if it's a "false positive" I can rerun sync with a nocopy switch. What's unclear to me is whether snapraid is saying "I'm not going to count these as different files unless you use that option , so if you don't want me to ignore the additional file, use "nocopy". Thanks !
  8. Got an old 640GB drive from a system being tossed (WD Blue) - manufactured 2009. Obviously it's pretty small, so it's not a big concern, but I was surprised to find that Scanner started marking every sector as bad - I stopped it after something like 30,000 bad sectors. I ran chkdsk with the full scan and fix, and it reported no problems at all. ( I also did a full format and again ran it through scanner - same thing. And again chkdsk says all good). The drive was plugged into a USB dock that I've had no previous problems with. It also said no SMART data was available - but I assume that's just due its ancient vintage. Are there known differences in older drives that would cause Scanner to think everything was bad?
  9. Same here, with current version of Scanner .
  10. So I've been having trouble getting a potentially damaged drive evacuated and removed. I've posted other places about that so I won't go into those issues. However, after manually removing unduplicated files, I physically took the drive out of the system. When DP said there was a Missing Drive, I clicked Remove, and since it was absent, it pretty quickly got removed. I then plugged the drive back in and it immediately appeared back in the pool - rather than in unpooled drives. This is not what I would have expected - I'm wondering if this is intentional or a problem. My assumption is that once I click Remove and DP says it was successful, the drive will not re-appear in the pool unless it's deliberately added. I'm guessing that this is related to having used the Remove command when the drive was missing - but still, I wouldn't expect this. I couldn't use the Remove command while the drive was still present as there was no progress even after a couple days, despite there being only a few hundred GB of files on the drive. (Note my pool has been measuring for about a week, with minimal progress).
  11. I've been puzzled why unduplicated content on a drive with SMART warnings and damage was not being removed, despite setting various balancers to do so. I discovered today part of the reason - possibly all of it. I believe all the remaining unduplicated content were backup images from Macrium Reflect. Reflect has an anti-ransomware function that can prevent any changes to backup files. This was preventing drivepool from removing them. I realized this when I shut down drivepool service and tried to manually move those files to another drive. I'd have expected drivepool to report that files were inaccessible - but apparently it did not know other software was actually blocking it - which brings me to the next issue. Stablebit Scanner reported 20 unreadable sectors on this drive and 3 damaged files. SMART had indicated 5 pending sectors. I decided to re-run the scan after disabling the Macrium Image Guard - so far, it appears the unreadable sectors may have been caused by Image Guard and may not be bad. Remains to be seen whether the 5 pending sectors will end up being reallocated or become readable. The damaged files however were NOT image backups, so it's unclear if there was any connection. Bottom line: don't use Macrium Image Guard (or any other similar software) with pooled files. I may just move my image files out of the pool to avoid the issue.
  12. I've resolved a part of this but I'm going to start a couple new threads so people can find in the future.
  13. the disconnects were actually on two other drives - not the damaged ones. I'm not sure I'm understanding the dpcmd ignore -- I don't know which files on this drive are unduplicated and which are duplicates - so it's not clear to me how I should manually remove the files. That's why I set the drive usage limiter to remove only unduplicated files - but that hasn't happened at all. Feel free to respond on my ticket if you prefer.
  14. Also , as I've explained in our private messages on my ticket, I tried the force damaged disk removal - its not that it's getting stuck on damaged files -it's that it hasn't even begun removing files from this drive because it's been measuring the pool for days. It did at one point start to balance but only moved a few files on other drives and barely touched this one.
  15. Hi Christopher - I don't think this has anything to do with the damage on the disk. It's only 20 sectors and 3 files, of which I was able to recover 1. I can open folders on the drive, open files, copy files, etc And drive pool is generally taking forever to measure and balance the pool - it goes way beyond this particular drive.
×
×
  • Create New...