Alex

Dough, The first problem that I can see with this is that you may not have enough disk space on the other disks to accomplish this. Filling a disk completely to capacity can cause problems if files need to expand in size. That's why we have the option "Try not to fill a drive above...". Let me explain what should be happening, based on your screenshots: The Disk Space Equalizer runs and redistributes your files equally across all disks. Not considering any other factors. The StableBit Scanner balancer runs and does nothing (since you have no damaged disks). The File Placement Limiter runs and sees that you've requested to: Move all unduplicated files out of drive N:\ But never fill the other drives above 85% Step #3 now sees that the other drives are all above 85% full and tries to move enough data back onto N:\ to satisfy condition #3.2 Based on that, is some step not working here as described, or are you trying to accomplish something else?

Just to followup with some more info, I've tested this on Windows 8 with UAC enabled / disabled / completely disabled (via. registry hack) and have tried it with IE and Chrome and I can't reproduce this. It works correctly every time for me. The error seems pretty clear the "Class", being HTTPS is not registered in the registry. So it can't find the app to open HTTPS links (Chrome in your case). I was thinking that there might be some combination of browser / UAC settings that would cause this to manifest, but that doesn't seem to be the case. i can't think of another explanation other than the class is really not registered, there is a registry corruption or perhaps a misconfiguration. Not sure if this is relevant, but here are some people talking about "Class not registered" on Windows 8 with Chrome: http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/chrome/jxHvPMKVdKU/MpORZ-lEyIoJ Looks like a bunch of people have something similar, but this was with Chrome 22 which is kind of dated by now.

I use this well known method to open web links from the BitFlock client: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/305703 The error that I'm seeing from your system is: [system]System.ComponentModel.Win32Exception: Class not registered The Microsoft article does state that: "This code is highly dependent on the application-file type associations in the HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT hive of the registry. This can lead to unexpected results and exceptions if the registry is damaged." So that may be one cause. However, I do see that over here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/502199/how-to-open-a-web-page-from-my-application There's a comment to suggest that this has something to do with Windows 8 and some suggestions that it may have something to do with UAC. I just tried it on a fairly clean Windows 8 machine and it seems to be working as intended.

Announcing the StableBit Tweet to Win Giveaway! Every week we'll be giving away copies of StableBit DrivePool and the StableBit Scanner to some lucky winners who enter the contest, no strings attached. I'll be posting more about this on the Blog and on StableBit.com, but for now here are the details. How to Enter To enter, you simply tweet: I'd like to win the #StableBit Scanner from http://StableBit.com @Covecube I'd like to win #StableBit DrivePool from http://StableBit.com @Covecube And that's it, it's that simple. The contest has already started for this week, so you can enter today. You'll get a confirmation tweet back within a few minutes acknowledging your entry. You can enter once for each product, and if you don't win you can enter again next week. How it Works At the beginning of every Sunday, a secure cryptographic random number generator will pick 2 winners. The winners will get a tweet with a URL to claim their prize. When you click on the URL you can claim the prize as yourself or easily give it as a gift to someone else. To claim a prize you'll need to enter your first and last name, and your email address. We'll send the activation details to the email that you provide. What's the Catch? Well, I've been thinking about how we can raise product awareness and at the same time give something back to our users and this is one of the ideas that I came up with. The catch is that you're advertising our product when you tweet to enter the contest and that's really it. We're not collecting your emails or twitter handles for some mass marketing campaign or anything of that sort. Even if you own one of our products and wish to support us, you can still enter the contest. We would definitely appreciate that! If you win, you will have the option to give your prize to someone else as a gift. Thanks for tweeting. Edit: The current chances of winning are 1 in 20. The more people enter, the more people win.

Ok, I got your error reports. It seems like "https://" is not registered on your system, as if you have no default web browser installed. So in that case, just typing in the URL that's on the screen in any web browser's address bar should work.

Just speaking from personal experience here, The EARS drives were very flaky and I would not hold that against WD because they were one of the first (if not the first) drives to implement 4K sectors. But I still have a couple of these chugging along with the Scanner keeping a close watch on them. As Drashna said, the WD RED drives are a far better solution today.

I just have to mention that, personally, I've used SyncBack SE (not Pro) for years. It's a great piece of software and reasonably priced too.

Ok, you should find error reports in: C:\ProgramData\BitFlock.com\ErrorReports Please ZIP them up and attach them here and I'll take a look at why it's crashing. Thanks,

Ok, I've updated the BitFlock client to write out the error reports, write out an event log entry and show a more informative error message with a link to this forum. In addition, it is now compiled against our latest disk pass-through code. Give the new build a try and let me know if the problem continues (v. 1.0.0.545).

Saiyan, Based on your StableBit Scanner screen, the problem is not the RAW value, but rather that the value has dropped below the threshold on a pre-fail type attribute. But that screen just looks wrong. WD Green Drives should be publishing a lot more SMART attributes. So yes, it could be a false positive. But then again I do see 16 reallocation even counts. Can you please PM me your BitFlock submission ID at the bottom of the SMART Window so that I could take a look at the raw data? Also, we can set up a remote support appointment if you'd like and I'll log in and take a look at what's going on there. Thanks,

Hmm... so it seems like one partition somehow got into a state where it was not being rechecked, and yet the alert viewer was reporting that as an error. I'll review the file system scan code to see if I could spot the cause of something like that.

Just to confirm, File History doesn't seem to be working when backing up to the pool. I've added this as a known issue and I'll see if we can make this work in the future.

I've looked into this pretty extensively actually and got pretty far as far as adding TrueCrypt support. Unfortunately I ran into kind of a big technical issue. TrueCrypt volumes do not reside on emulated physical disks. So for example, if you look at our DrivePool virtual volume in disk management you will see that it has an emulated virtual disk backing it. That's because DrivePool actually emulates a SCSI disk and lets the Windows Plug and Play system mount it as usual. It turns out that TrueCrypt doesn't do this. It "hacks" its volume into existence, but there is no disk backing it. This presents a problem for DrivePool because it was written to work with physical disks (or even virtual disks, but there must be a disk there). Whenever a new pool part arrives in the system, DrivePool will query that pool part for some disk information including the physical storage unit index. This is critical to how real-time duplication functions because one or more pool parts can reside on the same physical disk (e.g. on multiple partitions). TrueCrypt doesn't know how to answer to these queries. So the bottom line is that DrivePool's pool part management code needs to understand how to deal with volumes that don't reside on physical disk and I plan to implement this in the forthcoming 2.1 BETA.

Monty, I've done some testing with the SiL 3114 using the latest drivers and RAID firmware available here: http://www.siliconimage.com/support/ I've posted my standard StableBit Scanner compatibility report here: http://community.covecube.com/index.php?/topic/237-sil3114-sata-controller-chip/ For me, the card was displaying the correct serial number on all ports, but SMART data was only available on the first port. I couldn't get the BASE firmware flashed. The Windows and DOS flash utility both failed. Do you know what firmware you're using, and make sure that you're on the latest driver.

Overall Supports Identify: Yes * Supports SMART: Yes * * When using the RAID firmware and driver, but only on the first port. RAID Firmware Firmware: 5.4.03 (3/2/2007) AHCI compatible: No (proprietary driver required) Link: http://www.siliconimage.com/support/ Driver: 1.5.20.3 (2/9/2010) Si3114r5.sys Link: http://www.siliconimage.com/support/ StableBit Scanner - Direct I/O Methods: SmartIoCtl Identify: Yes * SDD: Yes SMART Status: Yes * SMART Attributes: Yes * SMART Thresholds: Yes * SMART Error Log: No Power Mode: No * Data is only valid on the first port of the controller (bug in controller driver). Workaround implemented in StableBit Scanner 2.4.0.2914+. StableBit Scanner - WMI SMART Status: No SMART Attributes: No SMART Thresholds: No SMART Error Log: No Power Mode: No Performance Burst: 80.7 MB/s Tested on Windows 8 x64 BASE Firmware Unable to Flash. All attempts failed.

In particular, the Scanner iterates through the "safe" methods on first disk detection and from then on uses the method that works. For USB enclosures it uses BitFlock to get a "hint method" based on the hardware ID of the USB enclosure. SAT is not on the safe list because it was reported to crash some controllers in the past. You can enable the Unsafe Direct I/O method to always iterate through all of the non-USB methods.

Saiyan, The StableBit Scanner uses your disk model to decipher your SMART data, in that process, it obtains SMART interpretation data which includes a flag indicating whether your drive is a SSD and whether it has a lifetime indicator that we know how to read. If you could submit your SMART data to BitFlock (see attached) then I can take a look at it and see if I could add that lifetime meter to your SMART screen. And as Drashna said, the SSD flag does not control whether we write to a drive during a surface scan. We simply never do. Thanks,

About the error reporting, unfortunately BitFlock is a bit out of date in this regard. Automatic online reporting did not work out as intended. The main issue is that some people have repetitive errors (such as WMI or COM errors and the such) that can clog the automatic reporting system fairly quickly (at you can see). I'll try to update BitFlock within the next couple of days to stop doing that, and I'll also rebuild it with the latest code. Let me know if the issue continues after that and we can look into it further.

Hmm, I'm looking at the code and it's checking for VID_1095 and whether the driver name starts with Si. I just checked my inventory and I actually have this card in-house. I'll plug it in tomorrow and try to reproduce this issue. A notifications overhaul is on the way. There are a number of things that people have been requesting, including what you've suggested. Other popular requests are to better control overheating emails to prevent getting too many of them at a time, SMS support, naming multiple sites support. All of this is coming to the StableBit Scanner 2.5. Thank you for the compliment. Both product are running on WPF and .NET 4.0. The StableBit Scanner 2.X uses mostly Telerik controls (a 3rd party provider) StableBit DrivePool 2.X uses all custom controls written here (and some standard built-in WPF controls), and all of this running on a custom interprocess communications system to synchronize the UI with the Service.

Yep, StableBit DrivePool's background duplication makes a note of any errors error and continues on. The errors are shown to you at the end of the entire duplication pass, but the UI for conflict resolution is really not that fancy. It's basically an automatic option or none. I'm sure that we can improve this in the future, but my thinking is that duplication conflicts should really be rare. I can't think of a situation where you would encounter duplication conflicts on a regular basis (at least in my experience). Also, with real-time duplication enabled, background duplication should only happen when you make an administrative change, or disconnect a disk.

Ok, I've gotten a response (yes, I am a bit shocked). This is what they said: "if you would like to inquiry smart status of each drive, you can use our api to send inquiry commands to specific drives. api is public which you can find in the support CD and our web site, the download page." Based on what they're saying, it sounds like they have a proprietary and public API for querying the SMART data of individual drives. If so, this is great news. It means that we can certainly implement SMART support for their products. While I don't have the support CD, I will check the web site's download page. If anyone can supply the said support CD, that might help a bit.

Well, this is going to be as off topic as it gets and fairly personal One of my personal love affairs is sci fi short stories, and I love originality. I'm not a big fan of the Sci Fi that's on TV today, but I loved Rod Serling's work on the Twilight Zone. Today, some of the best stuff that I've read online resides here: http://qntm.org/fiction This site is fully programmed by one Perl programmer (named Sam) and features some amazing and mind boggling stuff. I love what he's doing and would like to support him. The stories are absolutely free and the ones that I loved in particular are: http://qntm.org/difference http://qntm.org/responsibility But all of his stuff is just amazing, especially the ongoing Ra series.

If none of the current Direct I/O methods work then they might be using a proprietary protocol. I'll try contacting them, and see if I can get any technical info on this.

Reparse points (or links) are a very simple concept to imagine, but it's deceptive. I've tried implementing 3 different approaches to handle reparse points and have run into brick walls each time. I think that we will have reparse point support but not in the 2.0 RELEASE FINAL. I have it planned for a 2.1 BETA. Regards,.

Sspell, I haven't really changed anything at all regarding remote control, in build 400+. It looks like the issue is resolved. Let me know if the problem resurfaces.