baccarat

Any improvement in flexibility for this functionality?

Yes. No. Forget Storage Spaces, it is still not good. DrivePool is good for basic pooling purposes, if a little expensive (in my opinion) for what it does.

It's cool. I get it. Maybe if you can add the option to run (manually trigger) the "problem file" check/notification in the UI manually (what is run automatically/background as part of DP duplication) may be helpful to some. If not in DP philosophy, it's cool, I'll do a workaround anyway before your devs get to it. I'm coming over to DP from alternatives that had more features (snapshot as well as real-time, parity as well as mirror, etc.), but KISS has benefits and I'm OK with DP being very simplistic. I had attributed significant increases in price (friend bought for less than half what I paid last year) to more features like snapshot, parity, etc. being developed but this was not a correct assumption. You are correct, and to umfriend's confusion, I am using DP somewhat backwards (not as intended, apparently) in that the pool unifies drives from several networked machines, not just one, with files being manipulated directly in the PoolPart.xxxxx folders of the local machines.

I connected the machines directly, mobos are Gbit. Easier than playing around with my router's firewall.

Harsh or mean, what are you talking about? We're discussing/debating! I wasn't expecting DP to break the rules of the universe and show multiple identically named files in the pool. DP showing duplicate copies (as in those DP mirrored as backup) once in the pool makes sense of course. Not distinguishing original vs copy is acceptable, although some users like/want and alternatives offer this feature. But, DP's current logic/definition of a "duplicate" is a little too simplistic I think you might agree, particularly for those of us who don't use DP's duplication functionality to begin with. I can see what DP is trying to avoid, if there already is a spare copy (identical with checksum match) fulfilling the backup requirement then no need for DP to create yet more copies but, and it's a big but, "when two different files are detected in the same location, they're considered duplicates and we'll flag them because they *are* duplicated files with mismatched contents" is only one possible way to interpret this scenario. There are many valid pooling scenarios where same named files across different source drives are not just "duplicate files with mismatched contents". This may be prevailing outcome/desire in a home user media pooling scenario but falls apart in the real chaotic world.

Yes, at minimum UI should list same named not appearing in pool. Even better would be an option to make it visible in pool by adjusting file name of copy with drive e.g. "[Drive B] world.txt" in example, in a copy folder in pool, etc.

Check sum during duplication (for those who use it) is one helpful functionality but not directly relevant in this case. The files may not be identical from a check sum view, only the name may match with size/date/etc differing as mentioned. The issue isn't about avoiding wasted space in data duplication, it is more basic- making identically named files show up (or at the very least being notified they are being excluded).

Yes, I had played with the Read Striping option, it doesn't make a difference in my case as all drives are using the same (SATA) interface. Tweaking the logic to select which duplicate to show isn't what I'm after anway, unfortunately. Regardless of how (which copy) DP shows, as far as I can see it does not indicate in any way it has encountered multiple copies (or just identically named, could be different size/date) which I was kinda expecting, maybe not in the DP disk but in the program UI. Is there a way to expose the Read Striping usage decision DP is taking with a log or plugin or something?

When a pool encounters redundant files (or just identically named ones) it considers only one. Scenario: Drive A has files: hello.txt, world.txt Drive B has files: bye.txt, world.txt Pool Z shows files: hello.txt, bye.txt, world.txt. World.txt exists on both drives but the pool only shows one of the copies. I know it would not be possible for the pool to have multiplle identically named files but is there a way to handle this so both copies would show in the pool?

So, what are the recommended settings for DrivePool + SnapRAID combo? I purchased DrivePool after a few days of the trial (impressive!) can't afford full mirroring and SnapRAID seems the most popular parity for DrivePool. I'll be doing a fresh install of everything with empty drives, looking to get 5 data + 2 parity with the 5 data drives combined into 1 pool.

What is the best way to share a pooled drive with another machine using a cable connection? Both are Win 7. I was thinking USB 3.0 transfer cable but there only seem to be 2.0 ones and apparently not very good. Anybody sharing with a crossover ethernet cable directly between 2 PCs without going through some network or hub?