propergol

Hello,
if I use Acronis True Image to backup some folder on my pool onto a HD outside the pool, is it supposed to work without issue?
 
Because I did tried and for some reason it is abnormaly slow to start the backup (most of the time I did cancel it).
 
At first I thought it could be the "bypass file system filter" option that was the problem, so I did disabled it : same ultra slow result.
 
The other thing I can think of is that I use Windows 10 insider but only "slow ring" version not fast one.
 
So maybe it is absolutly not related with DrivePool but I prefer to ask 
 
Thanks
 
Edit : maybe there is other way to get a copy done each month or week of this pool folders without using Acronis and only with playing with DrivePool balancing options?

It's better to not use the larger allocation unit size for SSDs.  
 
Specifically, because SSDs don't benefit from them. The main reason to use the larger size is performance and preventing fragmentation. Since neither affect an SSD, there is no benefit.
Additioanlly, since SSDs are smaller in capacity, you're more likely to lose a good chunk of space by doing so.
 
 
However, there is absolutely no harm in using the different sizes on the SSDs vs the spinning hard drives. 
 
 
So 64k allocation unit size for "spinners" and default for SSDs is good.

If you're not familiar with dpcmd.exe, it's the command line interface to StableBit DrivePool's low level file system and was originally designed for troubleshooting the pool. It's a standalone EXE that's included with every installation of StableBit DrivePool 2.X and is available from the command line.
 
If you have StableBit DrivePool 2.X installed, go ahead and open up the Command Prompt with administrative access (hold Ctrl + Shift from the Start menu), and type in dpcmd to get some usage information.
 
Previously, I didn't recommend that people mess with this command because it wasn't really meant for public consumption. But the latest internal build of StableBit DrivePool, 2.2.0.659, includes a completely rewritten dpcmd.exe which now has some more useful functions for more advanced users of StableBit DrivePool, and I'd like to talk about some of these here.
 
Let's start with the new check-pool-fileparts command.
 
This command can be used to:
Check the duplication consistency of every file on the pool and show you any inconsistencies. Report any inconsistencies found to StableBit DrivePool for corrective actions. Generate detailed audit logs, including the exact locations where each file part is stored of each file on the pool. Now let's see how this all works. The new dpcmd.exe includes detailed usage notes and examples for some of the more complicated commands like this one.
 
To get help on this command type: dpcmd check-pool-fileparts
 
Here's what you will get:
 
dpcmd - StableBit DrivePool command line interface Version 2.2.0.659 The command 'check-pool-fileparts' requires at least 1 parameters. Usage: dpcmd check-pool-fileparts [parameter1 [parameter2 ...]] Command: check-pool-fileparts - Checks the file parts stored on the pool for consistency. Parameters: poolPath - A path to a directory or a file on the pool. detailLevel - Detail level to output (0 to 4). (optional) isRecursive - Is this a recursive listing? (TRUE / false) (optional) Detail levels: 0 - Summary 1 - Also show directory duplication status 2 - Also show inconsistent file duplication details, if any (default) 3 - Also show all file duplication details 4 - Also show all file part details Examples: - Perform a duplication check over the entire pool, show any inconsistencies, and inform StableBit DrivePool >dpcmd check-pool-fileparts P:\ - Perform a full duplication check and output all file details to a log file >dpcmd check-pool-fileparts P:\ 3 > Check-Pool-FileParts.log - Perform a full duplication check and just show a summary >dpcmd check-pool-fileparts P:\ 0 - Perform a check on a specific directory and its sub-directories >dpcmd check-pool-fileparts P:\MyFolder - Perform a check on a specific directory and NOT its sub-directories >dpcmd check-pool-fileparts "P:\MyFolder\Specific Folder To Check" 2 false - Perform a check on one specific file >dpcmd check-pool-fileparts "P:\MyFolder\File To Check.exe" The above help text includes some concrete examples on how to use this commands for various scenarios. To perform a basic check of an entire pool and get a summary back, you would simply type:
dpcmd check-pool-fileparts P:\
 
This will scan your entire pool and make sure that the correct number of file parts exist for each file. At the end of the scan you will get a summary:
Scanning...   ! Error: Can't get duplication information for '\\?\p:\System Volume Information\storageconfiguration.xml'. Access is denied   Summary:   Directories: 3,758   Files: 47,507 3.71 TB (4,077,933,565,417   File parts: 48,240 3.83 TB (4,214,331,221,046     * Inconsistent directories: 0   * Inconsistent files: 0   * Missing file parts: 0 0 B (0     ! Error reading directories: 0   ! Error reading files: 1 Any inconsistent files will be reported here, and any scan errors will be as well. For example, in this case I can't scan the System Volume Information folder because as an Administrator, I don't have the proper access to do that (LOCAL SYSTEM does).
 
Another great use for this command is actually something that has been requested often, and that is the ability to generate audit logs. People want to be absolutely sure that each file on their pool is properly duplicated, and they want to know exactly where it's stored. This is where the maximum detail level of this command comes in handy:
dpcmd check-pool-fileparts P:\ 4
 
This will show you how many copies are stored of each file on your pool, and where they're stored.
 
The output looks something like this:
Detail level: File Parts   Listing types:     + Directory   - File   -> File part   * Inconsistent duplication   ! Error   Listing format:     [{0}/{1} IM] {2}     {0} - The number of file parts that were found for this file / directory.     {1} - The expected duplication count for this file / directory.     I   - This directory is inheriting its duplication count from its parent.     M   - At least one sub-directory may have a different duplication count.     {2} - The name and size of this file / directory.   ... + [3x/2x] p:\Media -> \Device\HarddiskVolume2\PoolPart.5823dcd3-485d-47bf-8cfa-4bc09ffca40e\Media [Device 0] -> \Device\HarddiskVolume3\PoolPart.6a76681a-3600-4af1-b877-a31815b868c8\Media [Device 0] -> \Device\HarddiskVolume8\PoolPart.d1033a47-69ef-453a-9fb4-337ec00b1451\Media [Device 2] - [2x/2x] p:\Media\commandN Episode 123.mov (80.3 MB - 84,178,119 -> \Device\HarddiskVolume2\PoolPart.5823dcd3-485d-47bf-8cfa-4bc09ffca40e\Media\commandN Episode 123.mov [Device 0] -> \Device\HarddiskVolume8\PoolPart.d1033a47-69ef-453a-9fb4-337ec00b1451\Media\commandN Episode 123.mov [Device 2] - [2x/2x] p:\Media\commandN Episode 124.mov (80.3 MB - 84,178,119 -> \Device\HarddiskVolume2\PoolPart.5823dcd3-485d-47bf-8cfa-4bc09ffca40e\Media\commandN Episode 124.mov [Device 0] -> \Device\HarddiskVolume8\PoolPart.d1033a47-69ef-453a-9fb4-337ec00b1451\Media\commandN Episode 124.mov [Device 2] ... The listing format and listing types are explained at the top, and then for each folder and file on the pool, a record like the above one is generated.
 
Of course like any command output, it could always be piped into a log file like so:
dpcmd check-pool-fileparts P:\ 4 > check-pool-fileparts.log
 
I'm sure with a bit of scripting, people will be able to generate daily audit logs of their pool
 
Now this is essentially the first version of this command, so if you have an idea on how to improve it, please let us know.
 
Also, check out set-duplication-recursive. It lets you set the duplication count on multiple folders at once using a file pattern rule (or a regular expression). It's pretty cool.
 
That's all for now.

Small update : I did replace the original heatsink with a bigger and 100% copper one.
I did fixed it with Arctic Sylver Thermal Adhesive, so it's permanent but much more efficient than thermal paste in this case.
Then I did bended the heatsink pins one by one.
The result is an impressive 20°C temp drop from 45-50°C to 27-30°C.
 
I plan to do the same for the top M1115.
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

Thanks.
Yes, after 10 years with watercooling cases (some were dual Xeon), I am now only doing air cooled stuff and even if its more challenging regarding temperatures, its way cheaper...
A good controled air flow with positive air pressure can cool a lot of setup, with near to zero maintenance.
 
Now that I use DrivePool, I would be able to keep the same case and if I need more data room, only change 4TB drives as price drop with 8TB, one by one...
72TB in a small mid tower with all HD under 35°C 

Sorry, I have "only" 4 SSDs 
I was just curious if dual link would increase single SSD read/write but it doesn't.

Some picts of my quick but functional SAS expander mounting 
 
A very efficient 350W TFX PSU :
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
SAS mount   :
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
Mounted in the case.
The setup isn't complete yet (but working). When completed it would have 1x 240GB SSD + 3x240Gb caching SSDs, 6x4TB  + 3x5TB HDs : virtualy 39TB with SSD write caching x3.
On this picture I was testing dual link between the M1115 and Intel SAS expander :
 
 

 
 
 
 
Single link :
      I need some more work on cable management... But cooling is now perfectly tunned with SpeedFan that controls 5 case fans. HDs are between 29°C and 34°C and both SAS card's CPU below 45°C (thanks to a case fan puching air between both SAS cards).

Small update : I did replace the original heatsink with a bigger and 100% copper one.
I did fixed it with Arctic Sylver Thermal Adhesive, so it's permanent but much more efficient than thermal paste in this case.
Then I did bended the heatsink pins one by one.
The result is an impressive 20°C temp drop from 45-50°C to 27-30°C.
 
I plan to do the same for the top M1115.
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

So, basically no difference.  Do you have multiple SSDs?  If so, ... well, to properly test... you'd need 7+ that can run at about 500MB/s (for the sequential).  6 and change to saturate one connection, and then a seventh or more to exceed.  If you have that many and can test them all at the same time (running a surface scan or chkdsk or a full format), that would be the real test.  (otherwise, it's closer to 30+ HDDS).

Please, definitely do check, and let me know what you find.
 
Also, a good way to max out the bus speed... use StableBit Scanner's Burst test option (right click on a drive).  This runs the drive a higher speed than the disk is capable, but maxes out the bus.  It's great for testing for connectivity issues, but doing this on multiple drives may be a good way to test the controller link.
 
 
And Expander Cards make for excellent cable management. 

Thanks a lot : it instantly worked 
For now I am still testing SSD pluggin on unduplicated files. I am waiting for a third 240gb SSD to arrived (Sandisk PRO, not the slowest SSD  ...) to start testing with x3 duplication.
From what I can see for now, it would work very well!

This depends on the balancing settings. 
 
Try setting the balancing to occur immediately, and disable the "but not more often than" option. Also, set the ratio slider on the main tab to "100 %" and setting the "or needs to move this much" to "1GB". 
 
This should help it be more aggressive about moving data out. 
And this should definitely work, as that's exactly what I'm doing on my system, and it's constantly moving data off of the 2x128GB SSDs I have.

lol, I definitely understand that!
 
 
As for the auction, that's not a bad price at all. As you've said, it's much more expensive for a new card (and more so with cables, at around $350-400, in fact).  So, it's not a bad purchase at all!
But I definitely understand what you mean.  Just keep in mind that this is enterprise grade tech, and is designed for heavy loads and 24/7 operation. That's why there is such a premium on the price.

Please do!  
 
The 153 event is a "retried" error.  This may be harmless (it's rather normal, actually), and if you're only seeing it during boot, it may just be a timing issue with the drive controller.
 
Check the disk number it mentions with Disk Management (run "diskmgmt.msc") and check which drive it is.  

Yep. Sounds right. I will offer at $90.
 
Since I have a very cramped build : 9 HDs + 4 SSDs inside a litle mid tower, the expander powered with a Molex would offer better cable management than an other M1115.

Thank you guys from grabbing the info. 
 
I've submitted the issue and info to Alex (the developer), and he'll take a look at it soon (I suspect it maybe a simple issue).
https://stablebit.com/Admin/IssueAnalysis/20806
 
However, please do install the beta version (2.5.2.3103). There are a few fixes in it in regards to how SMART data is handled, and it may fix the issues you are seeing (specifically). 
 
 
 
Yeah, sorry to not specify, but the ID is for all the devices in the system. It grabs the SMART data and other information about the disks and submits them to BitFlock. 

Mostly correct.  3 plus 1. Each duplicate and the file on the Pool. And if poorly designed, could impact performance.
 
If you're experiencing performance issues, either switch antivirus programs or exclude the Pool from being scanned or the PoolPart folders on each pooled disk.

I'm not sure.
 
Run a burst test just in case. 
Otherwise, the "nuclear solution" is to reset the settings.
 
But see below:
 
 
Try the latest internal beta build:
http://dl.covecube.com/DrivePoolWindows/beta/download/StableBit.DrivePool_2.2.0.649_x64_BETA.exe
There have been some serious changes to the read striping and related code. It may fix the issue you're seeing.
 
Unfriend, you should try this out as well, as it may fix the issue for you as well. 

ok thanks, I will go with TLER enabled.

Could you try downloading the attached file and placing it in "C:\Program Files\StableBit\DrivePool"?
DrivePool.Service.exe.config
 
(this is stock, except for the language override to english).

That is funny : as I was Googling thing like "M1115 flash IT" or things like that, I ended back here, reading some of your posts saying that you were running a M1115  .