steffenmand

So weird, this seems to make it work on my end also!

Just go to 
https://console.developers.google.com/apis/library/drive.googleapis.com

Press "Enable" and afterwards go disable it again - voila it works.

Maybe this could be a slow process taking maybe maximum of 100 GB per day or something (maybe a limit you set yourself, where you showcase it would take ~X amount days to finish), with a progress overview. Having maybe 50 TB would be a huge pain to migrate manually, while i would be OK with just waiting months for it to finish properly - ofc. knowing the risk that data could be lost meanwhile as its not duplicated yet
Would also make it possible to decide to change to duplication later on instead of having to choose early on  with Google Drive it does limit the upload per day, so could be nicer to upload first and then duplicate later when you are not uploading anymore
Another good feature could also just be an overview of how much you uploaded/downloaded from a drive in a single day - could be great to monitor how close you are to the upload limit on google drive drives

GetdataBack Simple is working for me -- i could get a dir list at least and see the files.  It's gonna take days til i'm done the deep scan, but i hope i can recover most things.

i think you mean mbit :-P
Yes. It all depends on the response time you have. Speed is not the issue, it's my response time to google's servers You're just lucky to be closer.

Plus i got upload verification on, that also cuts off speeds on uploads  I get around 2500-2800 ms response time pr. thread and then instant download. So the less calls and the bigger download would do wonders for me

Again, other providers *can* still use larger chunks.
Please see the changelog:
This was because of issue 24914, documented here.
Again, this isn't really correct. The problem, as documented above, is that larger chunks results in more retrieval calls to particular chunks, thus triggering Google's download quota limitations. That is the problem that I could not remember. It was not because of concerns about the speed, and it was not a general problem with all providers. 
 
EDIT: It looks like the issue with Google Drive might be resolved with an increase in the partial read size as you discussed in this post, but the code change request for that is still incomplete. So this prerequisite still isn't met. Maybe something to follow up with Christopher and Alex about. 

That’s exactly what I see too with Google drives – frequent “pinning data” phases with extreme CPU loads. Unclear, why pinning needs to be performed at all. Neither directories nor metadata are being changed on any drive. One drive is only downloading (being scanned for Crashplan backup). The pinned data volume suddenly gets reduced by a certain amount (e.g. 200 MB), what then triggers such a pinning phase and lets the entire system freeze almost completely for a couple of minutes – that happens multiple times a day.

Recently some of my drives have started to make pretty much all files corrupt on my drives.
 
At first i thought, OK, BETA errors may happen, but now this is starting to happen on multiple drives.
 
Stablebit Cloud Drive seems to prefetch fine and throws no errors, but what arrives is just corrupt data.
 
The data in question have all been lying at rest, so we have not uploaded new corrupt data on top
 
This is the second drive this has happened to,
 
The funny part is, if i try to copy one of the corrupt files from the cloud drive to my own disc, it shows copy speeds of 500+ MB/s and finishes in a few seconds as if it didnt even have to try and download stuff first. In the technical overview i can see prefetch showing "Transfer Completed Successfully" with 0 kbps and 0% completion (attached a snippet of one so you can see)
 

 
Something is seriously wrong here and it seems that it somehow can avoid trying to download the actual chunk and instead just fill in some empty data.
 
I have verified that the chunks do exist on the google drive and i am able to download it myself
 
Been talking to other users who have experienced the same thing!

Excatly what i wanted :-D let my speed be unleashed!
 
hopefully this will make it to amazon as well when you get the answers from them as well :-)

Hi Christoffer,
 
I know i have asked lots of times, but what is the options for larger chunks on google ? - Im getting a lot of rate exceeded and larger chunks would help slow down the api calls as well as increase the general upload/download as the response time is the real speed killer atm.
 
You had it working on amazon before the new api, shouldn't it be easy to migrate to the google provider ? - I know you most likely wont notice a difference, but us with really high speeds really do and 20 MB is still too small atm, which results in the rate exceeded due to excessive api calls

This would be awesome! 
 
Having read only drives would be awesome, especially if you could have one have write access at the same time! Then we can avoid this workaround sharing of drives

Just connect the account on the new server and you should be able to force an attach

Hi,
 
I've noticed that the thread count seems to have been defined globally to be shared between all your drives.
 
As i have several google accounts hooked up, with individual drives, shouldn't it be more logical to have the thread count be defined pr. unique google account ? - They should all have their individual API call caps, which was the main reason for the limit.
 
Would be nice to access files from another account, while also download from the first - right now it would just slow down the progress from both.
 

Excatly what i wanted :-D let my speed be unleashed!
 
hopefully this will make it to amazon as well when you get the answers from them as well :-)

Hi Christoffer,
 
I know i have asked lots of times, but what is the options for larger chunks on google ? - Im getting a lot of rate exceeded and larger chunks would help slow down the api calls as well as increase the general upload/download as the response time is the real speed killer atm.
 
You had it working on amazon before the new api, shouldn't it be easy to migrate to the google provider ? - I know you most likely wont notice a difference, but us with really high speeds really do and 20 MB is still too small atm, which results in the rate exceeded due to excessive api calls

Hi,
 
Today i created a drive and forgot to change the label. So i detached and reattached with a new label - however after the reattach the old name stuck on the drive, but the new one shows in the stablebit ui
 
Might be a bug or just bad luck :-D

Nope,  not with Cloud Drive as everything is chunked anyway and get their own hash value.

Hi,
 
Today i created a drive and forgot to change the label. So i detached and reattached with a new label - however after the reattach the old name stuck on the drive, but the new one shows in the stablebit ui
 
Might be a bug or just bad luck :-D

Choruptian is correct.
 
There are two main "checks" here: 
Checksum verification Upload verification And these two things do entirely different things. 
 
Checksum verification adds a small block to each and every data block.  This is a checksum of the data, to verify it's integrity.  If there is a problem the drive will actually error out, so that you don't grab corrupted data.  
 
Then there is upload verification. This verifies that the data has been properly uploaded.  It re-downloads the data after it is uploaded, compares it and then either re-uploads it again, or "clears" it from the cache, moving onto the next chunk. 
 
 
Some providers "require" upload verification (such as Amazon Cloud Drive), but most do not.  And upload verification adds significant overhead, as it's redownloading everything that gets uploaded. 

As long as you backup chunks it should be possible to revert back by uploading then again and reindexing :-)
 
I chose to go for the older ones, as i knew ihad not done any changes since the updates where they were made. so i trusted the old data more than the new, as the new potentially could have faulty data - this was also why my drive went RAW as i had multiple chunks on the chunk which contained the MFT data - the new one was corrupt, the old just fine

They have an advanced pinning engine in the feature request list - i believe they want to focus on such things after we get out of Beta

They have a bug currently causing this. Just be patient and it will get fixed!

They have a bug currently causing this. Just be patient and it will get fixed!

Well as far as i can see, then the system knows what chunks to use. They are simply just not linked to the proper id on the provider. Thats why we were seeing tons of chunks completing successfully with 0%.
I think the big problem with data would arise if the problem was that it lost reference to what chunk numbers refers to which file

Thank you guys. 
 
And it definitely looks like there may be something going on here, so this may actually be a bug. 
 
I've updated Alex, and messaged him directly about it, and I'll let you know when he has a response. 

Recently some of my drives have started to make pretty much all files corrupt on my drives.
 
At first i thought, OK, BETA errors may happen, but now this is starting to happen on multiple drives.
 
Stablebit Cloud Drive seems to prefetch fine and throws no errors, but what arrives is just corrupt data.
 
The data in question have all been lying at rest, so we have not uploaded new corrupt data on top
 
This is the second drive this has happened to,
 
The funny part is, if i try to copy one of the corrupt files from the cloud drive to my own disc, it shows copy speeds of 500+ MB/s and finishes in a few seconds as if it didnt even have to try and download stuff first. In the technical overview i can see prefetch showing "Transfer Completed Successfully" with 0 kbps and 0% completion (attached a snippet of one so you can see)
 

 
Something is seriously wrong here and it seems that it somehow can avoid trying to download the actual chunk and instead just fill in some empty data.
 
I have verified that the chunks do exist on the google drive and i am able to download it myself
 
Been talking to other users who have experienced the same thing!