rmf1981

Thanks everyone for your responses. Reading through and thinking about things, I think it's probably a "push" on aggressive balancing vs. letting DrivePool decide where things should go. To clarify - Henrik - the behavior you describe (adding new files to the pool --> to the new drive) is not what is happening. New files added are being added to the largest drive (perhaps because it has more free space than the other drive with 0% utilized) rather than the empty drive. I decided to impose a lower "limit" to fill a drive before diverting data - i.e. instead of waiting until 90%, I asked it to balance when a drive is more than 60% full. This resulted in moving of data from all drives with >60% utilization to the drive with 0% utilized. So maybe it's a compromise between aggressively balancing the data and letting them fill up on their own. In any case, congratulations on a great product and a great community to support it. Keep up the good work! -rmf

I have what I think is a simple question ... Happily running Stablebit Drivepool now for about a month, new whs 2011. Runs great, no issues. As far as balancing go, I have noted other topics that said that it was not balancing. I have seen your replies that basically said there is a high threshold to trigger rebalancing. All of that makes sense. I know you offer the equalizer plug in as well for those that want a truly even distribution across disks. My question is this: 1) My current pool is only about 33% full at this point. I recently added a new drive to the pool. For about 2 weeks now, there is nothing on that drive - 0.0%. I've played a bit with the balancers, but have not been able to convince DrivePool to add any data to that drive. 2) It seems like I could download and use the volume equalizer to accomplish this. Is that correct? 3) More philosophically, why does DP choose to NOT utilize newly installed disks and more aggressively balance the pool? It seems from reading some of your other posts, read striping and disc I/O would be improved by being able to read from more than one disk at the same time - thus it seems that having the data spread over more disks should confer some type of advantage. Perhaps very small, but an advantage nonetheless. And wouldn't having the files more "spread" result in lower disk temperatures, less wear, etc.? If I am wrong, I'd love to understand why. It would seem to me that the equalizer plug-in would then be the best thing .... no? Is the equalizer just there to provide a cure for my neurosis at seeing one drive with 60% used and another with 0%? :-) Thanks! rmf