Jump to content
Covecube Inc.


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Oh, yeah, I understand that ReFS support is a use-at-my-own-risk feature. Honestly, the data on this pool is nowhere near critical. I was just curious whether unnoticeable corruption could occur with balancing enabled, even if the chance is low. It sounds like it comes down to whether the built in API ensures that integrity streams match on copied files. I briefly looked for info about that, but couldn't come up with anything. Regardless, I'm happy with the current state of DrivePool's ReFS support. Anything that further takes advantage of ReFS capabilities would be a welcome bonus
  2. Thanks. Glad it works as I hoped. Integrity streams are the whole reason I'm trying out ReFS on this pool, and a performance hit is basically irrelevant for my purposes. One more question: if a balancer moves files between ReFS drives, is there any risk of unnoticed corruption? That is, could a file's integrity stream on the target drive be different from on the source drive? I'm guessing the answer depends on whether such corruption is possible in general between independent ReFS volumes. If corruption is possible, perhaps DrivePool could compare integrity streams when moving/c
  3. I've just begun using ReFS on a new pool with integrity streams enabled. Is there any reason I would need to turn off the "Bypass file system filters" setting? I would hope that what ReFS is doing with checksums (for both writes and reads) is at a low enough level that I can leave this setting on, but I figured I should double check.
  • Create New...