srcrist

I thought it was relatively clear that this point had already been reached, frankly.

I am not going to sit here and have some argument with you about this. If you think your data is made safer by rclone, use rclone and let the issue be. I really don't care about your data, and this matters vastly more to you than it does to me. I'm sorry that you don't understand the actual point. Nobody is forcing you to either use CloudDrive or come here and ask for explanations that you don't actually want. You have a good day.

A lot of that is simply repeating what I wrote. But nothing that I wrote is nonsense, and you ignore the inherent volatility issues of cloud storage at your peril. It is obviously true that in this one particular case and for a specific use case rclone did not have the same issues. But hand-waving away data loss simply because it's in the form of stale but complete files reveals that you are a bit myopic about different use scenarios--which is weird, because it's something that you are also acknowledging when you say "Saying Rclone data is stagnant is nonsense too, it entirely depends on the usage." Which was effectively my point. The point you're actually making in your previous post is only that most users are NOT, in fact, using rclone for that purpose, and that is why they were less impacted by this particular (again, one time, several years ago) issue. If they WERE using it to store frequently updated data, they would also have lost data in the rollback--thus negating your point about volatility. I don't know about you, but if I make a lot of changes to a file and Google just throws them out and replaces it with a version I had last month, I'm not pleased. The ultimate distinction between rclone and clouddrive in this particular instance is that clouddrive was frequently updating data (because of the file system), and rclone was not. The actual file data could, in fact, ALSO be restored an a CloudDrive volume after the incident--it was just a lengthy and tedious process. In any case, my point to you is not that one solution is better than another at all. Again, I use both for different purposes. I find rclone to be better for longer-term cold storage, and CloudDrive to have superior performance for regular access. My point, rather, is to help you understand that all cloud storage is equally volatile, and to caution you from presuming that ANY of it is "safer," as you previously claimed. It is not. They are just equally volatile and vulnerable to that volatility in different ways.

Upload verification will not prevent provider-side data corruption of any form (absolutely nothing will), but that wasn't the concern you mentioned. It WILL prevent the write hole issue that you described, as CloudDrive will not regard the data as "written" until it can verify the integrity of the data on the provider by retrieving it. Either way, though, I would discourage you from looking at rClone as "safer" in any way. It is not. Any cloud storage is not a safe backup mechanism for data in general, and all cloud storage should be treated as inherently and equally volatile and only used for data that is redundant with more stable mechanisms, or that you can afford to lose. Google Drive has no SLA with respect to the corruption of uploaded data, for example. What you're really noting here is a use case dependent issue. CloudDrive's data (particularly the structural data) was updated more frequently than rClone's more stagnant data. If someone were using rClone to mirror frequently changing data, they also would have been impacted by the rollback--though in different ways. What IS true, is that any corruption on an rClone mirror would be essentially undetected for lengthy periods of time until that specific data is accessed. CloudDrive's corruption was only quickly apparent because the structural drive data is accessed and modified on a regular basis. This all was, it should be noted, a one-time issue several years ago that has not happened since, and CloudDrive has added pinned data (file system) redundancy in the meantime. So it is less likely to be an issue in the future regardless of all of the above discussion.

Nobody can really tell you what happened to prompt that cautionary warning about Google Drive other than Google themselves. What we know is that in March of 2019 Google had a major outage that affected multiple services including Drive and Gmail. After the service disruption was resolved, Drive started returning what appeared to be stale, outdated chunks rather than up-to-date data, and that corrupted CloudDrive volumes. I think the widest held presumption is that Google had to do a rollback to a previous backup of some form, and thus replaced some chunks with older versions of themselves--but we'll never really know for sure. Google is not exactly forthcoming with their operative decision making or the technical details of their services. Regardless, turning on upload verification would prevent the sort of write issue you're describing entirely, but you'll always be at the mercy of the stability of Google's services with respect to the data on their servers. So nobody can guarantee that it won't ever happen again. Hence the warning. For what it's worth, I've used both rClone and CloudDrive for large-scale data storage for years and I've never found either one to be particularly more volatile than the other--dating even back to CloudDrive's beta. It's always been perfectly stable for me, aside from the Google incident. Just make sure to enable the data integrity features like pinned data duplication and upload verification.

On your H: and your V: you will have a poolpart folder, if they have been added to the pool. Put everything ELSE on those drives, like the CloudDrive folder, if that's where your content is, into the poolpart folder. Then remeasure and it will be accessible from your G:.

All of the content, on each drive, that you want to access from the pool, should be moved to the hidden pool folder on that respective drive.

This is backwards. You don't want to move the hidden directory, you want to move everything else TO the hidden directory. The contents of the hidden directory is what is in your pool.

Make sure that you both submit tickets to support here: https://stablebit.com/Contact

Great. Glad you got it worked out.

Just including a quote in case you have email notification set up. Forgot to quote you in the previous post.

Hmm...not sure. The good news is that if drive corruption were the issue, you should see the chksum errors in the log and the notification drop-down. I don't see any pending notifications in your UI, unless you cleared them. So it's probably not corruption. What does the cache look like for this drive? What sort of drive is it on, how large, and what type of cache? And, to be clear: You are showing the "default i/o settings" in your screenshot. Those apply when you create a new drive. Is your existing, mounted drive actually using those settings as well? Verify within the "Manage Drive" menu. It is possible to have different default settings than the mounted drive is actually using. If the drive is actually using the settings in your screenshot, those settings should be sufficient for solid throughput.

Not to my knowledge, no. CloudDrive is just a tool to store a psuedo-native file system on another sort of storage protocol. CloudDrive takes non-native file storage like FTP, SMB, or a cloud storage host, and provides a native (NTFS or ReFS) file system for Windows. It's a middle man for the a storage API/protocol so that windows can access that storage as if it were a local drive. But the side effect is that the data must be accessed via the CloudDrive application. It is not intended to be a front-end for the non-native API. Tools like rClone or Netdrive are. Unless some future version of the application makes pretty dramatic changes to the entire functionality, its data will never be accessible in the way that it sounds like you want it to be--encrypted or not. Any file system that can be added to DrivePool directly can have its duplication managed by DrivePool itself, and file systems that cannot (like, for example, SMB shares or dynamic volumes) can simply be mirrored using a simple sync tool (of which there are many). Microsoft's own SyncToy is one, though I believe it takes some finagling to make it work on Windows 10. You likely can't add the NAS to the DrivePool (assuming it is an SMB share--I believe iSCSI CAN be added, but I'm not familiar with the process) but you can use many other options to just mirror/sync directories from the pool to the NAS. Note that while you you CAN use CloudDrive to create a volume on the NAS and add THAT to the DrivePool, and configure the duplication that way, the data on the NAS that CloudDrive creates will not be accessible to any system that isn't the one hosting the DrivePool and CloudDrive clients that are connected to the drive--nor is there really any way to modify CloudDrive to accomplish this goal without completely changing the way it works now. So, some options, then: You could try adding the NAS to DrivePool via iSCSI as mentioned above. I've never done this, but I believe there is some discussion elsewhere on the forum that you should be able to find to help you do this. The iSCSI volume can then be added to your DrivePool and your duplication adjusted accordingly. You could create a directory/volume WITHIN the pool, at the cost of pool space, which you can duplicate the data to, and then set up another tool like SyncToy to mirror THAT directory to your NAS. You could just use a tool like SyncToy to duplicate all of your media folders to the NAS. Or, to save space, you might be able to script up something simple that copies media to the NAS as required. Ultimately, though, note that none of these solutions use CloudDrive, and that there isn't any way to make CloudDrive do what you want it to do. And that isn't a factor of encryption. It's just a byproduct of the fundamental mechanism by which CloudDrive operates. Its data just isn't accessible outside of the application any more than a VHD is accessible to a host system outside of the VM--and for the same reasons. CloudDrive's data contains structural information about the drive, as well as relevant file system information, in addition to the actual files that it stores. CloudDrive certainly CAN be used to extend your pool, or to provide an off-site duplication resource to supplement your pool, but it is only capable of enhancing the pool in this manner for the system that hosts the pool itself. That system would then have to share the data with other systems via other, more traditional means. As far as this goes, I'm not sure what it means. It SHOULDN'T take days to recover from a simple network or power failure. I have around 300TB stored in a single cloud-based CloudDrive drive and it takes maybe 15-20 minutes to recover from a power failure or other hardware reboot. A temporary network failure simply dismounts the drive and remounts the drive once connectivity has been restored. No additional recovery time is necessary for that. The only time that either the stable or most recent beta version of CloudDrive should have to actually rebuild the database for a large drive (which does take awhile, though not days even for my drive) is when the local storage information/cache is actually corrupt and CloudDrive needs to audit the entire drive structure in order to determine what actually exists and what doesn't. It MIGHT be the case that the code for the NAS provider is less efficient. I've never used the NAS provider with CloudDrive, so I can't say. But you'd have to just reach out to Covecube via the contact form and ask.

To be clear: encryption is (and has always been) optional even on CloudDrive volumes hosted on cloud providers. You do not have to enable encryption for volumes stored on cloud storage or local storage. But what I suspect that you are actually talking about is that you want the data to be accessible in whatever native, unobfuscated file format your applications are accessing when encryption is disabled, but that simply isn't possible with CloudDrive. It just isn't how this particular software works. As mentioned in the above post from June, there ARE tools you can use to basically access cloud storage with a front-end that mounts it as a local drive, this just isn't that tool. Even if you could use a multi-terabyte chunk size, your drive would still just be one giant obfuscated chunk because what CloudDrive actually stores is a drive image. It's effectively the same thing as a VHD or VMDK--and that is by design. Even an unencrypted volume is still stored as an unencrypted drive image, not the native files that you're probably looking to access. If I'm understanding your needs correctly, though, it actually sounds like your needs are much simpler than CloudDrive. It sounds like you actually just need a SMB share and a sync tool like SyncToy to mirror certain content from the server to a NAS? Is that correct?

If you have the thread organized by votes, that post from Christopher is actually from Oct 12th. It's not the first post from the thread chronologically, which was made back in June. You just have your thread sorted by votes. This is correct though, and something I had not noticed before. Also the ReFS fix from beta .1373 and the ReFS fix listed in the stable changelog for stable .1318 are for different issues (28436 vs 28469). No versions between 1.1.2.X and 1.2.0.X are represented in the betas at all, but, for example, the Google Drive API keys which were added in BETA .1248 are represented in the stable changelog for .1249. I was presuming that the build numbers from the stable versions subsequent to the builds for the beta were implementing all of the changes up until that point and simply not listing them in the changelog, but you might be correct, here. They may simply be merging some limited number of beta changes back to the stable branch and using the version suffix to represent a rough build equivalency. If that is the case: then the stable branch is *significantly* behind the beta and, yes, Christopher and I may both have been referring to the same changes and I was just confused. If the stable version has only implemented the changes listed in the stable changlog, then the stable release will not mitigate the folder-limit issue. You would have to use a beta. This is my fault for not keeping up with the stable changelog since switching to the beta. So, yeah, the bottom line is that people need to either switch to the beta, if they're seeing this issue, or wait for a stable release. But you'd have to reach out to Alex and Chrisopher about when that might be. I can, however, vouch for the stability of at least beta .1316, which is what I am still using on my server. I'll go back and edit the inaccuracies in previous posts. Pursuant to the above, if you are not running the beta, then it would appear that these changes are not available to you. So nothing that anyone has suggested here would work. You'll have to switch or wait.