Ginoliggime

I recently upgraded to the latest beta of 10.0.0.834 and I am now having issues with uploading to one of the Google attached Drives on my system.
 
I keep getting an error: Object Reference is not set to an Instance of an object.
 
I have a total of three drives on this system, 1 ACD and 2 Gdrive. The amazon drive and the other google drive don't appear to have any issues. It is only the 3rd drive that I believe was made with an earlier version.
 
I have attempted to re-authorize the drive and I am still having the same issues.
 
 

Based on the feedback from the community, here is how to get your ESXi Host to pass on SMART data for Scanner in your guest VMs.
 
All you need to do is the following and then any disk (not USB) you plugin in thereafter will be available for RDM:
In the ESXi Console window, highlight your server Go to the Configuration tab Under Software, click Advanced Settings Click RdmFilter Uncheck the box for RdmFilter.HbaIsShared Click OK  
 
Used the Advanced Settings for StableBit Scanner to enable "UnsafeDirectIo" to get the SMART data from the virtual controller:
http://wiki.covecube.com/StableBit_Scanner_Advanced_Settings
And make sure that "UnsafeDirectIo" is set to "True", and reboot.
*Note: UnsafeDirectIo is "unsafe" for a reason. It is possible that it can cause issues or glitches, or in extremely rare conditions it can cause BSODs. In a large majority of cases, these issues don't occur, but it is a possibility. So definitely "at your own risk".
 
 
 
Original Post:

Hi Guys,

I have a Dell Precision T3500 Workstation, that are running VMware ESXi 5.1.0. On this host i have created 2 virtual machines, both are Windows 2012 server standard. One of these are running Stablebit Scanner v. 2.4.0.2928.
 
My problem is, that it does not show SMART status, temperatures or anything for any of my drives. This i all the data i get (se picture). Is there something i need to install on my ESXi host, or is this just not possible on my setup, because i use VMware?


 
This i what i have on the host server:


 
Thank you in advance..
 

When removing a drive can we have the option to specify which drive(s) to put the data on and/or which drive(s) not to put the data on - obviously DP gives us a list of options based on space and duplicated data restrictions etc.
 
Reason being i am splitting my pool and the first drive i am removing is mainly moving its data onto another drive that i also want to remove - so getting double or more handling of the same files!!!!

I own a speedy usb 3.0 flash drive and would like to use it as the cache drive for one of my cloud drives. The software limits me to only using internal drives. While I understand that this is so that someone doesn't just yank out the flash drive while in operation and corrupt the cloud drive, my use case would be that the drive stays mounted as it was cheaper than buying a full on internal ssd drive. Is there anyway to bypass this limitation. 
 
My internal hdd gives me less than 5-10mb/s read/write at the best while my flash drive gives me 70-120mb/s read/write.
 
I am not interested in spending another $100 just just use it as an internal drive because of a software limitation. 
 
 
 
Thank you for any help!
 
 

Dear all,
after having read a lot about drive pool, I'm thinking to updade my old WHS 1.
I have a very limited uses case.
 
1) Every week I sync all my files from main PC to the server
2) I would like to set-up redundant policy by folder (drive pool should be able to do it)
3) Every month I make a backup on an external hard drive to keep it in a different physical location
 
Considering I would like 4 HD, 1 SSD for the system and 3 HD for the pool ( i could use the same I have in WHS 1) to have 3 duplication for top files, what do you suggest as hardware?
 
Thanks
Maurizio

I recently created a second pool at the same hardware under the same license consisting of a single spare drive that i had lying around. Today, I decided to delete the second pool that I have created and remain with the initial one. How am I supposed to do that. Is there an option somewhere, cause I tried to remove the drive and nothing happens. B.t.w. there isn't any data in the pool nor the drive, so if a force removal is indicated I wouldn't mind at all.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I updated to version .834 this morning. Now I cannot get the drive (Amazon Cloud) to mount at all. After a while I get "HTTP 429 error". Any thoughts?

edit: For clarification: It was working flawless prior to upgrade.

​The service logs shows a lot of activity, including throttling. A snip:
4:24:03.4: Information: 0 : [ChunkIdSQLiteStorage:23]   chunks IDs: 47539,47544,47546,47549,47564,47570,47571,47587,47588,47595,47598,47602,47612,47630,48534,48545,48553,48561,48569,48574,48575,48597,48603,48605,48622,48623,48631,48634,48636,48640,48647,48649,48653,48674,48678,48680,48685,48691,48694,48695,48698,48705,48711,48716,48726,48728,48731,48732,48750,48759,48780,48782,48783,48784,48805,48808,48817,48831,48840,48848,48854,48855,48887,48892,48906,48913,48926,48931,48947,48956,48987,49007,49008,49010,49020,49023,49027,49030,49040,49065,49068,49083,49089,49094,49098,49112,49115,49118,49123,49127,49128,49144,49147,49155,49160,49179,49181,49202,49215,49219
4:24:03.6: Information: 0 : [ChunkIdSQLiteStorage:23]   chunks IDs: 47620,47627,47631,47643,47645,47646,47665,47682,47708,47710,47711,47742,47757,47762,47780,47787,47788,47798,47805,47821,47829,47851,47872,47877,47892,47896,47901,47905,47927,47930,47937,47943,47956,47959,47987,48020,48023,48045,48063,48071,48083,48086,48096,48106,48107,48126,48129,48167,48176,48185,48189,48190,48198,48201,48203,48216,48219,48220,48229,48240,48259,48260,48263,48274,48288,48301,48308,48313,48316,48326,48331,48337,48341,48351,48370,48372,48377,48415,48416,48419,48423,48429,48436,48466,48472,48474,48483,48486,48487,48501,48502,48518,48528,48539,48541,48550,48562,48563,48576,48579
4:24:03.7: Information: 0 : [ChunkIdSQLiteStorage:23]   chunks IDs: 48586,48589,48598,48602,48608,48633,48644,48648,48679,48684,48687,48693,48696,48700,48703,48714,48721,48723,48725,48727,48729,48738,48740,48751,48764,48773,48776,48778,48794,48795,48797,48807,48811,48823,48829,48914,48941,48944,48945,48955,48969,49006,49009,49013,49014,49019,49048,49049,49051,49059,49079,49080,49084,49086,49091,49095,49101,49102,49105,49109,49133,49150,49165,49177,49178,49187,49198,49205,49206,49210,49212,49213,49221,49244,49246,49257,49263,49272,49278,49280,49283,49313,49314,49315,49327,49333,49334,49337,49339,49349,49350,49355,49358,49363,49368,49384,49398,49408,49409,49422
4:24:04.1: Warning: 0 : [ApiAmazonCloudDrive] Server is throttling us, waiting 1,000ms and retrying.

Hey all!  I've been working on learning how to setup and install WSE 2012 R2 and I think I'm finally there.  However, I'm feeling very limited in my capacities as my case is overflowing with drives.  So I'm going to be building a new server from the ground up and would like some advice and suggestions as to what I should get.  I'm only a part-time worker and don't really make a lot of money.  So the purchasing time line is going to be really long.  So far, I know for certain that I'm going to but the Norco 4224 case.  I've read reviews and it has been recommended time and time again.  The only issue with this case appears to be the fans, and the potential for the backplanes to be DOA.  But at the price, it's a steal compared to other similar cases.  Plus, I'm going to get it through NewEgg, as they're the cheapest place around, and they offer really quick RMA's for exchanges if there's something wrong with.
 
Now I'm at the point of internals.  The first order of business is the motherboard.  Form factor isn't really an issue as the Norco case fully supports a whole range.  Individual features are where I'm struggling.  I know that I want to have room for expansion.  So I'm kinda staying away from those Mini ITX boards, since they, for the most part, all seem to have only 1 expansion slot.  I already have 1 SAS controller, and plan on getting an expander.  So that would be 2 slots.  As for the processor, I'm not sure what I need.  My usage scenario is a simple home file server for client backups and media streaming.  So I suppose I don't need anything major.  The same goes for RAM. 
 
As it is right now, I'm thinking about getting one of these:

SUPERMICRO MBD-X9SCL-F-O LGA 1155 Intel C202 Micro ATX Intel Xeon E3 Server Motherboard
or
SUPERMICRO MBD-A1SAM-2550F-O uATX Server Motherboard FCBGA 1283 DDR3 1600/1333
 
The first board is nice, in that it has plenty of expansion slots, Support for Xeon processors, and is cheap.  However, it only supports ECC memory of max 32gb, SATA 3.0GB/s, and is cheap.  The second board is nice, in that it has just enough expansion slots for my needs (controller and expander), already comes with a processor, supports (but not require) ECC memory of max 64gb, and has 2xSATA 6.0Gb/s, but is a little more expensive.
 
So which board should I get?  Integrated CPU and more RAM, or more slots, less RAM, and mandatory ECC?  Or should I look at something else?  What are your suggestions?

EDIT ->  I just looked at and am now also adding this contender:
SUPERMICRO MBD-A1SAM-2550F-O uATX Server Motherboard FCBGA 1283 DDR3 1600/1333
 
It's got more everything.  More SATA 6.0Gb/s, TONS more RAM, support for faster CPU, and more expensive.  To put it in perspective, this new board would probably take a month to save up for.

First of all been using your products for 3 years and they are great. Thank you for your support of a niche capability that I loved about WHS.
 
I recently reformatted installed Windows 10 and restored my pool, but my file permissions are a little messed up. Writing to folders of child folders that existed pre reinstall require User Access Control Confirmation and some programs pop an error saying I don't have access to write to them.
 
Thank you

So something I've noticed recently, is that some of the 'Tweets' for the stablebit giveaway seem to be from people with multiple accounts.  Most of the tweets are from accounts with 0 followers, 0 following, and only tweet once a week for the contest.
Exhibit A
 
3 Accounts, named @555Helo, @helo3212 and @123helo2.  All have 0 following and 0 followers, and no tweets other than entering the contest each week every week, within a few minutes of eachother, along with a dozen other accounts.  I wouldn't be suprised if they are all the same person or bot, but the 3 helo's are obviously tied together.
 
Exhibit B

These same 3 accounts, all created and starting tweeting on the same day.  
 
 
If you look at the tweet 'spread' It's pretty evenly spaced though-out the week, normally 4-6 tweets a day spread out.  But taking a look at the tweets from this morning show a different story, 14 tweets, between 9:14AM and 9:20AM, all from 'suspicious' accounts, only two of these have accounts have any following or followers (@A_steelbourne with 1 follower and @pittsa with 1 follower and 3 following).  Obviously someone is trying to game the system, I wouldn't be that surprised if it is just one person with 14 accounts given the proximity of the tweeting times.  Is there any verification with the giveaway that the accounts are real?  I think the giveaway is a fantastic Idea, to get exposure for stablebit while letting people have a chance to receive keys, but this abuse seems pretty bad.
 
Thanks for reading this!
-e

So i can assume my problem will be fixed next version?
Also i have another question... does drivepool override smbbandwidthlimit?
I set the bandwidthlimit on win serv to 10MBps.. but copying from the share still gives me 30MBps

By default, it should respect the settings.   You can take a read here at why specifically: 
http://stablebit.com/Support/DrivePool/2.X/Manual?Section=Balancing%20Settings
 
 
But basically, the file placement rules should respect the real time placement limiters (which could be a problem here), And the balancing plugins will respect the file placement rules. 
 
If you uncheck the "file placement rules respect real-time placement limits set by the balancing plugins" it should definitely write to the Archive drives when the file placement rules "demand" it.   But in your config, it should work fine, as well. 

Now I want to get one of these:
http://www.45drives.com/products/storage/xl60.php
 
HEHE!!  Thanks for the advice there Chris.  I'm actually going to be getting ECC Ram with the new motherboard because it only supports ECC.  The RAM I'm going to buy buying is this:
 
Kingston 8GB 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM ECC Unbuffered DDR3 1600 Server Memory w/TS Model KVR16E11/8 (linky)
 
I was concerned initially about it not having a heat spreader or some other form of heat sink, but after looking around a bit it looks like all server memory is like that.  This particular model is 8gb, and listed on the motherboard's memory support list.  So I will buy 1 now, with the motherboard and CPU, and then upgrade the CPU, then buy more memory as needed.  The CPU I will get further down the line is:
 
Intel Xeon E3-1276 v3 Haswell 3.6GHz 8MB L3 Cache LGA 1150 84W Server Processor BX80646E31276V3 (linky)
 
Again, this is the best CPU I could find that the motherboard officially supports.  And I'm going to get an after market cooler too, and this one is really teasing my interest:
 
Noctua NH-U9S 92mm SSO2 U-Type Premium CPU Cooler, NF-A9 PWM Fans (linky)
 
It's out of stock at the moment, but after reading some internet reviews of some of Noctua's other models, this one will actually fit inside the Norco case.  Other models have issues with the heatpipe post tips.  Hopefully I'm linking the correct one here.  But yeah, I'm hoping this upgrade will suit me for the time being.  If money was no object, I'd probably buy that 60-bay case, and have 2 of the latest E5 Xeons that have 15 cores and 30mb L3 Cache that's like $2,800 along with a few TB's of RAM!!

I recently had to migrate data from 5 X 4TB HDD's that were in an old WHS 2011 setup when my eSATA enclosure's power supply died.  I was basically just using WHS 2011 as a file server, so I decided just to move on from WHS 2011 and build a Win10-based PC in a case with a lot of 3.5" drive bays instead.  Before I built the new PC, I backed up all the data on the 5 X 4TB HDD's to external USB drives.  I wasn't using DrivePool on WHS 2011.
 
Upon completing the build of the new PC, I decided to give DrivePool a try.  I purchased the 2.0 version, and installed it.  I then installed three brand-new 4TB drives, and created a new pool - adding those three drives to the pool.  I copied over as much data to those three drives from the external USB drives to the three HDD in the pool as would fit.  I still had two drives from the old WHS setup, which were less than a year old, and checked out healthy  -so I decided to re-use them at least temporarily.  Having read that drives with existing data could be added to a pool, I just installed those old 4TB drives and added them to the pool.  I moved the data out of the old WHS 2011 ServerFolders into new folders, and added those folders to the pool.  I ended up with exactly what I set out to have - five 4TB drives, and their data, in a pool.
 
I know DrivePool offers file duplication, but I just don't have enough free space on my drives to duplicate everything that I would need to.  I also prefer to have an offline backup, so I set up Allway Sync to sync all the data in my pool back to the same external USB drives that I had previously used to back up that data in the first place. I have added no new data to the drives in the pool yet.  Even the folder structure is identical between what's in the pool, and what's on the external USB drives.  
 
I am now attempting to set up a one-way sync from the pooled drives back to the external USB drives in Allway Sync.  When Allway Sync "analyzes" the data between the pooled drives and the external USB drives, it doesn't recognize that any of the existing files are already on the USB drives.  It wants to copy everything over again - which shouldn't be necessary.
 
I'm new to the pooled drive thing, so maybe I'm missing some elementary understanding of how it works.  Any idea what I need to do to set up the sync properly so I don't have to copy all the files over again?
 
Thanks!
 
   

I have ubuntu server and i plan to install windows server 2012 on separate ssd using the same motherboard
Whats the fastest way to do this if i want to minimize downtime?
I plan to convert them all to NTFS first because ubuntu can still read NTFS..
Can drivepool read the result after that?

I am sure that I could use some third-party solution for this, but just as a suggestion:
Could you please allow for an email/SMS to be sent when service throws exceptions/warnings? It would be great to know the status of the disk when using headless systems to which I do not log on every day.
 
 

decided to do away with home server 2011 and installed windows 10 pro
 
so much faster using an i7 and 32gb ram but forgot to unlicence driver pool and scanner
 
can i reuse the licence or do i need a new one

This is a topic I think have been discussed before but is still an issue on my setup.
If I upload 1GB of data, it takes three to five times as long time as if I was uploading directly utilizing the same speed.
I looked at the "technical details" and noticed something peculiar - progress on some threads where over 100% in completion. Why would that be?

Hi!
 
Just before I pull the trigger on buying this software, does anybody have a good method to back up a google drive account to a secondary account? It doesn't NEED to be a second google account, but that would be simpler.
 
Of course I need this backed up drive to be able to re-create the same drives in Windows.
 
Thanks!

I recently had Scanner flag a disk as containing "unreadable" sectors.  I went into the UI and ran the file scan utility to identify which files, if any, had been damaged by the 48 bad sectors Scanner had identified.  Turns out all 48 sectors were part of the same (1) ~1.5GB video file, which had become corrupted.
 
As Scanner spent the following hours scrubbing all over the platters of this fairly new WD RED spinner in an attempt to recover the data, it dawned on me that my injured file was part of a redundant pool, courtesy of DrivePool.  Meaning, a perfectly good copy of the file was sitting 1 disk over.
 
SO...
Is Scanner not aware of this file? What is the best way to handle this manually if the file cannot be recovered?  Should I manually delete the file and let DrivePool figure out the discrepancy and re-duplicate the file onto a healthy set of sectors on another drive in the pool?  Should I overwrite the bad file with the good one??? IN A PERFECT WORLD, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE...
Scanner identifies the bad sectors, checks to see if any files were damaged, and presents that information to the user. (currently i was alerted to possible issues, manually started a scan, was told there may be damaged files, manually started a file scan, then I was presented with the list of damaged files). At this point, the user can take action with a list of options which, in one way or another, allow the user to: Flag the sectors-in-question as bad so no future data is written to them (remapped). Automatically (with user authority) create a new copy of the damaged file(s) using a healthy copy found in the same pool. Attempt to recover the damaged file (with a warning that this could be a very lengthy operation) Thanks for your ears and some really great software.  Would love to see what the developers and community think about this as I'm sure its been discussed before, but couldn't find anything relevant in the forums.

Hi,
 
I've been a long time DrivePool user and love the software, but I recently noticed something that I'm not sure was intended. I have one bad disk that frequently keeps disconnecting from the machine. I have replaced the disk, but the damn thing keeps disconnecting, I just haven't looked into it further as doing a "Scan for Hardware" in Device Manager usually brings it back.

Anyways, I noticed that when the disk is missing I cannot write or delete files from the DrivePool disk (in this case M:\). If I try, I get an error message stating that I need permission from Administrators on the local machine. I almost went nuts trying to figure out the permissions within Windows thinking something was wrong, simply because the Administrators group on the machine was the owner of the drive and all subsequent folders. Reads from the drive still work as expected. I can replicate this by finding any drive in Disk Management on the machine, right clicking and then clicking Offline to turn off the disk (at least in Windows). Once I bring it back online, it works again.

Is this intended? As mentioned, I almost went absolutely crazy trying to figure the permissions out. The thing that made me look at DrivePool was that if I rebooted the machine, it usually worked for a little while before disconnecting again. I tried transferring files, and at roughly the same time I got an email stating the drive was missing which made me think maybe it wasn't permissions. As soon as it was back online, I could write to it again.
 
If it is intended, is somebody able to walk me through why this it is the way it is (I'm sure there is a good reason for it), and if it's possible to disable?

Thanks!

@Lee:
 
The biggest issues with ReFS right now are performance, and support. 
 
The biggest feature of ReFS is the integrity (error detection) aspect of the file system. The problem is that there is a huge write penalty for doing so, because the OS (and therefore) the CPU must run calculations for each sector/cluster written.  If you take a look at some of the benchmarks, there is a HUGE penalty here (I've seen as low as ~30% of the normal speed).   
However, this feature can be turned off, but you lose that detection issue. There are some other improvements that still make ReFS worth using, though. 
 
As for support, it doesn't support a lot of the file system features that some programs expect.
The 2012 version removed Alternate Data Streams (which makes that version usable for us, without a drastic rewrite), but was re-added in the 2012R2 version (because of MS SQL, actually.... oops). 
 
But compression, file encryption, hard links extended attributes and QUOTAS are not supported on ReFS.  That last one is a big thing, especially for enterprises.  Though dropping support for hard links is great for us, as we can't support that on the Pool anyways. 
 
The biggest issue IMO, though, is that there is a underwhelming number of recovery tools for ReFS. Especially consumer based recovery tools.
 
If you want a good read, a lot of this is covered on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReFS
Including other issues, and pro and cons. 

That depends on what you're doing.  For the most part, that *should* be good enough. But I'm a bit of a perfectionist... and I'd rather have both running at full x16. But that's entirely dependant on the chipset/mainboard you're using.

I need 4 additional SATA ports on my new Z170 board with SMART support. No RAID. Is the Marvel 88SE9230 chipset a safe bet?

Hi! On newly created drives i got a lot of uploading errors, it can take forever to upload just 200mb of data. On an older drive i have no problems at all to upload. I took a picture of the error in the "Feed Back console" I have a 200/200 Mb/s connection.
 
Is it a known problem? 
Thanks!
 
Edit: The old drive was created using version 777, and the new drive was created using version 811. I am using version 819 atm.