Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by woodp

  1. Submitted to Bitflock. The ID is HJ3Y15A7 And as if to put an exclamation point on the weirdness, note the time delta between the top two dives yesterday was *exactly* three hours. This morning the delta is two hours. And reality is these drives should indicate about a year apart.
  2. My pool consists of four, green WD 2G hard drives, and in general, I remove old drives after 2-3 years, even if they're still indicating healthy. But I'm starting to not trust Scanner's AGE report any longer. In the attachment, the two bottom drives (the ones ending in -00DC0B0) were installed at the *exact* same time. Now scanner is reporting they were replaced ~4 months apart. The top two drives (ending in -19D8PB0 and -00D8PB0) were installed almost a year apart, yet scanner reports *exactly* a three hour difference. What am I doing wrong? Should I stop trusting Scanner's age information?
  3. Just downloaded and installed. FreeFileSync is working like a charm. Thank you!
  4. @jmalcolm001 Just curious - I'm running FFS on my client PC, not on the server. Are you running it the same way or does it reside on your server?
  5. I had been using FreeFileSync to sync several directories on my local PC with a Drive Pool on a WS2012E server. A couple days ago, FreeFileSync (FFS) started freezing attempting to write its "Lock" file to the server directories. I think, but can't confirm, the problem started with the upgrade to Upgrading again to earlier today had no effect. FFS still stalls trying to write its lock file to the servier directories. This afternoon I uninstalled FFS and reinstalled an old copy of Microsoft's SyncToy. Voila, syncing works again! It really seems like FFS and the latest DP don't like each other but I can't figure out why. Any thoughts?
  6. 1. Shucks 2. Shucks 3. Perfect, thank you! 4. Ah, I had missed that. Thank you for your responses!
  7. Oops, it wasn't my intention to turn this into a 1.x vs. 2.x discussion; although I can see how my original post may have done that, but to see if some of the 1.x functionality and reporting could be added into 2.x. Specifically: As I mentioned earlier, there wasn't adequate indication that duplication was off. 1.x had the two disk and folder screens that made it very obvious where the storage capacity was being used. I miss knowing that Folder A is distributed on Drive 2 and Drive 3, and that folder B is distributed ... I also miss knowing that Folder A is 600GB and Folder B is 400GB and so on. Even after finding that little pyramid, I was confronted by "Pool File" and "Folder" duplication options. I think I can infer what the difference is, but what is the significance of them and why do I need options? I'm running "pool file" duplication now. Is that the correct option for me? With regards to interface, I would have preferred a Plug-in, but that's just a personal preference. Sorry about the tangential track.
  8. Migrated from WHS2011 to WS2012E the other day and that required upgrading SB DP from the 1.x version to the 2.x BETA version. With all due respect, I really don't like the new Metro (?) UI. It isn't as informative and it seems to be lacking a lot of 1.x functionality. I didn't realize it for a while that my server storage requirements were so low, and it took a while for me to figure out that duplication was off. Then it took even longer to figure out where the duplication setting is. And then I was confronted with file or folder duplication, and nothing in the FAQ seems to address this. I understand the concept of BETA - I hope 2.x evolves to resemble 1.x
  • Create New...