Jump to content
Covecube Inc.

Christopher (Drashna)

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Christopher (Drashna) last won the day on September 9 2019

Christopher (Drashna) had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Christopher (Drashna)

  • Rank
    Customer and Technical Support
  • Birthday 06/25/1983

Contact Methods

  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • Jabber
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    San Diego, CA, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

5667 profile views
  1. As Umfriend mentioned, balancing runs in a background priority. That means that if there is other activity on the pool, it may/will cause the balancing to take longer to complete. You can temporarily up the priority, by clicking on the ">>" icon at the bottom when balancing is occuring, though.
  2. For anyone still experiencing this, please download this version (or a newer release): http://dl.covecube.com/ScannerWindows/beta/download/StableBit.Scanner_2.6.0.3350_BETA.exe That should fix the issue causing this problem, and allow the software to work correctly.
  3. To update you, Alex is already planning on implementing such a link. It's half there, as he's still working on that specific feature.
  4. Ideally, you'd want to remove the disk from the Pool using the normal method and then add the new disk. Anything outside of that is basically not supported, because it is prone to issues and complications.
  5. That may be an issue with the version of the Client Backup database. Are you using this on? http://wiki.covecube.com/WhsDbDataDump_2.0 If so, that may be why, if you were using WHS2011. In that case, try: http://dl.covecube.com/WhsDbDataDump/BETA/WhsDbDataDump-1_0_0_6-BETA.zip
  6. Well, the removal failing is. And unfortunately, because the disk is having issues, the remeasure is worse (since it's I/O intensive). And I don't think the remeasure is normal here, but I'd have to double check. And that there are disk issues .... if the drive disconnects and reconnects during this process, it will trigger a remeasure to occur, which may be what is happening here. As for balancing, yeah, that's intentional. And either way, the "dpcmd ignore-poolpart" command should be pretty instantaneous, and should prevent the issue from occurring (but may trigger a remeasure)
  7. Noted, and will pass that feedback along.
  8. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you! The simplest way would be to create a new disk and move the data over directly. However, if it's in a pool, the ... simplest way would be to add the new disk to the pool and just remove the old disk from the pool.
  9. You're very welcome. Also, if you want, open a ticket at https://stablebit.com/Contact about this issue, and we can see about checking if StableBit DrivePool is the issue.
  10. Okay, could you open a ticket at https://stablebit.com/Contact ?
  11. Oooh, You don't want to use the Ordered File Placement balancer with the SSD Optimizer. This creates a circumstance where it will forever move files around. If you want to use both, then only enable the SSD Optimizer, and then use the "Ordered Placement" section in the SSD Optimizer. Also, if you're using duplication, you really want/need 2x "SSD" drives
  12. Unfortunately, this is one of the things that StableBit Scanner does not do. That said, you may want to run CHKDSK on the disk in question, or data recovery, rather than initializing it. But yeah, if this drive is having issues above and has show up with a damaged or missing file system, it's probably dead or dying, and should be replaced.
  13. Sorry for not getting to you sooner. The "cyclic redundancy check" error indicates either file system issues, or outright disk corruption. Either way, "bad". As for the "files in use", you can use the "Force close" option, and this may help. Additionally, you could use "dpcmd ignore-poolpart X: 9c1fe6e2-37d0-4425-88c8-9fe5e99b8512", and this will immediately eject the drive from the pool, without moving the files off of it.
  14. You could copy the data, mirroring it on the Synology NAS, but you wouldn't be able to use it as a parity drive, as far as I'm aware.
  15. Correct, no we don't support that. Unfortunately, getting most anything but the filename is a LOT more expensive in terms of system resources. And since a LOT of this code needs to run in the kernel, any extra will add up exponentially. However, you could do by extension, as that can be a good indicator of range of the file size.
  • Create New...