Christopher (Drashna)

"dpcmd remeasure-pool x:"

It's $10 off the normal price for a product you don't already own, but $15/each for products that you do. 

It's $10 off the normal price for a product you don't already own, but $15/each for products that you do. 

The service log would be where that stuff is logged.  
But no, there aren't any "reports" generated at this time. 
 
This is something that has been requested in the past, and is something that we do plan on added, but as part of the StableBit Cloud
http://wiki.covecube.com/Development_Status#StableBit_Cloud
 
 

"dpcmd remeasure-pool x:"

Good day.
I'm not sure about this, but you /could/ disable the DrivePool service and reboot, THEN disconnect the USB drives, and finally restart the service. I say I'm not sure, because even when I disable the service and reboot, the pool's drive is still there in Windows (the CoveFS device stays enabled) so I'm not sure if that would free-up the locks or not; you could try it...
Regards,

For Windows, I think you're best using CIFS/SMB/Samba/Windows File Shares.  But for some linux programs, it's better to use NFS. 
Or in my case, I used NFS for PXE booting, since that is all that is supported.

Yes! I have installed 1.1.0.1025 and the problem has been solved. Thank you!

Try this build: http://dl.covecube.com/CloudDriveWindows/beta/download/StableBit.CloudDrive_1.1.0.1017_x64_BETA.exe
This may fix the issue, if it pops up.

"Release Final" means that it's a stable release, and will be pushed out to everyone.  Not that it's the final build. 
Besides, we have at least 7 more major features to add, before even considering a 3.0.

"Release Final" means that it's a stable release, and will be pushed out to everyone.  Not that it's the final build. 
Besides, we have at least 7 more major features to add, before even considering a 3.0.

Good day Jaga.
Arg, so IOZone produces complicated CSV files? Darn, it looked perfect, all the website said it does is call standard disk stuff, not trying to measure position on disk or bypass cache. Sandra also looked promising. It's so difficult to find a benchmark for disks that doesn't try to get the disk's raw performance. Well who knows, maybe it is 4 times faster with PrimoCache enabled! When I go to their forums (it's on the todo list) to ask some questions, I'll ask if they know of a benchmark we can use.
Thanks!

Sure you can.  Windows 32-bit program here.  64-bit here.  Just don't change anything using the 32-bit interface after setting limits using the 64-bit program, or it might fubar the settings.
 
Primocache can't do that, but their other product Primo RAMdisk can.  You set a maximum limit for it, and it only takes as much RAM as the RAMdisk is currently using (I have it installed and working that way myself).
It's a good suggestion for Primocache however - I may toss it at the main developer over there and see what they think of a min/max limit on the cache so it can dynamically adjust.
Primocache exists just fine right alongside the Windows cache.  Since Windows isn't aggressive in file caching (at all), it typically uses very little RAM for files it reads.  And it doesn't have a write cache (I've never heard of anyone seriously using the write-back feature and getting good results).  That's where Primocache picks up - it has a much more robust kernel-level cache that will pick up where Windows leaves off, they exist in perfect harmony.  If a file is in Windows' cache, Primocache doesn't take any action, it just lets Windows deliver the content.  If it's not in Windows' cache, Primocache caches the blocks being requested (it's block level, not file) and delivers the content.  Since it is kernel level, it can also be told to pre-fetch the contents of the cache at last shutdown during boot time, to speed up the system before Windows has even loaded.  My boot times (with the RAMdisk turned off) are around 6 seconds, and I'm not using a NVMe.
Primocache's write cache is quite robust as well, and highly recommended with a UPS on the machine.  Both of my benchmarks above are with the write cache on, and when using a large L1 (RAM) cache for both read/write with large block size.
Even if you only have 1GB to throw at a L1 cache (or a spare SSD to use as a L2 cache against spinner drives), it can dramatically speed up almost any system.
I rebooted my server just this morning, so the cache hit rate isn't as high as it would normally be (around 93%), but this gives you a good look at how I have my boot volume cache configured, and at the Primocache interface on a live machine:

 
 
If you know of a benchmark program that works at the file level (and not sector or drive level), let me know what it is and I'll re-run the benchmarks at whatever file size you think is good.  It'll be interesting to see how Drivepool responds in both cases.
 
p.s.  Thanks @Christopher (Drashna) & @Alex for allowing us to discuss non-Covecube products on the forums here!   

You could put multiple volumes on the physical drive, size them how you wanted, and then add the volumes to different pools.  That would also allow separate security permissions, features like encryption, etc on the separate volumes.
As far as I know Drivepool doesn't have the functionality built in.

Just a thought - you said you "recently installed" the enclosure.  If *any* part of Windows is reporting the drive size/features incorrectly, you could attempt to either return or exchange it, OR file it under warranty as defective.  

Alex thinks he knows what is going on here, and has a planned "code change" that should help with this. 

Okay, thank you for confirming.   I have a video conference with Alex later, and I'll definitely be bringing this issue up.

I think this may have been brought up before, but let me flag it, anyways.
https://stablebit.com/Admin/IssueAnalysis/27847

I really, really want one of these 115 PB drives. 
Definitely sounds like a controller/backplane issue though.

Ah ha! 
Triggered it!
 
I've updated the ticket, and hopefully, we'll be able to fix this soon!

Awesome! 
And yeah, once the cache gets filled, it dumps what is in there, for the new system. So a small cache means constant downloading.   
 
So I'm glad to hear that this was the issue here. 

Well, glad that it's working fine.  And yay for over protective virus scanners. 

Welcome!

Scanner also pings the SMART status of each drive on a short timer.  You will want to go into Settings, and to the S.M.A.R.T. tab to enable "Throttle queries".  It's your choice how long to set it, and you also have the option to limit queries to the work window (active disk scanning) only, or to not query the drive if it has spun down (sleep mode on the drive).
In your case, I would simply throttle queries to every 5-10 minutes, and enable "Only query during the work window or if scanning".  Then under the General tab set the hours it's allowed to access the drives to perform scans, and check "Wake up to scan".  It should limit drive activity and allow the machine to sleep normally.

Honestly, I'd say use NTFS.  
In Server 2012R2, and up, I'd say it's pretty much ready. 
The biggest issue is that most disk tools are NOT compatible with ReFS yet. Which is the real problem. 
As for bit rot, that's a fun subject.
That saves you cost up front, and dumps the cost on the warranty. Eg, you have none. So if the drive fails, you may be SOL, if you didn't save the enclosures. 
But seriously, a 3-5 year warranty is worth the difference, IMO. 
Actually it does.  It's not the same effect, but the outcome is the same:  bleeding.   It's part of why there are a limited number of writes, IIRC.