Christopher (Drashna)

This is a topic that comes up from time to time.  
Yes, it is possible to display the SMART data from the underlying  drives in Storage Spaces.  
However, displaying those drives in a meaningful way in the UI, and maintaining the surface and file system scans at the same time is NOT simple.  At best, it will require a drastic change, if not outright rewrite of the UI.  And that's not a small undertaking. 
So, can we? Yes.  But do we have the resources to do so? not as much (we are a very small company)

This is a topic that comes up from time to time.  
Yes, it is possible to display the SMART data from the underlying  drives in Storage Spaces.  
However, displaying those drives in a meaningful way in the UI, and maintaining the surface and file system scans at the same time is NOT simple.  At best, it will require a drastic change, if not outright rewrite of the UI.  And that's not a small undertaking. 
So, can we? Yes.  But do we have the resources to do so? not as much (we are a very small company)

(also: https://wiki.covecube.com/StableBit_DrivePool_Q5510455 )

It means the pool drive.  And yeah... how Windows handles disk/partition/volume stuff is confusing... at best. 
For this ... take ownership of the folder, change it's permissions, and delete it (on the pool). 
Then resolve the issue.  It should fix the issue, and shouldn't come back. 

Awesome, glad to hear that! 
And yeah, AV can be annoying sometimes, but that it's been that long since you have had an issue is a good thing (or a horrible, horrible thing  )

This is a false positive, and happens from time to time.   And the specific "match" is the predictive engine, which is more prone to false positives. 
You can safely ignore this. 

(also: https://wiki.covecube.com/StableBit_DrivePool_Q5510455 )

Also, there is this: 
https://wiki.covecube.com/StableBit_DrivePool_Q5510455

I've also been bad about checking the forums. It can get overwhelming, and more difficult to do. 
But that's my resolution this year: to make a big effort to keep up with the forum. 

I've also been bad about checking the forums. It can get overwhelming, and more difficult to do. 
But that's my resolution this year: to make a big effort to keep up with the forum. 

This can happen if the PoolPart folder itself is damaged/corrupted.  Part of the removal process is marking the drive as "removed".  But also, it has to be able to read from the folder, as well.   File system corruption can stop both. 
nn
While it's removing, yes, it should. Afterwards, no.  But you can use the Drive Usage Limiter to prevent files from being placed on the drive, and to move files off of the drive.
Even better is the "dp-cmd"'s "ignore-poolpart" command.  This immediately ejects the drive from the pool.  This doesn't move the drive contents, but only marks the disk as "removed" from the driver. It will show up as "missing" in the UI, and then you can remove it from the UI. 
And from there, you can absolutely move the contents of the "poolpart" folder on that drive back into the pool. And ideally, using the "skip existing files" option to speed things up. 
 
 

Setting the SMART queries to be throttled like that (720 minutes) means that the temperature (a SMART value) is only going to be updated every 12 hours.  
 
If you uncheck the throttling option here, you'll see it updated much more rapidly. And setting it to something like "60 minutes" (1 hour) should see it update less frequently, but will be updated more often, and may get a more accurate reading. 

Yuuuuup.    This happens from time to time (I've seen it 4-5 times in the last 10 years, including both my systems and other peoples, so exceptionally rare). 
I'm glad you were able to figure this out, and posted the solution!  Hopefully, no more weird stuff for you!

Unfortunately, we don't have any plans on adding support for WSL2 at this time. 

Deactivate the license on the old system move the drives over to the new system install the software activate the license That's it.  The software will see the pooled drives and automatically recreate the pool.  Duplication information will be retained, but balancing information won't be.  
 
You may want to reset the permissions on the pool, but that depends on if you customized them or not.
 
For StableBit Scanner, just deactivate the license and activate it on the new system.
 
To do so:
StableBit DrivePool 2.X/Stablebit CloudDrive: Open the UI on the system that the software is installed on, click on the "Gear" icon in the top, right corner and select the "manage license" option. StableBit Scanner: Open the UI on the system that Scanner is installed on. Click on "Settings" and select "Scanner Settings". Open the "Licensing" tab, and click on the "Manage license" link. This will open a window that shows you the Activation ID, as well as a big button to "Deactivate" the license. Once you've done this, you can activate the license on a new system.   Otherwise, activate the trial period on the new system, and contact us at https://stablebit.com/contactand let us know. 

You can do this: https://wiki.covecube.com/StableBit_DrivePool_Q4822624
This hides the letters, and keeps the drives accessible. 

This is part of the problem with the way that the SSD optimizer balancer works. 
 
Specifically, it creates "real  time placement limiters" to limit what disks new files can be placed on.  
 
 
 
I'm guessing that the SSD is below the threshold set for it (75% by default, so ~45-50GBs).  Increasing the limit on the SSD may help this (but lowering it may as well, but this would force the pool to place files on the other drives rather than on the SSD). 
 
 
Additionally, there are some configuration changes that may help make the software more aggressively move data off of the drive.
http://stablebit.com/Support/DrivePool/2.X/Manual?Section=Balancing%20Settings
On the main balancing settings page, set it to "Balance immediately", and uncheck the "No more often than ever X hours" option, it set it to a low number like 1-2 hours. 
 
For the balancing ratio slider, set this to "100%", and check the "or if at least this much data needs to be moved" and set it to a very low number (like 5GBs). 
 
This should cause the balancing engine to rather aggressively move data out of the SSD drive and onto the archive drives, reducing the likelihood that this will happen.
 
 
Also, it may not be a bad idea to use a larger sized SSD, as the free space on the drive is what gets reported when adding new files. 

This is part of the problem with the way that the SSD optimizer balancer works. 
 
Specifically, it creates "real  time placement limiters" to limit what disks new files can be placed on.  
 
 
 
I'm guessing that the SSD is below the threshold set for it (75% by default, so ~45-50GBs).  Increasing the limit on the SSD may help this (but lowering it may as well, but this would force the pool to place files on the other drives rather than on the SSD). 
 
 
Additionally, there are some configuration changes that may help make the software more aggressively move data off of the drive.
http://stablebit.com/Support/DrivePool/2.X/Manual?Section=Balancing%20Settings
On the main balancing settings page, set it to "Balance immediately", and uncheck the "No more often than ever X hours" option, it set it to a low number like 1-2 hours. 
 
For the balancing ratio slider, set this to "100%", and check the "or if at least this much data needs to be moved" and set it to a very low number (like 5GBs). 
 
This should cause the balancing engine to rather aggressively move data out of the SSD drive and onto the archive drives, reducing the likelihood that this will happen.
 
 
Also, it may not be a bad idea to use a larger sized SSD, as the free space on the drive is what gets reported when adding new files. 

Just a heads up, this is a known issue, and we are looking into a solution for this issue (both to prevent it for new drives and for existing drives).
I don't have an ETA, but we are actively working on it. 
 

Unfortunately, we don't have any plans on adding support for WSL2 at this time. 

Unfortunately, we don't have any plans on adding support for WSL2 at this time. 

You can reset the status, and it will flag it to get scanned. 
https://stablebit.com/Support/Scanner/2.X/Manual?Section=Disk Scanning Panel#File System Health
 

No issues.  I've been using SMR drives personally since Seagate released the Archive drives.  And I have a pool of mixed drives.  WD Reds, Seagate NAS, Seagate Archive. 
The only caveat is that the SMR drives have a "write cache" of non-SMR space. If you fill that (fairly easy to do so), the write speeds get atrociously slow.   Because of this, I would recommend using the SSD optimizer, to effectively bypass this issue.  Doesn't matter if balancing is slow, since it is  any ways.
In fact, that's the setup that I have (for years now), and it works wonderfully. 

welcome!  And yeah, it's a really nice way to set up the system.  It hides the drives and keeps them accessible, at the same time. 

Full Stop. 
 
No. 
 
The Read Striping may improve performance, but we still have the added overhead of reading from NTFS volumes.  And the performance profile for doing so.
 
RAID 1 works at a block level, and it's able to split IO requests between the disks.  SO one disk could read the partition table information, while the second disk starts reading the actual file data. 
 
This is a vast oversimplification of what happens, but a good illustration of what happens.
 
 
So, while we may read from both disks, in parallel, there are a number of additional steps that we have to perform to do so. 
 
 
 
To be blunt, the speed is never going to rival hardware RAID.   However, between with disk switching, and the reading blocks of the file and caching into memory. 
 
 
 
 
 
That said, you should still see at least the native disk speeds, or a bit better. But this depends on what the disks are doing, specifically. 
 
 
 
 
CrystalDiskInfo probably isn't going to get great stats because of how it tests the data.
 
At best, enable pool file duplication, so that EVERYTHING is duplicated.  Make sure Read Striping is enabled, and then test. 

I guess that would really depend on the client/server/service, and how it handles uploaded files. 
However, it shouldn't be an issue, in most cases.