SantiagoDraco

Thanks for the responses!   Looking forward to enhancements to this great product.

First off... great start!   Been waiting for this for some time since posting a while back and so happy to see it.  Now to get more drives to make room for this to work
 
So to my questions and suggestions.
 
In the Balancing > File Placement > Folders section I see the list of folders and then the list of available drives on the right for creation of that relationship...
1.  Would it be possible to add the actual drive model/size to the list of drives?  
2.  If I remember correctly you said you do some level of performance measuring in DP (not sure to what extent).   Does this info lend itself to applying a "good/better/best" color flagging to the drives in this list to gauge relative actual performance?
3.  If not (or maybe as an enhancement to 2 above) have you thought of adding the ability to, on a schedule or manually, "test" all drives for performance indexing that can be applied to my suggestion 2 or some other way?
4.  If you are selecting folders/drives in the folders tab and you hit "save" the entire dialog closes.   Please add an "apply" button to create the actual rule rather than having every click create a rule.   The problem here is you can easily end up with rules that don't automatically remove themselves if you "uncheck" what you changed.  
5.  When navigating down folders in the tree child folders should always display the drive selection of it's parent folder unless explicitly changed. 
6.  Along the lines of the apply/save comment maybe it could be "apply to rules" in the folders tab for the current selection(s) and then a ".   Of course I know buttons should usually have single word but just stating as for examples sake.
 
 
 
Have you thought of creating more traditional rules that can be grown/expanded as needed? For example I might have a rule called "HD movies" and within that rule are all the folders and drives that apply to that rule.   So I can have one rule for a given set of folders and assigned drives.  If I delete that rule I remove all those custom relationships.  If I ever want to assign a new folder to the rule I can just add the folder to the rule without having to create an entire new set of folder/drive assignments per folder.   Assuming this makes sense.    So in your Rules pane you'd have:
 
RuleName1
+Folders:
-- Folder 1
-- Folder 2
-- Folder 3
+Drives
-- Drive 1
-- Drive 2
-- Drive 3
 
RuleName2
+Folders
-- Folder 5
-- Folder 6
+Drives
-- Drive 2
-- Drive 4
-- Drive 5
 
 
Questions/comments aside thanks for such a great product.  I don't know what I'd do without it... maybe use raid again /shudder.
 

First off... great start!   Been waiting for this for some time since posting a while back and so happy to see it.  Now to get more drives to make room for this to work
 
So to my questions and suggestions.
 
In the Balancing > File Placement > Folders section I see the list of folders and then the list of available drives on the right for creation of that relationship...
1.  Would it be possible to add the actual drive model/size to the list of drives?  
2.  If I remember correctly you said you do some level of performance measuring in DP (not sure to what extent).   Does this info lend itself to applying a "good/better/best" color flagging to the drives in this list to gauge relative actual performance?
3.  If not (or maybe as an enhancement to 2 above) have you thought of adding the ability to, on a schedule or manually, "test" all drives for performance indexing that can be applied to my suggestion 2 or some other way?
4.  If you are selecting folders/drives in the folders tab and you hit "save" the entire dialog closes.   Please add an "apply" button to create the actual rule rather than having every click create a rule.   The problem here is you can easily end up with rules that don't automatically remove themselves if you "uncheck" what you changed.  
5.  When navigating down folders in the tree child folders should always display the drive selection of it's parent folder unless explicitly changed. 
6.  Along the lines of the apply/save comment maybe it could be "apply to rules" in the folders tab for the current selection(s) and then a ".   Of course I know buttons should usually have single word but just stating as for examples sake.
 
 
 
Have you thought of creating more traditional rules that can be grown/expanded as needed? For example I might have a rule called "HD movies" and within that rule are all the folders and drives that apply to that rule.   So I can have one rule for a given set of folders and assigned drives.  If I delete that rule I remove all those custom relationships.  If I ever want to assign a new folder to the rule I can just add the folder to the rule without having to create an entire new set of folder/drive assignments per folder.   Assuming this makes sense.    So in your Rules pane you'd have:
 
RuleName1
+Folders:
-- Folder 1
-- Folder 2
-- Folder 3
+Drives
-- Drive 1
-- Drive 2
-- Drive 3
 
RuleName2
+Folders
-- Folder 5
-- Folder 6
+Drives
-- Drive 2
-- Drive 4
-- Drive 5
 
 
Questions/comments aside thanks for such a great product.  I don't know what I'd do without it... maybe use raid again /shudder.
 

Related to another topic I started for DrivePool I was thinking it might be helpful to add a feature to Scanner that would do the following (and also work in conjunction with DrivePool).
 
1.  Once (or manually) Stablebit Scanner would perform a set of performance tests on a drive and set a Performance Index value.
2.  The index value could be a single average of certain types of reads/writes or maybe an index based on file size.   The idea here is to create an index value that can be used intelligently to optimize performance of drives in a pool.
3.  In DrivePool a user can flag folders as needing "high/medium/low" performance (or high/medium/low data rate, whatever is most intuitive to the user).
4.  Drive Pool's balancer function could then have "performance optimize" turn on/off and this optimization function would reference the drive performance index values from StableBit Scanner to then intelligently move folders around to best optimize performance.
 
Hopefully that makes sense.  The reason for the suggestion of the performance index test is that there should probably be a consistent way of designating high/medium/low performance drives relative to each other (the index should be relative) rather than using some external manual tools then having to add UI management functions for users to associate folders with drives explicitly.  Automatic is always best
 
Thanks!
 
I think this would also help sell more licenses of Scanner!    For myself Scanner has been of limited use since Smart doesn't work in my configuration.  A feature like this, a synergy between DrivePool and Scanner, would make me run out and buy a license right away ;D