Shane

Hi Sacred, the entry should be CoveFs_WaitForVolumesOnMountMs and that entry should already be present in the Settings.json file. You might also want to try stopping the service before editing the file, only then restarting the service afterwards.

It's not possible; the operating system has to be loaded before DrivePool can start. You could mount a pool as a folder on the boot drive (e.g. have it show up as "c:\pool" instead of "d:\") but not as the boot drive itself.

I know the overhead's more noticeable when moving smaller files, but I haven't kept any hard numbers sorry. I also try to always keep at least one spare port (internal or external) available so that I can just plug in a new drive and let DrivePool take care of the rest, and everything at least x2 duplicated (and backed up) so if I'm in a hurry for some reason (e.g. a drive failing in a way that panics the OS) I can simply just ditch the culprit and let DrivePool handle re-duplication. I'm shifting things around at the moment but I've a mostly-full 4TB drive (internal SATA) I could test removing both normally and manually afterwards if you're interested (not that such a test would be rigorous, since pool content varies, but the offer's there). Do you use duplication?

Sorry, I'm stumped. Your settings look like they should be resulting in an even distribution. Is there anything active at all in the File Placement tab, or lower down in the Balancers tab? Is "Balancers -> SSD Optimizer -> Ordered placement -> Duplicated" unticked? Does changing to "Equalize by the free space remaining" have a better result?

Sadly no. As I understand it, only "single thread" (so to speak) balancing was implemented due to the considerable extra complexity that would be involved in getting "multiple thread" balancing to work well.

It's every 30 days for all three (edit: except see Christopher's post below) and I believe the logic is attempting to find a reasonable balance between load/wear and frequency for most users; you can adjust to your personal situation/preferences.

I don't know if it's related, but Stablebit just had a Microsoft-related issue with their cloud infrastructure that lasted several hours. If you're still having problems you might want to get in touch with Stablebit via the contact form.

If you're having licensing issues, please use the Contact form to request help directly from Stablebit. ... once their server comes back up. Ouch. P.S. I've rebooted my home server (YOLO) and DrivePool and Scanner are still showing as licensed, and I can reach the stablebit.cloud site, so @PBUK and @Tullerian perhaps try again in case the part affecting you is working again? EDIT: this link https://status.stablebit.cloud/ shows that some services are down and has the following message at the top:

It's come up a few times over the years. This post mentions reasons why DP might leave empty (and "empty") folders, while this post mentions a really neat trick with robocopy that can be used to clean them up if you decide you want them gone anyway - note that if you use it but you've got any empty folders you actually want to keep you'll have to exclude them somehow (e.g. via the /XD switch). Hope that helps.

Yes, that's correct. If you're using Snapraid to protect your pool then normally you'd want DrivePool's balancing plug-in for Scanner either turned off or at least set to not move files out.

If it's happening on a regular schedule you might want to check if anything is running in the background (e.g. via Windows Task Scheduler) at those times? Otherwise I'd suggest using the Contact form to request support from Stablebit.

By default a file will normally be copied into the pool using whichever drive within that has the most free space at the time, so if they're all empty it would presumably use the 10TB drives first (and this is the behaviour I see using FreefileSync to back up files to my pool). How much RAM does the sending and receiving computer(s) have? Do any of the suggestions at https://www.makeuseof.com/insufficient-system-resources-exist-error-windows/ help? I also found this topic https://freefilesync.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8868 in the FFS forums, in which the OP discovered the issue was a faulty RAM stick in their computer, so that's another possibility. Another poster suggested editing the LanManServer record in the registry. Note that if editing the registry doesn't help, I recommend reverting the change in case it causes other issues later.

It would complain every time it does a health check of the pool, and offer to delete all the older file(s) under the assumption that there was an error in duplicating the newer instance of the file across the pool, but it won't delete any automatically unless you tick the box that tells it to do so for future checks. However note too that if you yourself update the "single" file that shows up in the pool (or move it out of the pool) then only one of the actual files in the poolparts will actually be moved/updated and the rest will be lost. E.g. if you manually put test.txt (contains the word "apple") into d:\poolpart1 and manually put test.txt (contains the word "orange") into e:\poolpart2 and then you open p:\test.txt you might get the one that contains "apple" or you might get the one that contains "orange", and if you moved p:/test.txt to c:/test.txt or edited it to say "banana" then only one would be moved/edited and the other one would be lost or overwritten. (at least, when read-striping is off; I'm not sure whether something more odd might happen if read-striping is on and the files involved are large). And thankyou!

Q: I understand now that these apparently surprising duplicated files in my pie chart were in fact mine from the beginning. Is it then a problem to leave them there ? If they're actually duplicates, i.e. the exact same file with the same path in different poolparts, then no problem. Q: I then don't quite understand the duplication warning that I get during the check : what can be the "duplicated files mismatching parts" ? I also noticed that when theses duplicates files just have the same name but are not really the same binary file (for example 2 different videos with the same name), then DrivePool just shows one of the two files in the pool. Which one does DrivePool choose ? Is this the case seen by DrivePool as a "duplicated files mismatching parts" case during the check ? Yes, this indeed occurs when different files with the same path and name have been moved into different poolparts. For example, let's say you have a photo of a cat saved as d:\photos\cute24.jpg and a photo of a dog saved as e:\photos\cute24.jpg and you manually move them into the hidden poolpart folder on the respective drives like so: d:\photos\cute24.jpg <- cat -> d:\poolpart1\photos\cute24.jpg --> shows up in the pool as p:\photos\cute24.jpg e:\photos\cute24.jpg <- dog -> e:\poolpart2\photos\cute24.jpg --> also shows up in the pool as p:\photos\cute24.jpg If you had moved the cat photo into p:\photos the normal way (d -> p) and then moved the dog photo into p:\photos the normal way (e -> p), Windows would pop up a warning that there's already a file there with that name and ask if you wanted to replace it). But by accessing the hidden poolparts directly (d -> d:\poolpart and e -> e:\poolpart) you bypass the normal safety procedures. As to which one DrivePool chooses to show, I believe it would be whichever drive that DrivePool accesses first (which would depend on various factors). Q: And finally one last question : how to know the physical path of a file seen in the pool ? (i.e. when browsing the pool, how to know on which physical disk is a file located ?) There are various ways, for example: Manually check the equivalent path in each hidden poolpart folder. Open a command prompt run as an administrator and enter dpcmd get-duplication filepath where filepath is the fully pathed name of the file ( e.g. dpcmd get-duplication "p:\photos\cute pets\oscar the turtle.jpg" ) <-- note this shows the volume numbers, not the drive letters, so you'd have to look it up in Windows Disk Management or similar to find the corresponding drive letters (dpcmd does this because DrivePool can pool volumes without them requiring a drive letter). Use a tool which can quickly scan lettered NTFS volumes and show all files on all drives that match the search string, e.g. Everything by Voidtools can do this.

If you're manually moving new files into the pool via the hidden poolpart folders as per Q4142489, it is up to you to ensure they do not overlap existing folders/files in the pool. This is because DrivePool's duplication works via having the same file exist in the same path on multiple drives in the pool. For example, say you have a pool P consisting of drives D and E, whose contents are as follows: d:\poolpart.1\folder1\file1 --> p:\folder1\file1 <-- this is a duplicated file d:\poolpart.1\folder1\file2 --> p:\folder1\file2 d:\poolpart.1\folder1\file3 --> p:\folder1\file3 e:\poolpart.2\folder1\file1 --> p:\folder1\file1 <-- this is a duplicated file e:\poolpart.2\folder1\file4 --> p:\folder1\file4 e:\poolpart.2\folder2\file1 --> p:\folder2\file1 e:\poolpart.2\folder2\file2 --> p:\folder2\file2 If you then had a new drive F you wanted to manually seed into the pool as per Q4142489, with new (i.e. different to the above) content as follows: f:\folder1\file2 - - -> f:\poolpart.3\folder1\file2 f:\folder2\file3 - - -> f:\poolpart.3\folder2\file3 You would have to first change the name of F's folder1, folder2, file2 and/or file3 before moving \folder1\file2 into any hidden poolpart as otherwise it would overlap with the existing \folder1\ and \folder2\ as follows: d:\poolpart.1\folder1\file1 --> p:\folder1\file1 <-- this is a duplicated file d:\poolpart.1\folder1\file2 --> p:\folder1\file2 <-- this existing file is in conflict with a new file d:\poolpart.1\folder1\file3 --> p:\folder1\file3 e:\poolpart.2\folder1\file1 --> p:\folder1\file1 <-- this is a duplicated file e:\poolpart.2\folder1\file4 --> p:\folder1\file4 e:\poolpart.2\folder2\file1 --> p:\folder2\file1 e:\poolpart.2\folder2\file2 --> p:\folder2\file2 f:\poolpart.3\folder1\file2 --> p:\folder1\file2 <-- this new file is now in conflict with an existing file f:\poolpart.3\folder2\file3 --> p:\folder2\file3 <-- this new file is now in the same folder as two existing files @Christopher (Drashna) I recommend that the Q4142489 wiki entry should mention this explicitly; e.g. by instructing the user in step 4 to "First, check that the folder structure you intend to move into the pool does not already exist in the pool, unless your goal is to merge the content of those folder structures together."