Jump to content
Covecube Inc.

APoolTodayKeepsTheNasAway

Members
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About APoolTodayKeepsTheNasAway

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Would it be possible to maybe speed up the process by removing things in batches rather than doing everything at once resulting in what I assume is thrashing? Of course doing that is probably complex, and I assume its not just one hidden setting, but I assume it does things like checking whether or not files copied correctly, status etc, and perhaps transferring a few then doing all the secondary things would greatly improve the speed. Sort of like: 5 Copy > 5 Checks > Repeat instead of 1 Copy + 1 Check > Repeat Where copying separately allows the drive
  2. In this case where you want it done asap, my bet for the fastest way is this: Steps: Add the new drives to your pool without doing any balancing. Label all your old drives, maybe A-Old B-Old C-Old etc and the new drives A-New B-New etc (A spreadsheet can help keep this organized) Stop the drive pool service, make sure you arent using any of the files. Copy everything from the respective drive to the new drive (so for example, copy everything in the hidden folder PoolPart.[bunch of numbers and characters] in A-Old to PoolPart.[bunch of numbers and characters] in
  3. I ask because I noticed that with the remove action, transfer speeds are slow while active time is high. This is weird to me as transfering regularly to the drive is multiple times faster with less usage often. Is there something else at play apart from simply transferring the files in the background? Are multiple files being transferred at once? If so, is there a way to change this? I have been previously advised to try setting the background IO priorities to false, and this is with that in place so I can only imagine this is the only way transfers could remain at this speed
  4. Like the post below, it seems that when removing a drive from a pool, transfering is a lot slower than expected. In tests the drive thats having data transferred to it performs as expected with sequential writes (180MBs+) yet here looking at task manager, Im only seeing speeds of up to 50MBS but usually 30MBs with the empty, new, faster drive having the higher utilization percentage. I cant figure out why exactly. Does the remove perhaps try to write multiple files at a time thrashing the drive and causing the low speeds with high usage? I cant imagine thats the case as the drive d
  5. Thanks, but while I do see the speed occasionally go up to 50 and 60 so at least its an improvement), its still a far cry from what I've seen the same drives do in tests.
  6. Ive noticed that while balancing, or removing from pool, transfers seem to only occur at about 40MBs whereas a normal manual transfer or test on the drive can see upwards of 150MBs. Is there a way around that? Is it a purposeful restriction?
  7. That sounds mostly like what Im looking for actually, well sort of but also totally even though I dont have Excel. I assume other spreadsheet programs such as Google sheets or Libre Office would work. I say sort of because I've realized I asked the wrong question as sync/backup software would cover just missing files, and hopefully be smart enough for name changes, but instead I was looking for how to figure out what files weren't backed up. Luckily I think your question answers that too as I imagine I could just compare the files after recovering from the backup and find out which ones s
  8. Ah, alright, Il see what I can find then. Also I think perhaps my edit was missed so forgive me for asking again, but what about the second question of a drive pools longevity? I basically just want to know Il never end up being unable to recover from the offline/disconnected drive pool as that'd kinda eliminate the whole point of having it.
  9. Thats kind of what I was asking for really, suggestions of backup/sync software that people who use drivepool have tried and works for them (preferably with deduplication (smart acknowledgement of folder filename changes) to avoid multiples), and now that I think of it, also for detecting lost files that weren't in the backup without having to manually sort through a list. Goodsync seems to do most of this except the last part for example. Also what about the second question of a drive pools longevity? I basically just want to know Il never end up being unable to recover from the offline/
  10. Im currently planning to have 2 pools with a few drives each and no duplication on either. Im wondering how backup and recovery can be accomplished with this setup. Specifically, id like to answer 2 questions: 1. How can I recover only missing files (with the correct folder structure) from a backup in the event of drive failure. (programs, suggestions and/or anecdotes welcome, Im trying to find the optimal solution) 2. How long can a secondary pool made for offline backup stay without being updated/connected? WIll future updates make older pools unreadable and if so
  11. Is there anyway this could be used to restore only the missing files in the event of a drive failure?
  12. Yea, I was really hoping @Christopher (Drashna) could confirm this would work for the long term, because while Im grateful for the replies of other users, only developers/associates really will be able to give a firm/definitive answer. What Im kind of afraid of is Il start using this for backups, then an update will come which makes the inactive pool unable to be read or used correctly in Drivepool which would severely hurt its usefulness as a backup given a key focus of the backup would be retaining organization.
  13. That would work too I think, That requires a lot more micromanagement though than if #offolders>#offiles;keep together however. What I mean is 2 separate pools. The plan is to have one pool offline most of the time as a backup for the other pool so pool 1 would have 4 drives, and occasionally I would connect pool 2 drives to sync pool 1 contents. Im just wondering if there are any inherent problems with that (mainly to do with taking a pool offline.
  14. I was using the latest Stable version from the website. Using this version, from the start, smart data is readable without the rest of the steps.
  15. Thanks for the response. I have no idea how big a change it would be but, something similar to file placement rules, like folder placement rules would mostly accomplish what Im looking for with 2 pieces of information. Like for example a rule that goes if number of files (direct child(not counting files in sub folders)) > number of folders (direct child(not counting folders in sub-folders)) ; keep together. This would allow far less micromanagement but keep most folders recognizable. Also, about the backup part, would an offline backup using drivepool be possible (safe), as in ca
×
×
  • Create New...