Jaga
-
Posts
413 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
27
Posts posted by Jaga
-
-
57 minutes ago, Umfriend said:
No other folders within T:\ that show a x1+? If there is/are, then you may need to expand some more until you found them.
That works too. But..
9 hours ago, Christopher (Drashna) said:dpcmd set-duplication-recursive P:\ 1 *
That works better. No chance of missing a folder or file on a drive accidentally, and it's *way* faster.
-
You might try clearing your DNS cache and rebooting, then checking CloudDrive again.
Have you run any reliability tests on your new internet line, to make sure packets aren't getting dropped? I use PingPlotter free over a several hour period to check for packet loss, spikes, etc.
Have you tried accessing your Google Drive via the desktop software, to make sure everything looks/works okay?
If you clear the errors in CloudDrive, do they continue to add up over time?
I don't have CloudDrive installed at the moment, so I don't know if it's possible to clear the cache (in case of dirty data). You can try reducing it to it's smallest setting to help flush it, then after it's communicating a little while, increase it back to it's previous size.
If none of that works -> see Christopher or Alex.
-
Many people losing settings on updates recently.
-
2 hours ago, Christopher (Drashna) said:
Depends on which version you're coming from.
There was a big change in how the settings are stored (from our internal encrypted structure to mostly JSON). So there is a conversion that is needed.
Unfortunately, that does lose some settings (I personally suspect that it's because the files are partially corrupt), and is very ironic, because we made this change to avoid this sort of issues in the future. So .... this shouldn't happen anymore, at least.
Also ... this is a known issue, but it's pretty rare, and ... we've not been able to successfully reproduce the issue, so fixing it is ... hard.
The version I was using on both machines prior to the upgrade was StableBit.Scanner_2.5.1.3062_Release. So... not very old.
Good to hear the schema is improving to guard against problems like this though.
-
I assign all my pool drive letters in reverse, starting at Z. Seems to help avoid issues like this.
-
2 hours ago, Christopher (Drashna) said:
You say that, but.... I was a Microsoft MVP for Windows Home Server for 4-5 years? So ... yeah.
And, I've been following it even after that. And ... well, I run 2012R2 Essentials, so...
Yeah. The problem I have is that MS likes to continually change and obfuscate their licensing models, taking out what they think people have to have and that they can charge more for. I've been a SysAdmin in one form or another for Windows Server going on ~20 years now, and am very used to the CAL licensing model (just not WHS or WSE). So when I saw dubious verbage on a sales site (and couldn't immediately confirm it elsewhere), I simply read the worst into it and down-shifted. It's good to get clarification on domain login limits vs remote desktop/app sessions on Server versions I'm unfamiliar with, so thanks for that.
-
My server picked up on the newest version of Scanner this morning (2.5.3.3191), so I let it auto-update. At the same time I decided to run a manual update (download/install) on my primary workstation. Both completed successfully, but both also ran into an issue. None of the prior scan data (either file system or surface) was preserved - all drives that both copies of scanner monitors on each computer were reset to unscanned. I manually marked all unchecked blocks good, but some people may not know how, or want their old data/schedule preserved.
Server is running W7 Ultimate 64-bit (SP1), workstation is running W10 64-bit v1709 (build 16299.431).
-
Sounds like you might need to rebuild the Windows thumbnail cache. It's a good thing to do periodically even if you aren't having problems. You didn't say what OS you are on, so I'm assuming it's W10. Here are some instructions for doing both the thumbnail cache, and icon cache.
https://www.thewindowsclub.com/rebuild-icon-clear-thumbnail-cache-windows-10
Separately, I use a shell extension called Icaros, which gives Explorer better control and caching options for thumbnails (including indexing of specified folders). If you've cleared your cache and Windows still isn't displaying them properly, you might give it a try.
-
19 hours ago, Jaga said:
It states "1 server, 2 devices", which I interpreted to mean "single concurrent server installation, 2 concurrent device access (clients)". Either I've misinterpreted the licensing model, or the copy I found really only does allow 2 simultaneous logins on the domain.
2 hours ago, Christopher (Drashna) said:That's some Grade A screw up. It's 1 system, 2 Processor sockets.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server-essentials/get-started/system-requirements
So please ignore whatever this says. It's wrong. When in doubt, go to Microsoft
Good to know, hence the confusion it was causing. Thanks for the insider info.
I'll slate it for my server upgrade in a month!
-
I'll put my vote in for Macrium Reflect as awesome backup software too GDogTech. All of my frequently used machines do monthly fulls and rolling weeklies with it, including my server.
8 minutes ago, GDogTech said:Are you saying that I can do these things just as effortlessly with any MS Desktop OS??? I never really considered that, but I might now if we can’t resolve this concurrent user thing brought up by Jaga!
Yes, you absolutely can. I setup a small business client of mine with a high-quality hardware server, using W10 Pro as the OS. Password protected shares, shared media (I use Plex), etc are all possible. You can't do some of the more complex things like domain policy, roaming profiles, etc... but few people in a very small environment use those anyway.
3 minutes ago, GDogTech said:Well, this is confusing at best. There HAS to be more to this than what we are seeing and interpreting here. On the one hand, MS is selling a Server OS that allows 25 users, 50 devices and no CALs required. Then, out of the other side of their mouth, they are allowing only TWO of those 25 users to be logged in at the same time? That would mean that the other 23 users had to sit and wait until one of the two already allowed logs out before they can log in. Huh? This would also mean that there is no solution for this, since the Essentials version does not support or deal with CAL’s at all. There would be no way to expand the maximum number of concurrent users. Huh? Where's the value?
This makes no sense AT ALL! Why would anyone pay $4-500 for such an Operating System? Who would want it? Who could make any use of it? Just myself and my Family of 3 other users would hit that wall straight away! If this is true, then it’s a deal-breaker for me as well. Given that however, I don’t know where to go beyond WHS2011. There MUST be more to it that we are not seeing or not aware of.
I know huh? I think five (5) is probably the fewest number of concurrent sign-ons that a domain server should ever be limited to. It'd be nice to hear there was something we were missing with it's licensing. MS' licensing on server products has always been overly complicated.
Doing some more reading tonight... it appears as though Remote Desktop and Remote Apps are what are technically limited with WSE 2016 to 2 concurrent:
- https://www.theofficemaven.com/faq/wseof-2012/multiple-simultaneous-connections-wse
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Server_Essentials#Design_and_licensing_considerations
So whereas remote connections/apps may be limited to 2, regular domain logins on networked client computers may only be limited to the 25/50 users/computers.
I'll stop speculating and see if someone with actual concrete data wants to chime in.
If there's a higher limit on domain logins, I'll have to reconsider my choice on rebuilding the server here.
-
Glad to hear you got the data off the drive finally. The only pearl of wisdom I'd toss out there is that USB drives (the non-premium type) aren't robust and probably shouldn't be subjected to surface testing, unless you actually want to try to produce a failure. I only use them now for temporary transport of data, and for machines that need temporary file storage or a boot volume (like for a BIOS flash). If I ever did need to rely on one, I'd do some research and wouldn't spare any expense. Good sticks do exist, they are just not the everyday ones.
Great to hear about EaseUS and Apacer Restore. I have used EaseUS products in the past (especially their partition manager) and it is a decent company.
-
We were talking about USB stick longevity in another topic not long ago. I simply don't trust them as I've had >1 die in the past. Some people agreed, while others stated they've never lost a USB stick.
I can't provide an answer for you as to what happened though, that'll be up to the gurus (Christopher/Alex). It does sound like that stick bricked itself due to the stress, or was simply not using the sectors that were tested, which is why it seemed to work normally but choked when they were accessed.
I had a ~6 year old spinner drive start dying a few months ago. Bad sectors on it produced arm clicking, which Scanner never recovered from (I had to try a graceful reboot to stop the tests). A similar issue may have made it seem like the drive was locked for you when it couldn't proceed past the damaged area(s).
-
20 hours ago, GDogTech said:
I don't understand all this talk about CAL's. I went to the Microsoft site and found this: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/cloud-platform/windows-server-pricing
It CLEARLY states that the Essentials version of Server 2016 allows 25 users and 50 devices with NO CALs REQUIRED. Am I missing something here? If so, please enlighten me.
You are correct in that the webpage you linked to clearly states 25 users / 50 devices. It's also pretty clear about not requiring CALs, which I didn't expect. Here's where I sourced the pricing for a copy of WSE 2016 from:
It states "1 server, 2 devices", which I interpreted to mean "single concurrent server installation, 2 concurrent device access (clients)". Either I've misinterpreted the licensing model, or the copy I found really only does allow 2 simultaneous logins on the domain.
It may simply be that WSE 2016 is locked to only allow 25 user accounts before they have to be deleted to make room for more (and the same for computers on the domain). It may be good to re-visit the licensing documentation and see for sure. Worth a look if it doesn't require any other licensing purchases..
Edit: Found this over on Technet - it does limit concurrent logins to two (2) total. You can register 25 user accounts, and 50 computers on the domain, but if you try to login to 3 at once, the third is denied. That's what makes it a deal-breaker for me. It's still using a CAL licensing style model, in that client access at the same time is highly restricted.
-
2 hours ago, Umfriend said:
Looking at the M$ store, I see W10 Pro at euro 259 and WSE 2016 at 707, that is less than W10 Pro x3, no?
I can get a copy of W10 Pro OEM on DVD for $140, which is ~120 Euro. WSE for 2 device access is $390, or 333 Euro. It's around the right price by itself, but 1 CAL is just an insult to a server platform (any platform) since the server itself counts as a CAL (2 device total). A 5-device CAL license is an additional $150 (128 Euro). I have a server, 2 workstations, 2 laptops, 2 Android phones, 2 Roku devices, etc.. all needing network access.
Total price for Server (6 client access) is $540 (4x more) vs $140 for W10 Pro which doesn't need CALs or Domain security. MS still doesn't cater to the small server crowd nor offer reasonable pricing. In my opinion they're targeting actual small businesses with higher pricing, and have no product to suit home/very small businesses in their Server line. If you ask me they're 'stuck' in their old concept of what makes a small business, and haven't adapted any of their licensing models from 15+ years ago to suit.
-
I've decided that when my next server upgrade happens (in 1-2 months) I'm avoiding server versions due to pricing, in favor of W10 Pro. Being a home-based small business IT professional and not truly needing a domain or it's features (just a large file/media server), it'll suit my purposes while being flexible at the same time. And no need for Storage Spaces or ReFS means I'm not truly losing anything I need.
My personal opinion is that MS is losing out on a segment of the market with inadequate pricing models for home professionals. I'd gladly pay 2x or even 3x the price of W10 pro for a suitable server version with limited CALs (or non-domain model).
-
Good point - the link and article both need updating. I didn't realize it auto-installed with the software either.
-
Nope, degradation is reliant on re-writing cells. i.e. each Program/Erase cycle on a cell degrades it further. If the content hasn't changed much at all, then the degradation isn't happening further. It's good that isn't a system drive, being that full.
-
Actually, looking harder at your screens tells me something totally different. Your drive's rated "raw endurance" as stated from Samsung is 500 TiB. The P/E cycle count maximum is rated at 2,000.
So, 2000 * 0.25 (TB in drive size) = 500 TB total P/E endurance for your drive. Since you've only written ~57.2 TB, you should still have around 91% drive lifetime left. I have no idea where the 100% or single wear level count figure are coming into it. The stats appear to be completely wrong, according to what Samsung Magician is saying.
Additionally, the fact that the drive only has 2GB free space is very worrisome on a SSD. You never want a SSD to get really full, since that puts stress on certain NAND cells when they get written/erased/re-written. It appears you do have over-provisioning set which will help (you should get into that portion of Magician and look to be sure). BUT - I'd recommend clearing up at least another 5-10% of that drive's space immediately, and then running a TRIM to help preserve it's lifespan. If it has been that full for a long time, it will abnormally degrade the overall lifespan of the drive.
-
Windows reporting the Drivepool drive as 2TB is totally normal, and you can safely ignore it.
Resource Monitor / Task Manager can't track a Drivepool drive's activity for some reason (perhaps due to the virtual disk driver). I noticed that as well some time ago on my W7 media server. If you want to see pool activity/throughput stats, you'll need to open Drivepool's UI and watch the performance there. Unless of course, Christopher/Alex have some wizardry they can whip out for us..
It would be nice if the Drivepool drive was trackable by resource monitor, but that might also incur performance degradation.
-
The way I understand Wear Leveling Count to work, is that it starts at 0 for a brand new drive, and counts up towards some estimated lifetime maximum. It is different for different SSDs due to manufacturing and architecture.
Each Program/Erase (P/E) cycle on all blocks on the drive raises the Wear Leveling Count number by 1. Given the endurance of the Samsung SSDs, it's expected they'll last well past a count of 100. The EVOs aren't as strong as the PROs, but they're still great compared against the rest of the industry.
-
Sounds like a language snafu, where the word 'only' should be removed for clarity. What does Samsung Magician say about the drive?
-
It should yes, since it can handle JBOD just fine. I don't use the SSD Optimizer plugin, so don't know if it will honor the new virtual device as being a real "SSD" or not. Christopher/Alex would have to comment on that. Or you could simply test it out, see if Drivepool lets you add the new Storages Spaces volume as the SSD.
Edit: (sidenote) RAID 0 stripes limit to the size of the smallest disk in the stripe, so you wouldn't gain anything doing hardware RAID. Stick with software JBOD and try it out.
-
45 minutes ago, The_Saver said:
How can I make the SSDs be filled equally up to 128 GB, from which point the 128 GB SSD is filled up and only the 256 GB SSD will be used?
Combine them into a RAID 0 stripe. Drivepool can't auto-balance multiple SSD optimizer plugin drives at once.
-
Great, glad to help!
I/O Error
in General
Posted
You can always try using a different DNS resolution provider. I used Google's (8.8.8.8, 8.8.4.4) for a long time, but recently switch to Cloudflare's (1.1.1.1, 1.0.0.1).
But yeah, that's one reason I suspected dirty DNS caching on the PC.