Tommmii

Can I come back to this? It has bitten me in the *** once again. It really makes no sense what-so-ever to have a read-only pool if/when a single element of the pool goes offline, especially when there is no duplication configured for the pool. Could you please reconsider allowing writes to a degraded non-duplicated pool ? Make it a hidden here-be-dragons option ?

Any thoughts on this from any one ?

I would like to request this feature : Allow writing to pool while disk missing, ONLY if pool is not configured for duplication. I'm using DrivePool for its pooling capabilities, and not for the data-protection features. I understand why writing to the pool could royally mess up integrity when duplication is active. An example usage case for this feature : Overnight, I lost 1 drive from a pool of 4. The Pool is continuously being written to, the pool is the only storage in a CCTV usage case. This 1 disk disappearing means that the entire pool became unavailable for writes, which means the system had no storage until I could intervene and remove the drive from the pool. The data is cctv video footage, everything stored on the lost drive is gone, but the balancers are continuously spreading the footage across all drives, so footage from other cameras is still present. Meaning I have no real loss. Except for the period when the pool was unavailable for writes. I have read this and i still feel that a pool shouldn't be readonly, when there is no data protection configured.

Yes, the pools are re-created as soon as pooled drives are detected. But OP is asking about the settings (mainly the balancing configuration). Are those settings also applied from detected pools ?