I'm especially frustrated right now because of a dumb mistake on my part and a high likelihood of a misunderstanding of the intricacies of how, when, and why DP is balancing and duplicating to a cloud drive. My setup is a local pool balanced across 5 hard drives with several folders duplicated x2 comprising ~4.1TB. The local drivepool is part of a master pool that also contains a cloud drive. The cloud drive is only allowed to contain duplicated data and currently it is storing about 1TB of duplicates from the local pool. I only have ~5Mbps upload bandwidth and I just spent the month of October duplicating to this cloud drive. Yesterday I wanted to remove my local pool from the master pool because I was experiencing slow access to photos for some reason and I was also going to explore a different strategy of just backing up to the cloud drive instead (which allows for versioning). Well, I accidentally removed my cloud drive from the pool. At the time, CD still had about 125G to upload, so I assume that was in the write cache because DP was showing optimal balance and duplication. When the drive was removed of course, those writes were no longer necessary and were removed from CloudDrive's queue. OK, I didn't panic, but I wanted to make sure that the time I just spent using my last courtesy month of bandwidth over 1TB was not wasted. So I added the cloud drive back into the master pool, expecting DP to do a scan and reissue the necessary write requests to duplicate the as yet unduplicated 125G. But lo and behold after balancing/duplication was complete in DP, I look at the CD queue and I see 536G left "to upload"! All I can say at this point is WTF? There was very little intervening time between when I removed the cloud drive and re-added it and almost nothing changed in the duplicated directories.
Can someone please explain or at least theorize? I own DrivePool but I've been testing CloudDrive for a while now for this very reason. I needed to assess its performance and functionality and so far it's been a very mixed bag, partly because it's relatively inscrutable.
Question
chiamarc
Hi Folks (especially Chris),
I'm especially frustrated right now because of a dumb mistake on my part and a high likelihood of a misunderstanding of the intricacies of how, when, and why DP is balancing and duplicating to a cloud drive. My setup is a local pool balanced across 5 hard drives with several folders duplicated x2 comprising ~4.1TB. The local drivepool is part of a master pool that also contains a cloud drive. The cloud drive is only allowed to contain duplicated data and currently it is storing about 1TB of duplicates from the local pool. I only have ~5Mbps upload bandwidth and I just spent the month of October duplicating to this cloud drive. Yesterday I wanted to remove my local pool from the master pool because I was experiencing slow access to photos for some reason and I was also going to explore a different strategy of just backing up to the cloud drive instead (which allows for versioning). Well, I accidentally removed my cloud drive from the pool. At the time, CD still had about 125G to upload, so I assume that was in the write cache because DP was showing optimal balance and duplication. When the drive was removed of course, those writes were no longer necessary and were removed from CloudDrive's queue. OK, I didn't panic, but I wanted to make sure that the time I just spent using my last courtesy month of bandwidth over 1TB was not wasted. So I added the cloud drive back into the master pool, expecting DP to do a scan and reissue the necessary write requests to duplicate the as yet unduplicated 125G. But lo and behold after balancing/duplication was complete in DP, I look at the CD queue and I see 536G left "to upload"! All I can say at this point is WTF? There was very little intervening time between when I removed the cloud drive and re-added it and almost nothing changed in the duplicated directories.
Can someone please explain or at least theorize? I own DrivePool but I've been testing CloudDrive for a while now for this very reason. I needed to assess its performance and functionality and so far it's been a very mixed bag, partly because it's relatively inscrutable.
Thanks,
Marc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
7 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.