One or more than one pool? Which is faster and why?

[Julius]

Dear true humans at Covecube, I have a stringent question that has been haunting me for weeks now:

I currently have 11 physical HDD/SSD media that are all part of just ONE pool (and hence represented by one drive-letter..).

Assuming I have lots of RAM free, and lots of CPU cores doing very little;

Does this setup make sense, performance-wise, or is it faster or otherwise smarter to create more than one pool, say, for different directories or using different policies?

I have a lot of placement rules active on this one pool, and lots of levels of multiplication set for different folders, so it does not feel like I *need* to separate or divide stuff over more pools.

I do notice that Measuring takes a long time. Would it go faster with more than one pool with the same data (virtually) separated?

Perhaps this is more or less the same as "how many file-streams at once can be copied from one drive to another?" where I often found that the sweet spot was with 3 streams, for USB 3 or faster external drives that is. Perhaps with SSD or virtual drives that sweet spot is a higher number. I'm hoping my heroes at Covecube know best.

TIA!

[Christopher (Drashna)]

That's .... entirely your choice, actually.  

StableBit DrivePool is designed to use very little memory or CPU cycles.   I mean, I have 30 drives in a single pool, and it uses very little resources... 

As for measuring, that can take a while, because it's reading every file in the pool, and recording their sizes.  So ...  If you have a lot of small files, then this can and will take a while.