Jump to content
Covecube Inc.
  • 0
RFOneWatt

New File Placement Limit?

Question

Hello & Good Day!

 

Today when I looked at my pool I noticed the red arrow that when hovered over says "New File Placement Limit 0.0%"

 

This pool is only a couple of weeks old and everything seems fine. There is largely no activity on the pool. 

 

I've never seen it before and the fact that the arrow is red makes me wonder what's up.

 

I was pretty sure I induced a conflict with the balancers so I reset them all to default however it didn't seem to make a difference.

 

Anybody know whats going on?

 

Happy Holidays & Thanks!!

 

~rf

 

Clipboard%20Image%20%282%29.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Which balancers are you using?

 

If you're using the SSD Optimizer or the Ordered File Placement balancer, then this is normal. This is how it prevents DrivePool from placing files on the other drives, and forces it to use specific drives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Ah, yup, the SSD Optimizer will DEFINITELY do that. :)

It's only to ensure that files are placed on the "SSD" drives first.

 

Also, to be clear here, if you're using the SSD Optimizer, then you don't want ot use the Ordered File Placement balancer on the same pool, as it causes issue. Instead, use the "Ordered File Placement" section in the SSD Optimizer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Also, to be clear here, if you're using the SSD Optimizer, then you don't want ot use the Ordered File Placement balancer on the same pool, as it causes issue. Instead, use the "Ordered File Placement" section in the SSD Optimizer.

 

Hi all, merry christmas!

 

Is there anyway to use the SSD Optimizer with the rules set in the file balancer tab. ie after the files are present on the SSD have duplicated files and non duplicated files get to written to different disk sets in the pool. At the moment the non duplicated files get moved to a random disk that might be a drive set for duplicated files. I see you can set which order of disks to use in the SSD Optimiser plugin but i'm not really after filling the disks up in a set order.

 

If I disable the SSD Optimiser the files always get moved to the correct disks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

@hobester:

 

Make sure that you have TWO (or more) SSD drives. If you don't, then duplicates will be written to the "archive" disks which may defeat the point of having the balancer plugin installed.

 

Also, if you're using the "Ordered Placement" option in the SSD Optimizer, then there are a couple of settings you need to tweak to get this to behavior correctly:

  • UNCHECK "File placement rules respect real-time file placement limits set by the balancing plug-ins."
  • CHECK "Balancing plug-ins respect file placement rules."
  • UNCHECK "Unless the drive is being emptied."

However, for the files affected by the rules, this may break the SSD Optimizer (as it leverages the Real Time Placement limits to make sure it works). 

 

I've also flagged this for Alex (the developer) to get his input on how to handle this.

 

But could you clarify which balancers are enabled, which order, and the specific settings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Also, if you're using the "Ordered Placement" option in the SSD Optimizer, then there are a couple of settings you need to tweak to get this to behavior correctly:

  • UNCHECK "File placement rules respect real-time file placement limits set by the balancing plug-ins."
  • CHECK "Balancing plug-ins respect file placement rules."
  • UNCHECK "Unless the drive is being emptied."

But could you clarify which balancers are enabled, which order, and the specific settings?

 

The above fixes the problem. I was only using the SSD Optimizer with ordered placement left at defaults. I used the rules in the file placement tab inside balancing to set which disks were used for duplicated folders and unduplicated ones. This allows me to run from a single SSD feeder and then balance and duplicate overnight. I did notice a problem with the balancing being very slow but I'll post about that in a new thread after I've done some more testing.

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Speaking of feeder disks, what's the best way to keep them file free?

 

I am using two striped disks (4 physical drives) as SSD feeders and don't want any files parked there for any length of time.

 

It looks like there might be a couple different ways of accomplishing this however I'm not sure what would be the most efficient.

 

Thanks guys!!

 

~rf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The above fixes the problem. I was only using the SSD Optimizer with ordered placement left at defaults. I used the rules in the file placement tab inside balancing to set which disks were used for duplicated folders and unduplicated ones. This allows me to run from a single SSD feeder and then balance and duplicate overnight. I did notice a problem with the balancing being very slow but I'll post about that in a new thread after I've done some more testing.

 

Cheers.

Balancing can be very slow, as we use a background IO Priority for the task. This is to avoid causing any sort of performance issues with the system. For lower end systems, that's a very good idea. But for higher end systems, it may be beneficial to use more resources. But we want to default to lower to prevent issues.

 

The Advanced settings for DrivePool can help:

http://wiki.covecube.com/StableBit_DrivePool_2.x_Advanced_Settings

FileBalance_BackgroundIO

FileDuplication_BackgroundIO

 

Set these values to "False", and it may help with the speeds.

 

Speaking of feeder disks, what's the best way to keep them file free?

 

I am using two striped disks (4 physical drives) as SSD feeders and don't want any files parked there for any length of time.

 

It looks like there might be a couple different ways of accomplishing this however I'm not sure what would be the most efficient.

 

Thanks guys!!

 

~rf

The best way?

 

On the balancer settings (the main settings), set it to "balance immediately", uncheck the 'NOt more often than" option, set the balance ratio to "100%", make sure that the "Or if at least this much data needs to be moved" option is enabled and set it to "1GB". Make sure "Allow balancing plug-ins to force immediate balancing" is enabled.

 

Set up everything that way, and it should be much more aggressive about emptying the "feeder" disks.

 

Specifically, this will allow balancing to occur whenever (the first two settings).

Also, moving the ratio slider to "100%" means that when any files are out of place, it will attempt to balance the pool. And setting the data amount to 1GB does the same.

And the "force immediate balancing" does what it sounds like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Balancing can be very slow, as we use a background IO Priority for the task. This is to avoid causing any sort of performance issues with the system. For lower end systems, that's a very good idea. But for higher end systems, it may be beneficial to use more resources. But we want to default to lower to prevent issues.

 

The Advanced settings for DrivePool can help:

http://wiki.covecube.com/StableBit_DrivePool_2.x_Advanced_Settings

FileBalance_BackgroundIO

FileDuplication_BackgroundIO

 

Set these values to "False", and it may help with the speeds.

 

Cheers for the info, brought the speeds back up again. 33MB/s to 100MB/s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Balancing can be very slow, as we use a background IO Priority for the task. This is to avoid causing any sort of performance issues with the system. For lower end systems, that's a very good idea. But for higher end systems, it may be beneficial to use more resources. But we want to default to lower to prevent issues.

 

The Advanced settings for DrivePool can help:

http://wiki.covecube.com/StableBit_DrivePool_2.x_Advanced_Settings

FileBalance_BackgroundIO

FileDuplication_BackgroundIO

 

Set these values to "False", and it may help with the speeds.

 

The best way?

 

On the balancer settings (the main settings), set it to "balance immediately", uncheck the 'NOt more often than" option, set the balance ratio to "100%", make sure that the "Or if at least this much data needs to be moved" option is enabled and set it to "1GB". Make sure "Allow balancing plug-ins to force immediate balancing" is enabled.

 

Set up everything that way, and it should be much more aggressive about emptying the "feeder" disks.

 

Specifically, this will allow balancing to occur whenever (the first two settings).

Also, moving the ratio slider to "100%" means that when any files are out of place, it will attempt to balance the pool. And setting the data amount to 1GB does the same.

And the "force immediate balancing" does what it sounds like.

 

Hey Drashna -- 

 

Still having the same issue.  I let it sit and balance for at least 24 hours and my feeder disks are still about the same capacity.

 

Any other ideas?

 

Also, this may be part of the reason -- am I mistaken in believing that when I have feeder disks enabled, all new files should land on one or the other initially?

 

When copying to the pool the files seem to go directly to an archive disk and not to the feeder disks.

 

~rf

 

Capture1111.JPG

Capture11111.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

RFOneWatt,

 

To be clear here:

 

Even though File Placement Rules are part of the "balancing" engine, they may or may not respect the balancers and the realtime limites the balancers create. And vice versa.  

 

 

If you're using both the File Placement rules and the SSD Optimizer, it is a good idea to allow the files to be placed on the "SSD" disk as well as the archive disks to prevent any sort of conflict here.

 

If that's not helping, the please open a ticket at https://stablebit.com/Contact/ and we can see about helping you more directly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hi - Question about the settings Christopher recommends.  If you uncheck "File Placement Rules Respect real time......" - the first option - does that mean that scanner will no longer be able to evacuate a damaged disk?  Not clear exactly what is being disrespected with this option off. 

(And for the record, I try to encourage mutual respect among my devices and my children. Just seems like the right thing to do.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hi - Question about the settings Christopher recommends.  If you uncheck "File Placement Rules Respect real time......" - the first option - does that mean that scanner will no longer be able to evacuate a damaged disk?  Not clear exactly what is being disrespected with this option off. 

(And for the record, I try to encourage mutual respect among my devices and my children. Just seems like the right thing to do.)

 

I'm with this guy on the promoting of mutual respect thing.   :D

 

I'll open up a ticket, Christopher.  Just because it's dangerous to have files sitting on those striped White Label drives.

 

I am using six of them now so the odds increase!

 

Thanks,

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hi - Question about the settings Christopher recommends.  If you uncheck "File Placement Rules Respect real time......" - the first option - does that mean that scanner will no longer be able to evacuate a damaged disk?  Not clear exactly what is being disrespected with this option off. 

(And for the record, I try to encourage mutual respect among my devices and my children. Just seems like the right thing to do.)

No, quite the opposite, actually.

 

  • "File placement rules respect real-time file placement limits set by the balancing plug-ins."

    Checked means that the file placement rules will not place new files on drives if it violates the real time placement limiters. Unchecked means it ignores them.

     

  • "Balancing plug-ins respect file placement rules."

    Checked means that the balancers (including the StableBit Scanner balancer) will not move files to a disk if it violates the file placement rules. Unchecked means that it will move the files however it wants.

     

  • "Unless the drive is being emptied."

    Checked means that if Scanner or another balancer wants to empty the disk, it will disregard the file placement rules, if necessary.

 

I'm with this guy on the promoting of mutual respect thing.   :D

 

I'll open up a ticket, Christopher.  Just because it's dangerous to have files sitting on those striped White Label drives.

 

I am using six of them now so the odds increase!

 

Thanks,

Tony

Definitely. :)

 

As for White Label drives, they're not that bad. They definitely don't have as long as a warranty, but they should still be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...