Jump to content
Division-M Community

rar1942

Members
  • Content Count

    73
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About rar1942

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 02/23/1942
  1. I came a cropper with my last Windiws server, and ran out of time to mess with it. I don't relish buying the latest server, and have an Amahi server ready to go, but an not entirely hapopy with what they use for pooling. Is there even a thought of making DriveBender available there? I noted ReFS (which I assume is the Reiser File System) as an option, hence the question....
  2. I've used DB since early on in the beta cycle, and have been well pleased. Duplication is easy, and as granular as you want it to be. Of course you want to have several drives - duplication on the same drive never made much sense to me. You can mark individual files, subfolders or folders for duplication, and the requested activity propagates down - if you mark your MUSIC folder for duplication, everything in it will be duplicated - and DB assures that duplicates are written to drives other than the primary. For myself, I duplicate everything - uses lots of drives, but when one fails I just take it out and replace it and DB puts everything back that belongs there. The major advantage is that at any time, you can remove a drive and using nothing more than windows explorer access any files on that drive. I don't know where DB puts duplicates and don't really care - when they are needed, it finds them and puts them back on the drive that has been replaced because of failure.
  3. Anyone have any idea why WHS 2011 would use thus for a drive label instead of the label I get when I look at the drive?
  4. I have a 14-drive pool - 9 @ 2TB, 5 @ 3TB. The 3TB disks were formatted as a single volume, and everything plays nice together. Over time as the 2TB drives fail they are being replaced with 3TB drives - first I add the 3 TB drive, then I tell DB to remove the 2TB drive that is not behaving nicely. Works every time - not quick, but clean.
  5. That is exactly what I mean. If you let Drivebender do everything, you know the rules and it knows the rules. If you do part of it, Drivebender no longer knows the rules - but it is unaware of that, so it presumes it is still in charge. If I understand how things work, DriveBender won't find anything you copy to a drive it 'owns' unless you put it in DriveBender's directory - which would seem to mean that you could use the unused space on that drive for other purposes without upsetting DriveBender too badly as I do not believe it keeps its own free space bitmap but relies on Windows' - hopefully someone will step on me here if I am wrong. I must confess to having unwittingly violated this when I forgot where my remote PC backups were going (to a dive that I later added to a pool) and so far as I know I haven't hurt myself yet - but it is something I will be changing as soon as I get another drive installed.
  6. It can be done, but the only way to be sure something does not break is do not use the drive letters after you assign them.
  7. If I recall aright, removal of a drive does not result in things being removed from the drive itself, rather it results in anything unduplicated elsewhere in being copied elsewhere.
  8. I have determined that I really don't want to know where everything was because I run Balanced and things move around. For my purposes, it was better just to throw more drives at it and duplicate everything. With 3TB drives readily available for under $200 any manual tracking and maintenance will make you nuts - you might just as well run all your disks with no pools. Even trying to maintain a pooled drive by drive letter is sure to make you crazy unless you lock everything down as regards location - in which case, just turn the pooling off and do it all yourself. Mixing pooling and drive-letter-placement control is a really good way to screw yourself right into the ground.
  9. There was a time that that sort of thing happened on my system - but I found I could restart the DriveBender services and everything was OK then for a while. Never did figure out why it was happening, but I did replace a couple of drives , and between drives and software updates, one day it stopped being a problem, although i could not say just why since if you change two things you cannot know which was the cause of the trouble or if it was synergy between both.
  10. Well, I picked up 1.2.5.0 yesterday and put it up - we're past 24 hours and absolutely nothing has happened. Performance may be up a bit - I don't watch that all that closely, but it came in, installed and ran and gave me no backchat. I like it like that.
  11. I see no real problems with what you are suggesting you want to do. For that matter, you could use the 320 and leave only 10 for the D: drive - that would satisfy the build requirement to have two partitions on the drive, and leave your C: drive lots of space. I have never believed in trying to pinch space - all I get for the effort is the opportunity to find new ways to screw myself.
  12. Actually, if you empty the D: partition and delete it, you can expand the C: partition without moving or hurting anything - then put back the D: in the remainder of the space. For instance, I am using a 1-TB drive for my C:/D: pair - and split it in the middle - 0.5 TB for each. It is amazing how quickly the C: partition runs short of space, so I like to throw lots at it. The D: is used a good bit as Newsbin is kept pretty busy at our house - matter of fact, one of the next things I need to do is give it its own 2TB drive so it will quit running short of space daily. There is no such thing as too much C: drive space.
  13. Before doing ANYTHING I would shrink that D: drive and give more space to your C: drive - it seems like they don't plan for you to add ANYTHING to that C: Drive.... This is an opinion, so take it as such. I have no internal knowledge, and can only attest to how things work for me. I would avoid using the D: drive as a part of the pool - only because if something happens, it is hard to remove that drive from the pool and replace it. I use my D: drive as a place to let Newsbin play, and for some product installs. My pool is pretty large, and they tend to grow once the get large, so you'll be wanting a bigger case and power supply - probably about three weeks after you add 2 more drives.
  14. I had an interesting thing happen last night - one of my new 3TB drives Went Away, and an unpooled 2TB drive joined it. Moving the drives and rebooting did nothing good. Finally, I remembered a couple of months ago using the motherboard SATA ports for things other than the C: drive. I had a port mux available, so I moved the drives from the motherboard to a port mux connection, fired the machine back up and it's all good again. It seems like the motherboard SATA ports were not all I might have wished - it seems to work just find for the C: drive, but gets flaky when I put a big load on it (like copying a couple of terabytes of new stuff from my NewsBin drive to the pool.) I don't know that this constitutes a Universal Truth, but from now on I intend to avoid using the motherboard ports for anything other than O/S purposes.
  15. I do not know that what you request is possible, particularly in light of the fact that the folders can be on multiple drives at any one time, and that their locations may change, which by the grace of Murphy would make any list you might have misleading and obsolete around 3 minutes after you produced the list. I let everything duplicate, and while I lose drives, I have never lost data. I don't have 20 drives, only 12 - a mix of 2TB and 3TB drives (9@2tb, 3@3tb).
×
×
  • Create New...