Stablebit drivepool short space

S

sliding777

n3wb
Mar 11, 2018
27
4
Im on a trial of drivepool. I'm having problems with bi seeing the pool instead of the individual drive.
I have
D: 6tb
E: 10tb
F: pooled 14.6, useable
I have the red error on bi !!F: -5.3T.
I think bi is writing to the 10tb and not seeing the other 6tb in the poll.
Any ideas?
 
As suggested to you 2 days ago here in another thread by @fenderman , you likely should not use drivepool.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SouthernYankee and fenderman
I didnt see the reply. I had already started moving the clips to the pool.
It looks like my problem was in the database. As recommended, once the schedule ran to pile them back together, it sorted itself out.
Seems ok, minus $30.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crw030
So Tony, maybe you can justify the reasoning behind avoiding drivepool? Dont get me wrong, I have spent a few thousand almost on blind faith from this forum's advice. Luckily I can afford a hobby like this, really an Arlo could do what I was initially desiring to do. I was a bit surprised to see very little information on running multiple HDDs. I guess I expected BI to be able to rotate HDDs as they filled. When I realized I had to have cameras writing to multiple drives, I was a bit disappointed. Hence my interest in drivepool. I suppose ultimately, it does not matter as long as the data is being recorded. I know there is an argument for a single drive failure and being able to recover other cameras during the failure. Thats one decent example. I prefer that all my data match by date. I guess I like knowing that on the oldest date, I can pull all my feeds. I have noticed that drivepool will occasionally use a few % points. I think its only when it is swapping HDDs.
Just curious for arguments sake.
Thanks
Sky
Capture.PNG
Just curious for arguments sake.
Thanks
Sky
 
sliding777 said:
So Tony, maybe you can justify the reasoning behind avoiding drivepool? Dont get me wrong, I have spent a few thousand almost on blind faith from this forum's advice. Luckily I can afford a hobby like this, really an Arlo could do what I was initially desiring to do. I was a bit surprised to see very little information on running multiple HDDs. I guess I expected BI to be able to rotate HDDs as they filled. When I realized I had to have cameras writing to multiple drives, I was a bit disappointed. Hence my interest in drivepool. I suppose ultimately, it does not matter as long as the data is being recorded. I know there is an argument for a single drive failure and being able to recover other cameras during the failure. Thats one decent example. I prefer that all my data match by date. I guess I like knowing that on the oldest date, I can pull all my feeds. I have noticed that drivepool will occasionally use a few % points. I think its only when it is swapping HDDs.
Just curious for arguments sake.
Thanks
Sky
View attachment 37173
Just curious for arguments sake.
Thanks
Sky
Click to expand...
Stick with Arlo. It's better for those with OCD who don't need usable footage. Why waste your time with crap software like blue iris when it's not OCD compliant. There is a TON of information about running multiple drives and you were given direct advice, you simply chose to ignore it, that does not mean the information was not available.
 
Last edited:
sliding777 said:
So Tony, maybe you can justify the reasoning behind avoiding drivepool?........
Just curious for arguments sake.
Click to expand...

It just seems lately folks in various threads are becoming so worried about their video clips! First, it's likely that 90% of what you record will NOT have a noteworthy event. Second, why increase the likelihood of an issue, either software or hardware, by over-engineering a solution that is already pretty darned reliable. Folks are coming up with RAID configurations and now drivepool.

I have nothing against drivepool, I don't even use it so it would be grossly unfair for me to criticize it or its use but to me the bigger question is "WHY" in the first place?

I have stated this ad naseum in other threads and others have said similarly: "The more complicated something is, the more likely it will fail."

Why NOT have half your cams record to one drive and the other half record to another drive? Why won't that work? Why NOT keep the solution simple, keep the drives conventional (not RAID) and why NOT involve another software in the mix?

Cue another one of my hackneyed (but proven) sayings: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

But if that $30 you spent on drivepool is killing you, then go for it. Just know that I dropped $30 on vitamins and probiotics the other day at Wally World and didn't blink an eye. :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: awsum140
Easy easy. I obviously like this set up, or I would not continue to spend money on improving it. I'm just asking why one solution and not another. Someone said drivepool worked for them, I tried it. It seems to work ok, but that is a valid point about introducing failure points. And $30 bucks on something that can be done for free is also a valid point.
My only point with arlo is, it probably could do what my initial goals were. It has obviously snowballed into a more complete surveillance system. Besides the higher cost, it's my learning curve that's the downside. That's why I ask experienced people like you guys. I'm happy I went this route, but I've had to learn a lot; setting up my Unifi network, purchasing the right pc, and getting the camera network working. I'm a fluid controls tech, not an IT.
I suppose since it's already running pool, I will leave it and see how it works. If i have any issues I will let you guys know. Realistically $30 is a drop for what I've put in to this whole network. Yeah I think my tub of glucosamine is almost $30.
Thanks again for sharing your experience.
 
sliding777 said:
Easy easy. I obviously like this set up, or I would not continue to spend money on improving it. I'm just asking why one solution and not another. Someone said drivepool worked for them, I tried it. It seems to work ok, but that is a valid point about introducing failure points. And $30 bucks on something that can be done for free is also a valid point.
My only point with arlo is, it probably could do what my initial goals were. It has obviously snowballed into a more complete surveillance system. Besides the higher cost, it's my learning curve that's the downside. That's why I ask experienced people like you guys. I'm happy I went this route, but I've had to learn a lot; setting up my Unifi network, purchasing the right pc, and getting the camera network working. I'm a fluid controls tech, not an IT.
I suppose since it's already running pool, I will leave it and see how it works. If i have any issues I will let you guys know. Realistically $30 is a drop for what I've put in to this whole network. Yeah I think my tub of glucosamine is almost $30.
Thanks again for sharing your experience.
Click to expand...
If you initial goals were to have usable surveillance footage of an incident, arlo would not meet your goals. If you insist on pooling your drives due to OCD, you could have done it for FREE https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/12438/windows-10-storage-spaces
 
Well I originally had alarm.com cams with my security system, so anything would be an improvement. Plus alarm.com limits you to 5 cams. I just need to keep an eye on my shop. I know arlo and alarm.com suck. It was quite a bit of digging before I stumbled across this forum. I was going to buy a lorex system before I found this place. I would argue that i went with BI because I'm a bit detailed, ok OCD if you wish. It's the nature of my job I guess. I figured that's how most people were here.
I like that link. I would have done that instead. Thanks again Fender.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom