Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with Google

Our Sites 


No poll attached to this discussion.

In order to better support our growing community we've set up a new more powerful forum.

The new forum is at:

The new forum is running IP.Board and will be our primary forum from now on.

This forum is being retired, but will remain online indefinitely in order to preserve its contents. This forum is now read only.

Thank you,

Question about the File Placement Blancer

edited February 2013 in BitFlock

In the settings for this balancer plug-in it uses the terms "duplicated files" and "un-duplicated files". First question is do these terms mean what they say? I'm guessing yes, in which case can I make the suggestion that you also include the term "duplicate copy" as a third placement possibility. I have a structure where I would very much like to place original files and duplicates on separate controllers, rather than just separate drives.

Does this sound feasible?/desirable?/stupid?.


  • edited February 2013 Resident Guru
    * The term "duplicated files" means "files that are duplicated". The term "un-duplicated files" means "files that are not duplicated". This is because, from the perspective of DrivePool itself, duplicated files are identical twins - as soon as both exist, they have equal value.

    If the balancer is set to evacuate un-duplicated files, it will evacuate only un-duplicated files from the suspect disk; if the balancer is set to also evacuate duplicated files, it will evacuate all files from the suspect disk. The term "evacuate" means "move to another disk".

    (note: files that are not in the pool will not be evacuated)

    * Regarding evacuating to a drive on a separate controller (or trying to keep duplicates on separate controllers in the first place), that sounds like something to submit as a feature request -
  • Excellent Thanks for the quick response.
Sign In or Register to comment.