In order to better support our growing community we've set up a new more powerful forum.
The new forum is at: http://community.covecube.com
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,
Right now I have 3 VM's hosted on my WHS server. By default, they're using the C:\Users\Me\Virtual Machines directory. Is anyone running VM's off a pooled drive with M4 installed? The performance while copying/moving files seems to be phenomenal now - I'm wondering if a VM would be fine.
I had quickly tried to put a VM on a pool drive a few days ago and I remember receiving a "file structure doesn't support large files" error or something along those lines. Before I charged ahead to troubleshoot/duplicate I figured I'd check to see if anyone else was running VM's.
(As a side note, if you have enough memory for VM's, then VM Workstation 8 has a Shared VM's function and runs as a service natively. I changed the port from the default 443 to 500 just so it didn't conflict. Now any computer in the house with Workstation 8 can view and mange the VM's remotely. Seems to be a great solution - better still if I can put it on a pool drive, cause I'm almost out of room on that 60Gb C: drive!)
Comments
I'd probably try to take one of your drives and pull it out of the pool, then have your constantly written files there. I do that now with my usenet downloads.
Sadly, this is a known issue, that Covecube seems to have not responded to
I'd like to be able to store my VM's on a duplicated folder!
I'd like to use the pool just for simplicity. It doesn't make sense to dedicate a 1Tb drive for 1 or 2 VM's that take up maximum 20Gb combined. We're not talking about a production VM environment here, this is casual home use.
I have other usenet and torrent files being written to one of the pooled folders (not duplicated) and it works like a charm.
However, bear in mind that you can use a drive for both pool and non-pool storage, they coexist happily. I have my VM images stored in a non-pooled folder on a data drive that is also included in the pool, so there is no wasted space, and they don't use up any of the limited space on the C drive. That's one of the many nice things about Drivepool ; unlike RAID, or Microsoft's upcoming Storage Spaces technology, you don't have to dedicate the whole drive to the pool.
So, IMHO it would be nice to put VM images on the pool for simplicity, but it doesn't cause me any problems holding them outside the pool for now.
Also, is it recommended to keep the Client Backups outside the pool? Why? Currently I have them as part of the pool, and duplicated.
So what you're saying is I need to partition a drive, then use part of it as a drive that is not added to the pool for the VM's? Is that the recommended solution? (Given my situation of course - I understand adding an entire drive would be optimal, but that's not feasible)
I actually have drive letters for all my drives. They were assigned when I added them and formatted, and I didn't realize I didn't need them. No big deal. When I use the "Add a folder" task, Drivepool creates creates a pooled folder (regardless whether the folder exists already or not).
I guess as a workaround I could just create the folder and assign my VM's to it - it just won't show up in the Dashboard if I do that.
Is anyone experiencing this problem? Both "Add a folder" and "Add a folder to the Pool" create pooled folders?