Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About _Shorty

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This tool does nothing but report whether or not the hash for the file is still the same as the last time it checked the hash or created the hash. If the hash is now different the tool does nothing except inform you of it thinking the hash is now different. No, it does nothing to help you repair the file. If the file is truly corrupt because of some problem with your hard drive you might be able to cure things by rebuilding from parity, perhaps after replacing a faulty drive if that's really the cause. You could also use some kind of file-level parity utility if you wanted to add some more redundancy to safeguard against things that may happen in the future. QuickPAR comes to mind. It is similar in theory to a parity drive. You can build parity files of a selectable amount of redundancy, and rebuild/repair if anything ever gets corrupt. This has to be done before you have any suspect files, though. You build parity files when everything is fine, and then if there is ever a time where things are not fine then you have redundant info to hopefully help you out of a jam.
  2. Also as stated earlier, there really isn't any benefit to spreading things out evenly among your disks. It's kind of counter-productive and wastes more electricity by requiring more drives to be spun up more of the time. You're really better off just letting the drives automatically fill up and move on to the next one as it sees fit.
  3. It doesn't work as designed when it says the hashes don't match but all the other hash tools say the hashes match. Sorry if you don't like to hear that, or if you don't care to believe user reports, but it is occasionally giving errors stating bad hashes when the file still matches the original kept elsewhere. Being rude because it works on your machine is kinda humourous.
  4. *shrug* I'm not the only one that has it not working properly. If it's working for you, that's great for you. Doesn't change the fact that it is broken for me and other people. Have you tested it versus other hashing tools, or are you just assuming it is working because it hasn't reported any errors to you on its own?
  5. Jammer, no, I haven't even bothered looking. It would be a nice additional safety net, for sure. But with the Dynamix one acting flaky I just turned it off. Not much point when it isn't properly doing what it should be. I haven't looked to see if there are any alternatives that perform a similar job.
  6. Yep, downgrade to 6.5.3 and the machine boots in a minute as always, and in another minute everything is reachable as always. Upgrade to 6.6.0 and booting alone takes several minutes, and it never becomes reachable via the network, and the only way to access the machine is physically. Have to boot GUI mode and use the built in browser to downgrade to get it working again. Whatever info you'd like to see I can get for you, but it'll be a little time-consuming, what with having to go sneakernet on it's behind.
  7. Diagnostics of what? 6.5.3 works and 6.6.0 refuses connections.
  8. Guarantee you if I go back one version it will run for 90 years.
  9. I haven't changed anything in my config in a few versions, and after upgrading to 6.6.0 the machine is refusing connections. Ever since the update I can't connect to the machine. Booting now takes forever, too. There's a message about ECC not being enabled and that module not loading, and then it pauses there for a few minutes before finally continuing to boot. But once it has finished booting and the login prompt is displayed on the screen the machine isn't running as normal. Connections refused means the machine is basically a brick. Incredibly annoying.
  10. Not having trim isn't really a huge deal. It's made out to be a big deal, but it really isn't. At best, you'll never notice any difference because the controller might do some automatic maintenance at some point anyway. At worst, you'll see slightly degraded performance sometimes, but not likely anything worth worrying about, either. Ever since SSDs were a thing, and trim came to be, it has been made out to be something absolutely essential to have. It really isn't worth worrying about. edit: When they take care of the issue on their own without intervention from the OS it is referred to as garbage collection. When the OS triggers it, this is a trim command being sent. Both accomplish the same end. One just happens automatically at certain intervals without a command having to be sent from the OS. Really, nobody should be worried about this all that much unless they're actually in some situation where bleeding every single last bit of performance from a drive 24/7 is important.
  11. It's pretty easy to move data where you'd like to have it with unBalance. Wouldn't it be better just to leave your current data where it is so only those two drives get spun up when that data is needed, rather than having the chance of spinning up all the drives at some point?
  12. Frankly, I don't think this thing can be trusted to do what it is intended to do. If it's flagging even one file as being corrupt, as in my case, when other file hashing tools come back and say both copies actually have the same hash then there's a problem somewhere with this tool. I wouldn't necessarily put too much stock into it saying you've got 295 corrupted files. If you just replaced the drive and consequently things were just rebuilt from parity I would be more inclined to think your data is just fine.
  13. I guess I should be happy mine isn't crashing when it produces incorrect hashes.
  14. Keith, the web interface is just a remote way to control/start a process that is local to the server. Once you start it, the remote portion of the job is finished. Your client computer is no longer involved with what the server is doing. Close it and be on your way. Check later to make sure things finished if you wish.