When "fill up" is selected it will fill up the drive completely before it starts putting files on another drive. Wouldn't it make more sense to make it start on a new drive when there are less than 5 gigs or so left on the original drive? Because it tries to completely fill up the drive, whenever I get a full drive I will have a partially copied file stuck on that drive that I will have to delete.

 

Also, I was busy copying a lot of files over to a user share and got a disk too full on one file. While it was still copying I deleted that damaged file and copied it manually over to the other disk. Because the deleted file freed up about 500kb on the first drive the file copy in progress tried to use that disk again and of course caused another file to fill the disk and not copy correctly.

 

Split level is set to 999 which I had read meant that it can be split at any directory level so that should not cause this issue.

 

I would just like this to be fixed so it is more robust. As it is the "fill up" option is dangerous and should not be used. There is no reason the fill up option should try to fill up every last byte because that will in just about every situation cause a file to fail to copy over properly.

That's what the "min free space" setting is for. You should try using it.

 

Do note that some programs are deficient in their file behaviors and will ask for an initial file allocation of 0 bytes and then continue to keep appending to the file. That behavior can cause problems, since the drive selection is done at file creation time.

Thanks for the answer. Guess I should have looked in the wiki.  Was just a little annoyed as I started this long copy and came back to it filling the disk like this. Would be nice if the share page actually stated what type of numbers to put in the fields.

 

EDIT: OK, not in the wiki. Would also be nice if it was in the wiki since the actual page does not explain anything about what types of numbers it is looking for.