• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Pauven

  1. Not the restore Unraid version feature (which I used) but rather a restore flash drive from backup. I had to manually copy some config files from the flash drive backup to get 6.8.3 working correctly. It took me a while to figure out which files needed restoring. Some type of automation here would have been nice. Really cool if it was integrated into the restore Unraid version feature - it could prompt to optionally restore certain files from an existing flash drive backup. That could certainly be the issue. But no way I'm going back to 6.9.2 on my production
  2. Cross-posting here for greater user awareness since this was a major issue - on 6.9.2 I was unable to perform a dual-drive data rebuild, and had to roll-back to 6.8.3. I know a dual-drive rebuild is pretty rare, and don't know if it gets sufficiently tested in pre-release stages. Wanted to make sure that users know that, at least on my hardware config, this is borked on 6.9.2. Also, it seems the infamous Seagate Ironwolf drive disablement issue may have affected my server, as both of my 8TB Ironwolf drives were disabled by Unraid 6.9.2. I got incredibly lu
  3. As a long time Unraid user (over a decade now, and loving it!), I rarely have issues (glossing right over those Ryzen teething issues). It is with that perspective that I want to report that there are major issues with 6.9.2. I'd been hanging on to 6.8.3, avoiding the 6.9.x series as the bug reports seemed scary. I read up on 6.9.2 and finally decided that with two patches it was time to try it. My main concern was that my two 8 TB Seagate Ironwolf drives might experience this issue: I had a series of unfortunate events that makes it extremely diffic
  4. Everything these fine gents wrote is correct. I stopped development of UTT after Unraid v6.8 came out. There was some chatter that even v6.8 had some tunables that affected performance, and that what LimeTech was doing didn't work perfectly on all hardware, though as you can see it has been quiet here for well over a year, so I'm guessing the issues weren't enough for users to chase solutions. And perhaps LT did resolve some of those earlier v6.8 performance issues a few users experienced. Ultimately, my perspective is that beginning with v6.8, LT was actively workin
  5. Thanks Johnnie this is exactly the info I needed. I have created a "Frankenstore" backup solution (pic below), using 5 USB 16 TB drives. These are cheap drives, at ~$310 each, and even with 3D printing an exoskeleton for portability, wiring up a single power supply, and using a 7-port USB 3.0 hub with toggle switches, my total cost for an 80 TB backup solution is under $1700. The final solution is extremely portable, making it easy to take offsite for security. The 10A 12V power supply could easily support 6 drives, and possibly even 7, so I have a bit of room to grow to 96 or
  6. I don't know that DPI really matters for monitors like it does for printing. Most DPI for monitors is 120 or below. What is probably more important is simply having a physical size large enough to cover a high-resolution 4K monitor. So if every banner image was sized to 3840 x 200, that would be high enough resolution to cover 4K widths, and easily scale down to lower resolutions, i.e. 1920 x 100 for a standard Full HD monitor. I don't know if there is an official banner height, but when I investigated it a while back I was coming up with a size of 91 pixels high, whi
  7. As much as I enjoy being able to set custom banners, the scaling issue is a real challenge. I'm often moving my browser windows around and setting them to different sizes. Sometimes I have my Unraid window full screen (on a 4K monitor), and sometimes half-width on the screen, and sometimes quarter screen, and on rare occasions a truly custom size where I've grabbed the browser edge and widened/compressed with window width to fit what I'm working on. I also will look at it on other resolution screens or mobile devices. Because the banner image stretches to fit the full width, it
  8. Interesting, I did not know this. I knew some users had performance issues with 6.8 and that Lime-Tech was still refining their logic, but I hadn't heard that some of the tunables can still help. I guess once I get off my legacy version I can revisit this again. Most likely I'm waiting for 6.9.1, fingers crossed. Though to be honest, I do hope Lime-Tech can figure out the logic to truly make UTT unnecessary. Thanks, it feels good to help and even better to be appreciated!
  9. Cool, you've got the right idea. Just wondering if you are fully leveraging it with a front-end so you don't have to insert discs. Essentially, your discs are your backup, and your array is your media server. I've got 1800+ movies stored away in boxes in the basement (my backup), and watch everything directly from my array. Using my own GUI front-end, of course... 😉
  10. Yes. Yeeeeesssssss. This! I realize that is asking a lot, as typically files are only allowed to exist in one or the other, not both, and this probably throws off some internal checks. But it is definitely a feature I want (plus SSD/NVMe array support, which got a lot of votes but no mentions). My use case is that I have certain data (music/mp3's, software code, etc.) that I want immediate, fast access to all the time, without spinning up any drives, so it makes sense to put them on my NVMe cache drive. But I want that data backed up too. Sure, I can buy another
  11. UTT is not compatible with Unraid v6.8 or later. I developed the latest version using Unraid 6.6.6 (which is what I'm still running). I've avoided the 6.7.x series due to some known performance issues, and 6.8 for even bigger issues. So I don't have more recent versions available for testing and development. 6.6.6 works perfectly for me, and I have zero reason to chase version upgrades just to be on a #, so I might be here for a while. Which is all really pointless anyway, since Lime-Tech took away the tunables that UTT tunes in v6.8. In theory, UTT is dead and no l
  12. Drats. So wait... I was actually too quick to create the new version of UTT? I could have sat on my tookus and let Limetech fix the issue for me? That's disappointing. But your tuned values are sky-high, probably among the highest I have ever seen shared here. I would say that you have a special needs controller. Definitely share this with Limetech. Very interesting, thanks for sharing. It took me a long time and a lot of effort to come up with a testing strategy for the v6.0-v6.7 tunables, and these changes with 6.8 pretty much throw all that
  13. In my experience, a rebuild should be similar in time to a parity check. The parity check reads from all drives simultaneously, while a rebuild writes to one and reads from all others. Total bandwidth is close to identical, as is parity calculation load on the CPU. As jbartlett advised, one of your drives could be running slow.
  14. Tom, any reason you are no longer posting that RC's are available in the Prerelease forum? The last one I see is "Unraid OS version 6.7.0-rc8 available". Paul
  15. I think that is a really interesting finding. In a disk to disk transfer, you're both reading from and writing to 3 disks simultaneously (4 if you had dual parity), which is a very different workload than just reading from all disks simultaneously. I'm guessing what happened is that you went so low in memory, that disk to disk transfers were impacted. I'll have to do some testing on my server and see if that is something I can replicate. You have a server that responds very well to low values, at least as far as parity checks go. Actually, it seems to respond the same for almo
  16. Hi @DanielCoffey, thanks for lending a helping hand. Even though it has the same name, for some reason the file you posted has a different size than the original version. I think it would be wise if you remove the file you posted, just in case. Also, the original file is hosted on the Unraid forum, which has done a decent job of hosting files for years. Not sure why vekselstrom had an issue downloading, though it seems to have been a temporary issue. I think it would be best if we keep the download option centralized in the first post, which gives me control over updates.
  17. My monthly parity check completed in another record time for my server, dropping another 12 seconds (haha). Even though the UTT v4.1 enhancements resulted in slightly better peak numbers, my server was already well optimized so the additional performance was not impactful.
  18. UTT does not do any writes, only reads. Specifically, it applies a combination of tunables parameters, then initiates a non-correcting (read only) parity check, let's it run for 5 or 10 minutes (depending upon the test length you chose), then aborts the parity check. It then tries the next set of values and repeats. I believe dalben's report might be the very first time a drive failure has been reported during testing. UTT v4 works the same basic way as the previous versions, so there's years of data behind that statement. In theory, the tests that UTT
  19. Array integrity comes first, you did the right thing. Unfortunately, the slightly different results in this run causes the script to test a lower range in Pass 2, so it didn't retest that magical 177 MB/s test from your earlier run. Would have been interesting to see it retested, and if it consistently performs better.
  20. Uhmmmm... --- TEST PASS 2 (10 Hrs - 49 Sample Points @ 10min Duration) --- Tst | RAM | stri | win | req | thresh | MB/s ---------------------------------------------- 1 | 207 | 6144 | 3072 | 128 | 3064 | 148.0 2 | 216 | 6400 | 3200 | 128 | 3192 | 176.9 <-- !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 3 | 224 | 6656 | 3328 | 128 | 3320 | 146.6 4 | 233 | 6912 | 3456 | 128 | 3448 | 148.5 5 | 242 | 7168 | 3584 | 128 | 3576 | 148.3 6 | 250 | 7424 | 3712 | 128 | 3704 | 148.3 7 | 259 | 7680 | 3840 | 128 | 3832 | 148.8 8 | 267 | 7936 | 3968 | 128 | 3960 | 148.6 9 | 2
  21. Definitely! I see a strong linear progression from 15 MB/s to 130 MB/s as the settings increase. I've never seen a range this large, or a speed that slow using Unraid default values! Fascinating! I'm very interested in seeing the Long results. Please include the CSV file too, I'll probably chart this one for everyone.
  22. There's only a handful of options to choose from, the menu has been greatly simplified. Short Test Run this to see if your system appears to respond to changing the Unraid disk Tunables. If your results look mostly flat, then go on with life and forget about this tool - your server doesn't need it. Some servers behave the same no matter what tunables you use. But if you see dramatically different speeds from the Short Test, then that shows your server appears to react to changing the tunables, and one of the real tests below could be worth the time. Some
  23. Wow, you got some really good speeds for having 4TB drives in the mix - I'm guess those are 7200 RPM units. Looks like the repeated tests are +/- 2.6 MB/s, maybe more, so there's a lot of variance in your run to run results. What that means is that, except for the handful of results in the 140's to low 150's, all of the results are essentially the same. So almost any combo of values would work fine. Also, the Unraid stock settings look marvelous on your server - I would use those, and in the process save yourself over half a gig of RAM.