Josh

34714, central florida

Sorry everyone, been real busy at work. Cases are still for sale

Real life has hit and have been parting out all computer equipment. All that's left are my Norco Cases. Thought I'd throw them on here before I hit ebay RPC-4224 - $300 Shipped SOLD - Not sure what version, has usb port on the front and the dimmer HD lights - Upgraded to 120mm fan plate - Replaced the rear fans to be quieter (still have the originals that sound like jet engines if you want them) - Includes 120mm fans, norco rails (might be missing some screws for the rails) RPC-4020 - $200 Shipped Pending Sale - Stock mid fans, think I changed the back fans to make it quieter - Modified the backplane bracket, cut big holes in it to get more airflow - Includes norco rails (might be missing some screws for the rails) RPC-470 - $70 Shipped - Norco rails included (might be missing some screws for the rails) Paypal only Josh

Which MB? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813153186 Two cards on that motherboard http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138308 And one card on this mb so far, this is my new machine

running b12a on two servers since it was released, with 3 cards, no block errors, all running v 3.1.0.21. 19 drives total on the controllers with a mix of 3TB and 2TB drives. Also in the middle of pre-clearing 2 x 3tb drives on one of the controllers. I've also do a massive amount of writing to the disks on the controllers and no issues I am however getting these errors on boot, happens on all ata connections that are from each of the controllers with a drive attached. Both systems the same thing Oct 8 02:12:04 Tower kernel: ata9: sas eh calling libata port error handler (Errors) Josh

Its telling me I should rebuild-tree, should I go ahead and do it? root@Tower:~# reiserfsck --check /dev/md4 reiserfsck 3.6.21 (2009 www.namesys.com) ************************************************************* ** If you are using the latest reiserfsprogs and it fails ** ** please email bug reports to [email protected], ** ** providing as much information as possible -- your ** ** hardware, kernel, patches, settings, all reiserfsck ** ** messages (including version), the reiserfsck logfile, ** ** check the syslog file for any related information. ** ** If you would like advice on using this program, support ** ** is available for $25 at www.namesys.com/support.html. ** ************************************************************* Will read-only check consistency of the filesystem on /dev/md4 Will put log info to 'stdout' Do you want to run this program?[N/Yes] (note need to type Yes if you do):Yes ########### reiserfsck --check started at Wed Sep 21 13:56:32 2011 ########### Replaying journal: Trans replayed: mountid 264, transid 174545, desc 1615, len 1, commit 1617, next trans offset 1600 Trans replayed: mountid 264, transid 174546, desc 1618, len 1, commit 1620, next trans offset 1603 Trans replayed: mountid 264, transid 174547, desc 1621, len 1, commit 1623, next trans offset 1606 Replaying journal: Done. Reiserfs journal '/dev/md4' in blocks [18..8211]: 3 transactions replayed Checking internal tree.. \/ 1 (of 20|/ 49 (of 162|/138 (of 170-block 448207242: The level of the node (26129) is not correct, (1) expected the problem in the internal node occured (448207242), whole subtree is skipped / 50 (of 162\/ 16 (of 92\block 448255879: The level of the node (37605) is not correct, (1) expected the problem in the internal node occured (448255879), whole subtree is skipped / 51 (of 162|block 448288289: The level of the node (46881) is not correct, (2) expected the problem in the internal node occured (448288289), whole subtree is skipped / 6 (of 20// 72 (of 148// 24 (of 86/block 144853871: The level of the node (49067) is not correct, (1) expected the problem in the internal node occured (144853871), whole subtree is skipped / 83 (of 148\/130 (of 169/bad_indirect_item: block 134172764: The item (3983 39 0x1 IND (1), len 1132, location 192 entry count 0, fsck need 0, format new) has the bad pointer (239) to the block (144853869), which is in tree already bad_indirect_item: block 134172764: The item (3983 39 0x1 IND (1), len 1132, location 192 entry count 0, fsck need 0, format new) has the bad pointer (241) to the block (144853872), which is in tree already bad_indirect_item: block 134172764: The item (3983 39 0x1 IND (1), len 1132, location 192 entry count 0, fsck need 0, format new) has the bad pointer (242) to the block (144853873), which is in tree already bad_indirect_item: block 134172764: The item (3983 39 0x1 IND (1), len 1132, location 192 entry count 0, fsck need 0, format new) has the bad pointer (243) to the block (144853874), which is in tree already bad_indirect_item: block 134172764: The item (3983 39 0x1 IND (1), len 1132, location 192 entry count 0, fsck need 0, format new) has the bad pointer (244) to the block (144853875), which is in trefinished Comparing bitmaps..vpf-10640: The on-disk and the correct bitmaps differs. Bad nodes were found, Semantic pass skipped 4 found corruptions can be fixed only when running with --rebuild-tree ########### reiserfsck finished at Wed Sep 21 14:10:46 2011 ###########

Will do, also just finished a non-correcting parity check and this was the result Sep 16 11:43:54 Tower kernel: md: sync done. time=39315sec Sep 16 11:43:54 Tower kernel: md: recovery thread sync completion status: 0 Sep 16 12:21:18 Tower kernel: REISERFS warning: reiserfs-5090 is_tree_node: node level 840 does not match to the expected one 1 Sep 16 12:21:18 Tower kernel: REISERFS error (device md4): vs-5150 search_by_key: invalid format found in block 448294367. Fsck? Sep 16 12:21:18 Tower kernel: REISERFS error (device md4): vs-13070 reiserfs_read_locked_inode: i/o failure occurred trying to find stat data of [10 305 0x0 SD] Sep 16 12:21:18 Tower kernel: REISERFS warning: reiserfs-5090 is_tree_node: node level 840 does not match to the expected one 1 Sep 16 12:21:18 Tower kernel: REISERFS error (device md4): vs-5150 search_by_key: invalid format found in block 448294367. Fsck? Sep 16 12:21:18 Tower kernel: REISERFS error (device md4): vs-13070 reiserfs_read_locked_inode: i/o failure occurred trying to find stat data of [10 305 0x0 SD]

so still have no idea what to do. df command showing that disk 4 has used -15TB of its 2TB space root@Tower:/etc/rc.d/unraid.d# df Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on /dev/sda1 3907560 1270364 2637196 33% /boot /dev/md11 1953454928 1922942796 30512132 99% /mnt/disk11 /dev/md5 976732736 943558840 33173896 97% /mnt/disk5 /dev/md18 1953454928 1900403088 53051840 98% /mnt/disk18 /dev/sdd1 1465093832 408558320 1056535512 28% /mnt/cache /dev/md8 976732736 949529776 27202960 98% /mnt/disk8 /dev/md9 1953454928 1938895652 14559276 100% /mnt/disk9 /dev/md13 1953454928 1923419456 30035472 99% /mnt/disk13 /dev/md4 1953454928 -15226378888 17179833816 - /mnt/disk4 /dev/md12 1953454928 1928291580 25163348 99% /mnt/disk12 /dev/md16 1953454928 1904103580 49351348 98% /mnt/disk16 /dev/md2 1953454928 1736181064 217273864 89% /mnt/disk2 /dev/md7 1953454928 1649254312 304200616 85% /mnt/disk7 /dev/md3 1953454928 1850980620 102474308 95% /mnt/disk3 /dev/md20 1953454928 1922858960 30595968 99% /mnt/disk20 /dev/md19 1953454928 1935262320 18192608 100% /mnt/disk19 /dev/md17 1953454928 1914129464 39325464 98% /mnt/disk17 /dev/md1 1953454928 1820623236 132831692 94% /mnt/disk1 /dev/md14 1953454928 1926885296 26569632 99% /mnt/disk14 /dev/md6 976732736 947299488 29433248 97% /mnt/disk6 /dev/md15 1953454928 1927515664 25939264 99% /mnt/disk15 /dev/md10 1953454928 1927366528 26088400 99% /mnt/disk10 shfs 36138931984 17743122832 18395809152 50% /mnt/user0 shfs 36138931984 17743122832 18395809152 50% /mnt/user //192.168.0.3/Movies 8790531300 5069576552 3720954748 58% /mnt/Huey/Movies //192.168.0.3/Misc 8790531300 5069576552 3720954748 58% /mnt/Huey/Misc

yeah don't see myself making a switch anytime soon, just promising in the fact that I know I can migrate another way in the future and won't be tied down with unraid forever, not that its not great, but just how large can it really get and still perform? Figure in a year to a year and a half will be building a third server, need a better way for the machines to communicate with each other. Actually looking at all of my hardware, win7 workstation, ubuntu server and two unraid servers, if I did make a switch I could do it right away and all i'd need to get a are new hard drives to build my first pool Agreed on Solaris, just messing with zfs on ubuntu to get familiar with it. I have a ton of reading and testing to do before I would ever trust my 60TB+ worth of data to another system, unraid hasn't let me down yet in that sense

I'm getting to the point where I feel like I may be outgrowing my unraid boxes. 4224 maxed to capacity and a 4020 half full already of 3TB drives. What does my furute of storage needs hold? Just seems likes its growing faster and faster Just this week i've removed all my services from both unraid boxes and just running powerdown and apc. Moved everything else over to a new ubuntu server and things have been running much smoother, not that unraid wasn't smooth in the first place, but everything is now much more snappier On ubuntu i installed a ZFS stripe with 5 old HHD's as my "workspace" (as soon as the dl's are done error checking and unraring, they get moved to the array so no need for data protection) and let me say i'm very impressed, especially how easy it is to setup. At first I didn't think I did it right because it litterely took seconds, then after testing, etc.... was in awe..... Which got me thinking, maybe turn my two norco cases into JBOD boxes and run all from a norco-470, can put 4 of those high-point 32 port HBA controllers ( 32 x 4 = 124 HHD's, currently at 3TB minus parity, = 336TB of space), on a supermicro motherboard, thow a lot of ram at it, create pools of raidz1 with 8 HHD's each, very tempting. Also lower power because will run with two less motherboards, memory and processors As a test I setup a raidz1 with those 5 HDD's and got a consistent 67MB/s write speed with spikes of 100MB/s across the network, on old sata drives, really got me thinking how slow unraid's copying really is. I've always wanted to get more performance but never wanted to fork out the money to run other raid systems, now i'm thinking its not completely un-reachable anymore just need to be willing to fork up $800 or so every time you need to upgrade hard drives, if you stay with pools of 8, (Solaris recommends nothing more than 9 per pool) Am I smoking crack? maybe............ A lot more research to do............ Josh

restarted a few times, still the same

I had a 2TB WD EARS go bad on me last week. Got the replacement through RMA, precleared and inserted into the array, rebuilt the disk, everything seemed normal However, now the disk is showing as 17.59TB free in the gui. Its disk 4 and all files from disk 4 are there when I browse the drive How do I get this fixed? Syslog is attached thanks Josh syslog-2011-09-14.txt

I'm not going after parity speed and my drives never spin down. Its taking 7-14 minutes to unrar a 10GB file, partly because of my CPU and partly because i'm writing to the disk at the same time the file is un-raring. I did a test, it took 2 minutes to unrar a 10GB file on the cache drive when nothing was being written to the disk. However when SABnzbd is downloading its hitting the 7-14 minute range. I tried both with unrar'ing through sabnzbd and unraring manually To be honest i'm very tempted to build a little 1U machine just to run my services and take unraid back to just storage, its getting hit with more and more traffic. Even had trouble watching a movie last night. Had trouble with a workout video this morning that was just SD. Kept buffering and everytime it was buffereing I went to the server and it was unraring something and sysload was going over 7.0. Also everytime it unrar's my DL speed cuts in half, once it finishes it jumps back up to max speed load average: 4.36, 5.42, 5.75. That's on a dual core AMD X2 240. If I remember correctly is it correct that single core should stay under 1.0, dual core under 2.0, quad core under 4.0, etc... I've got a new processor coming to see if it makes any difference And I didn't have much improvent with two drives in Raid 0, but when you add 4 to the stripe, I noticed a significant jump, didn't matter if I was writing to the disk and unrar'ing at the same time, it was the same speed not matter what. I tried 5 and 6 drives and all were the same write speed as the 4 drive setup. Note i'm running sickbeard, headphones, sabnzbd, mysql, plex, slimserver

are the on-board controllers on motherboards hardware or software? Not worried about cache failing, I backup whatever the mover script doesn't move daily I didn't mean SSD drives don't work, I meant I can't afford to add 1.5TB of SSD's as a cache drive, I wish :-)

Is it possible to setup some drives in raid 0 and run as my cache drive? I previously ran 4 320GB drives on my windows machine that was my "Scratch" drive that did all the unrar'ing, paring, etc... and it was really fast fast. Since i've moved all of that kind of stuff to unraid its been painfully slow running on a single 7200 drive. SSD drives won't work, need about 1.5TB as my cache. If possible is it as simple as creating the stripe on the controller and booting up? I don't care about temps or spin downs. Just want to know before I bite the bullet and pick up a few more drives thanks Josh

Both my server's stay on 24/7 and drives never spin down. All home use, Music, TV and Movies. First server is at 95% capacity of 40TB, second server is 6TB of 9TB full already, never ends

already got my intel NIC sitting on my desk, just need time to switch it out

BIOSTAR TH67B LGA 1155 Intel H67 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s Micro ATX Intel Motherboard, 4 GB Ram and a i3-2100 (I am having troubles with the on-board NIC) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138308 Running a drive off my SUPERMICRO AOC-SASLP-MV8 with no issues No problems here, just 4 x 3TB Hitachi's in the system at the moment All 4 preclears took 38 hours each

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=10085.0 Check out my pics in my build thread. Built the rack myself, instructions are a few posts down

I've written about 10 TB's of data to my new server with all 3TB drives and still no issues to test out, rebuilt parity with new disk, re-tested parity, simulated missing disk, etc... all Hitachi drives, even tested my SAS-MV8 card with no issues I could see. This week I went ahead and put it into production mode i was that confident with it, 5.0b10

just sent one of these back to newegg for RMA because of a loud clicking and became unresponsive during parity checks and locked up pre-clear twice, but still in for one more, other in the system is running just fine

just a heads up, currently have one 3TB Hitachi successfully pre-cleared and running in the server, second 3TB pre-clear is 12 hours away from finishing (knock on wood, power keeps going out due to storms, don't have UPS on new machine) and will start updating parity tomorrow if all goes as planned. Running off of new motherboard http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138308 Josh

I'm in the middle of building my second server and wonder how others have linked their shares together. Mostly concerned about my "Music", "Movies" and "Television" shares. I'm down to 200GB free on my first server and is completely maxed out thanks Josh

is it possible to run two unraid machines and one windows 7 machine off of one UPS or would I be better off running three smaller UPS's? I'm UPS shopping and am planning for the future Thanks Josh

Anyone having issues with not getting full download speeds with SABnzbd? I use Newsbin on my windows machine and get 24Mbit/s (3MB/s) but when I installed SAB to unRaid I only get 20Mbit/s (2.7MB/s). I then installed SAB on my windows machine and again only get 20Mbit/s (2.7MB/s), slower than Newsbin. Tested and confirmed on windows machine with DU meter and timing the same files on each program, SAB is slower for some reason Posted to the SAB forums and they said maybe because its written in Python is the reason its slower, not much help over there Anyone else experience this? thanks Josh