Jump to content

itimpi

Moderators
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    20,789

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    57

 Content Type 

Everything posted by itimpi

  1. itimpi
    … and reload containers with previous settings intact via Apps->Previous Apps->docker
  2. itimpi
    All of your disks have less than the Minimum Free Space value for that share.
  3. itimpi
    Disk shares are not User Shares! They refer to the physical devices in the server. Have you enabled Disk Shares under Settings->Global Share Settings? By default they are disabled.
  4. itimpi
    If it is just the network that is playing up you could simply delete the network.cfg (and network-rules,cfg if present) from the config folder on the flash drive and reboot to get default network settings.
  5. itimpi
    That does not help. There can be times when the issue is not the RAM directly but things like the memory controller on the motherboard struggling under some types of load or RAM configurations. A good check is to see if running with less RAM stabilizes the system.
  6. itimpi
    No idea, but I suspect not.
  7. itimpi
    I would suspect that this manufacturer dependent on how they handle receiving a spindown command.
  8. itimpi
    One problem with memtest is that although it is a definitive result if it fails, passing is not as definitive so it is possible to pass and still have RAM issues.
  9. itimpi
    I think that the spindown on a SSD often just puts it into a lower power state.
  10. itimpi
    Not necessary, but highly recommended you install this plugin
  11. itimpi
    The ZFS (ARC) is expected to be at or close to 100% in use.
  12. itimpi
    If you want to continue using macvlan make sure that bridging is disabled on eth0 (as mentioned in Release notes).
  13. itimpi
    You should definitely do this if you can. USB2 ports seem to be more reliable.
  14. itimpi
    At any point in time the parity check speed will be determined primarily by the slowest drive currently involved. The first 4TB would be no faster. Once you get past the size of the data drives I would expect it to speed up dramatically
  15. itimpi
    Thanks for the great feedback and confirmation that all is working well.
  16. itimpi
    Not sure what you are saying? You asked about detecting corruption - not about correcting it when found.
  17. itimpi
    In the main Unraid array that is true - not in pools (at least the current btrfs and zfs ones) where the file system handles the multi-drive aspect without help from Unraid and provides a single mount point for the whole pool.
  18. itimpi
    It is not that easy. There is a reason that btrfs is the default for pools (even single drive ones).
  19. itimpi
    Btrfs and zfs natively support multi-drive pools - xfs does not. xfs is deemed to be faster and more tolerant of faults at the hardware level which is why it is kept for single drive pools.
  20. itimpi
    You just need to copy the current contents elsewhere, create the multi-drive pool in the format you want, and then copy the data back. You can do it using mover if you want as described here in the online documentation accessible via the ‘Manual’ link at the bottom of the GUI or the DOCS link at the top of each forum page. Alternatively the Dynamix File Manager plugin is a good alternative.
  21. itimpi
    Xfs does not support multi-drive pools. Multi-drive pools must currently use btrfs or ZFS. The only way it might in the future be possible to have multiple xfs drives in a pool is when the current Unraid array becomes just another pool type.
  22. itimpi
    there is this section in the online documentation accessible via the ‘Manual’ link at the bottom of the GUI or the DOCS link at the top of each forum page.
  23. itimpi
    Yes. That is why I think the proprietary Unraid array type will continual to be available even when it becomes ‘just another pool’ type. At that point I expect multiple Unraid array type pools to be possible. btrfs (the other file system type supported by Unraid) is easier to extend with additional drives than ZFS, but not as easy as the Unraid array type.
  24. itimpi
    If this really worries you then it is probably easiest to instead use btrfs (or possibly ZFS) as the format for the array disks. This had built-in check-summing to detect errors in files, but has the downside of being thought to be more fragile when hardware errors occur.
  25. itimpi
    Yes - that tester works fine for standard LAN cables in my experience. I used to use one when I was making my own custom LAN cables.
×
×
  • Create New...