itimpi

Yes.

It prompts you in the GUI.

If a drive fails the extended SMART test then it should be replaced.

This tool seems to not work very well on some systems where the manual method works fine.

What you want is not possible. However an alternative approach (as long as you are on the 6.12.x release) might be to use the 2 10TB drives in a ZFS pool instead.

I would think that is more than enough.

If you have encrypted drives then you need to provide the key when the array is started as the key is not stored on the flash drive (unless you yourself put it there). You can then read encrypted drives on any Linux system outside Unraid if you know the key, but not without it.

These are not normally an issue unless they are increasing at a steady rate. They indication connection issues between the drive and the host machine and are typically caused by power or SATA cabling issues. If one is encountered then the host will retry the transfer so the typical impact is just to slow things down unless the retries all fail and as a result a transfer actually fails. It is worth noting that the CRC count never resets to 0 so once you have some if you can stop them increasing you have fixed the issue.

I was not talking about the webui. With NordVPN client active on my Windows machines I can access anything else on the local LAN such as other PCs, the Unraid Shares, the UnRAID GUI, Raspberry Pi's etc. Have you made sure that the LAN on your Windows machine is set to be a private network and not a public one?

I thought it is worth pointing out that there is nothing stopping you from having a pool acting as your main storage location. With the introduction of ZFS in the 6.12.x releases there are now quite a few people who do not use the main array for storage but instead use a ZFS pool. This will perform much better than the main array albeit without as much flexibility in terms of adding new disks as you go. As was mentioned the 6.13 release is meant to make the current Unraid main array just another pool type thus removing any realistic limitations on number of drives even for that type of array as you can then have multiple pools of that type.

Was the drive showing as unmountable before the rebuild started? Asking because a rebuild does not clear an unmountable state. Handling of unmountable drives is covered 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.

The setting you highlighted is to allow for User Shares to exist on the drive. //server/cache is a disk share, not a user share so have you made sure that disk shares are enabled under Settings->Global Share Settings?

Not sure what the problem is, but I have NordVPN installed on my Windows systems and it does not stop me accessing the server when I am at home (and I have default settings). What are you running NordVPN on?

That is the logic trying to anonymise the diagnostics. You should be able to get it to complete by switching off the anonymization, although then you need to be more cautious about posting them publically, and should probably only PM them to selected helpers.

It actually applies to all array operations as the backup interacts badly whatever the operation. The current release has a bug that means the resume is not working as expected. I have been testing for the last few days a release which fixes this. Hopefully if nothing comes out at the last moment this fix release will be out tomorrow. This release will also incorporate the notifications behaviour I mentioned in my previous post

I agree that reiserfs is great from its ability to recover from severe corruption. However it has not been maintained for some time and support for it scheduled to be completely removed from the Linux kernel relatively soon. Also it cannot be used on drives larger than 16TB and modern drives are exceeding this size.

I would expect the cache to now mount without problems when starting the array in Norma mode.

You need to set the Remote syslog server to have the IP address of your Unraid server OR set the mirror to flash option.

Any suggestions for rewording it so that you would have realised it WAS relevant? Looking at the documentation on rebuilding it never mentions formatting as part of rebuild, but it also does not explicitly warn you against that so adding that feels like a worthwhile change.

This is a typical speed for the main array when it has parity protecting and more than one data drive. Your previous configuration was a special case as with one parity drive and one data drive they act as mirrors. You may get better speeds if you enable Turbo Write mode, albeit at the cost of having all drives spinning when writing to the array.

It depends of on whether the USB case you put the drive into changes the presentation to the OS in any way. I would suggest just try it as it normally works.

The speed gains are when it is used in a multi-drive pool outside the main array. If you are interest in this then it is quite likely that you will create an array of HDD using ZFS and not bother with the main Unraid array. Although this will perform faster there are downsides such as having all drives always spinning and less flexibility on expansion. Have you tried setting Turbo write for the array? That would normally get you far better speeds than the 30MB/s that you quote (albeit at the expense of having all drives spun up).

It should have been doing writes to the drive you were replacing. Since the rebuild does not understand file systems it was unaware that you formatted the emulated disk.

Note that having 2 parity drives does not protect you from data loss - it just provides protection against drives failing. There are lots of other ways to lose data. You still need a robust backup strategy for anything important. It may be that the second parity drive is better used as an off-array backup.

It does - you can only rebuild to the same file system as the parity rebuild process is unaware of file systems as it work at the raw sector level. If you tried to format it you would have got a popup warning you that this would erase all data, update parity accordingly and that a format is never part of a rebuild. It looks like you continued with the format anyway? If you still have the old 6TB drive untouched you should be able to mount it using Unassigned Devices to get the data back.