itimpi

Processes are getting killed because of lack of memory. This included the one that provides the User Share facility. The minimum requirement for Unraid to run properly is now 4GB and you have less than that.

This should work - what type of errors do you get? Did you run it in Administrator mode?

What else showed on the monitor when it started to boot (I.e. how far did it get).

The reason that SSDs are not recommended in the main array are: Trim is not supported Write performance is not going to be very good if you also have HD in the array. what you CAN do is use a thumb drive to satisfy the requirement of at least 1 drive on the array, and then use the other drives in pools. These can be BTRFS with current Unraid and the 6.12 release adds ZFS as an option for pools. These can be multi-drive pools with various RAID options available if you want them to be redundant.

You will need the Unassigned Devices plugin and I think also the Unassigned Devices Plus plugin.

The New Config option is on the Tools menu. No idea where you have seen a reference to a Utils menu or initconfig as Unraid has never had such a thing.

Do you get the Unraid boot menu on a directly attached monitor?

With Turbo writes enabled, writing to any drive will spin up all drives.

The screenshot shows parity was not rebuilt after replacing it.

Not sure if it relates to your problem, but the ‘appdata’ and ‘system’ shares have files on the array when you normally want them on the cache drive for best performance. To fix this you would need to (temporarily) disable the docker and VM services and then run mover manually from the Main tab. Not sure why you were advised to upgrade your parity drives, I cannot see why this would be expected to have much effect on the issue you described. There appear to be quite a few config files in config/shares folder on the flash drive for shares you do not actually have. These could be from previous activities? Deleting these would tidy up the diagnostics and make it easier to give focused advice.

The diagnostics posted did not have the array started in normal mode so we could not see what the state of the array was at that point. Although it should not have mattered it is never a good idea to pull array drives with the array running as since Unraid is not hot-swap aware you may get undesirable side-effects. Did the drive show as unmountable before the rebuild? If so then the rebuild would also leave it unmountable (this is mentioned here in the section of the online documentation about rebuilding disks). In such a case we normally recommend doing the repair on the emulated drive before doing the rebuild .

I notice that the ‘appdata’ share has files all over the array drives despite it being set to Use Cache=Only. With that setting mover will ignore the files on the array - you need Prefer (with Docker service disabled when running mover) to get them onto the cache. If any still do not move they may be duplicates of files already on the cache as mover will also not move duplicates - they need deleting manually. Whether that is a cause of your issue I have no idea but it makes sense to tidy that up anyway.

Have you actually tried a different cable? It only takes one of the wires in a cable to be faulty for the link speed to downgrade to 100Mb

The other possibility is to simply access it as a SMB share.

Not sure you will get any traction on this request It is a general design philosophy within Unraid that changing any setting relating to a share will not cause any existing files to be moved and will only affect future data.

The answer is that you cannot! A drive with no files on it still has data as far as parity is concerned. It works at the raw sector level and only sectors that are all zeroes would not affect parity. Deleting the current contents does not zero all sectors, and even if it did you would still have all the sectors that are used to maintain the file system information. it sounds as if it would pay you to read the section on how parity works from the Overview in the Unraid documentation.

It sounds like that will give the behaviour I was expecting. Thanks.

Are these SAMSUNG SSDs? They have a known issues where they can erroneously report a temperature of exactly 84C.

Ok - I need to set NetBios support at the Unraid level? This is not at all obvious from the UD message in the syslog, and it is still not obvious why I need to enable netBios locally (which I would rather not do) when it is only the remote system that is demanding SMB v1.0. I was expecting to see it as something I could specify for a particular remote mount.

I have a share I need to mount using SMB v1.0. I can see under Settings->Unassigned Devices that I can set the option to specify the SMB version to Yes, but I cannot see where I set the actual version. Is this just me being blind I have tested with a manual mount from the Command line to check that the mount works if I specify v1.0.

You can, but if you use the (default) RAID1 profile then with 2 drives of different sizes the usable space is that of the smaller drive. If you want the full space to be available then you can switch the pool to the Single profile at the expense of losing redundancy.

That just means that the array was not shutdown tidily which is what is expected if you got an unexpected reboot.

The documentation is online accessible via the ‘Manual’ link at the bottom of the Unraid GUI, or the Documentation link from the bottom of forum pages.

I was thinking of going further than that and changing the actual title of the setting to be “Use Pool” instead of “Use Cache”. I agree that then items like the ancillary text and help text needs updating. However it seems to me that this is both a more realistic view of how pools are now treated and will be going forward and less likely to cause confusion with new users. It also would mean Language packs would need updating, but again I feel this might be a worthwhile pain to take to improve the final result and reduce user errors.

One thing that occurred to me is whether the text for that setting should be changed to "Use Pool" and then the current Yes setting changed to read "Cache" so that the possibilities become "No, "Cache", "Prefer", "Only". I think that might dramatically reduce the number of users who misunderstand that setting? What do you think?