ChatNoir

I would not want that drive anywhere near one of my systems. The read failure is a no-go by it self. But there is also tons of critical SMART errors. (Attributes #1, 198, 200 are way too high) Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds: ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAGS VALUE WORST THRESH FAIL RAW_VALUE 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate POSR-K 130 001 051 Past 40182 3 Spin_Up_Time POS--K 207 169 021 - 4625 4 Start_Stop_Count -O--CK 093 093 000 - 7549 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct PO--CK 200 200 140 - 0 7 Seek_Error_Rate -OSR-K 200 200 000 - 0 9 Power_On_Hours -O--CK 062 062 000 - 27935 10 Spin_Retry_Count -O--CK 100 100 000 - 0 11 Calibration_Retry_Count -O--CK 100 100 000 - 0 12 Power_Cycle_Count -O--CK 096 096 000 - 4858 192 Power-Off_Retract_Count -O--CK 200 200 000 - 625 193 Load_Cycle_Count -O--CK 168 168 000 - 96078 194 Temperature_Celsius -O---K 120 100 000 - 30 196 Reallocated_Event_Count -O--CK 200 200 000 - 0 197 Current_Pending_Sector -O--CK 200 200 000 - 0 198 Offline_Uncorrectable ----CK 200 200 000 - 47 199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count -O--CK 200 200 000 - 21 200 Multi_Zone_Error_Rate ---R-- 199 199 000 - 316 I don't know what drives you plan on using on the server, but if they are used, I would suggest to run an extended SMART test on each of them. If you are not sure how to read that, you can share your diagnostics once every test is completed.

You should probably contact support with the details of your purchase.

@JacksonJay, you should contact support.

Then using the Unassigned Devices plugin.

@capt.shitface

Hi, not really. One advantage would be that HBAs generally support more drives. But otherwise a good SATA controller should work as well. Can't vouch for that model as the manufacturer does not indicate what controller is used. From the images, it does not seem to use a port multiplier. It might be visible in your diagnostics though.

Docker containers are split in two major elements : the elements that can change (settings, DBs, etc.), that's on your appdata and those that do not change, that's in the docker image For performance reasons, it is generally better to have both on SSDs and so on a Pool. And they would stay on the Pool with the settings above. Note that with 6.12, the wording and organisation of those settings in Shares has changed. While the ideas behind the choice are the same, the things are organized differently and might be easier to understand. (the Exclusive access part is optional)

Maybe for 2.5 inch drives, for 3.5 it was OK the last time I shucked ones

Ca semble lié au plugin Unraid Connect. Tu auras plus de chance d'avoir des réponses sur le sous-forum officel : https://forums.unraid.net/forum/94-connect-plugin-support/ (par contre, c'est en anglais)

Moved to the German section, if you want to post in the general forum, please use English.

Don't hesitate to report trolls so moderators and administrators can act on it. It does not guarantee a moderation action but we don't see every message and one or several reports can make us reconsider our initial judgement on some users messages and behavior.

Il te faut activer le syslog server pour avoir des journaux persistants (sinon ils sont en RAM comme le reste de l'OS). Tu peux faire un miroir sur ta clé USB mais uniquement temporairement le temps de débuggé, ce n'est pas conseillé à long terme pour la durée de vie de la clé.

Et si tu mets 'Automatically split any directory as required' ? Après, possible que Rclone crée d'abord tous les fichiers à 0 octets (donc sur un seul disque vu que ça ne prend pas de place) avant de les écrire vraiment ? Si c'est ça, Unraid remplace toujours un fichier où le trouve initialement ce qui pourrait créer ton problème.

Et même pour les pools multi-disques, le BTRFS est beaucoup plus flexible de mon point de vue que le ZFS. Par exemple, mon cache est un RAID10 sur lequel je pourrais rajouter facilement un 5e disque (de même taille ou différente) et utiliser toute sa capacité sans perte (selon la taille utilisée). En ZFS, je pense que je devrais ajouter 4 nouveaux disques. Perso je vais rester en XFS pour l'Array et BTRFS pour les pools tant que je n'aurais pas de vrai bénéfice. Et sinon, aucun problème sur la 6.12.

Bizarre @dam448, ça marchait très bien sous 6.11.5 et maintenant sur 6.12.2. Par contre, ça ne protège que des suppressions depuis le réseau sur les dossiers partagés en SMB.

@royce Contact support

https://unraid.net/download

all explained in the patch notes :

It seems there was a bug report on that :

Have you tried to clear your cache and/or cookies from the forum ? I cannot reproduce neither on Firefox nor Chrome. And if it was a common issue I would guess that there would have been many complaints already.

hi, I removed your GUID. you should contact support with the necessary information, your name, email, GUID, etc.

https://unraid.net/blog/unraid-paid-support

Yeah, at 2600 I would not trust it for anything.

232 reallocated sectors seems high. Probably too high for my personal comfort.

Yes The configuration of IPMI stayed, can't vouch for NUT as I don't use it.