ChatNoir

As far as I know, this is still handled by ich777 on the regular support thread :

Please attach new diagnostics.

Mostly the changes from 6.11 plus the bug fixes from .x releases. https://forums.unraid.net/topic/128645-unraid-os-version-6110-available/#comments

The diagnostics are incomplete (known bug) so we can't see really know. In any case, you should run an Extended test on the drives (it can be long). And since the diags have problems some times, attach the SMART reports.

If you want to maintain the data of the drives from Server #1 when adding them to Server #2, you will have to do a New Config and rebuild parity. You might as well add and build Parity2 at the same time.

I looked at it yesterday but there is not much to forge an opinion: Nov 10 04:31:03 Tower kernel: mce: [Hardware Error]: Machine check events logged and that's it. I would say it's probably fine. Maybe run a few passes of Memtest to be on the safe side.

I restarted the plugin after months of pause and I face the same issue. I tried to exclude .partial files in the hope that the plugin will skip it and only consider the real one once the transfer is done. I'll report back.

I would guess that you probably need some kind of quotation marks if your share name has a space in it. Not sure if it's 'quotation mark' or "quotation mark" or something else as I am not very comfortable with linux command line myself.

Editing a docker template or updating should not cause any issue to a container properly setup. The configuration and database should be in appdata and the change should be painless.

I'll provide an update on this issue. I am now using 6.11.3 for 3 days, 10 hours and the problem did not came back yet. I do have the kernel message with opcode=0x85 on both drives, but they spin down nevertheless. I'll provide further updates if there is some change.

You should contact support for license issues, I'm sure they can fix you up.

It is not a widespread bug as it works for me on 6.11.2. Also, that's not what the OP is complaining about as he is not using Cumulative parity check. Please do not derail this thread. @HFChimp I have the informations on my server. Maybe the parity tuning plugin or one of it's options is interfering ?

My understanding is that it is a HW limitation of the HBA, not Unraid.

Is it connected to the same controller ? Your diagnostics might show something.

Salut @Fred14130, je n'utilise pas cette application, aussi je ne suis pas super au courant de sa configuration. Est-ce que tu as bien sélectionné le dossier dans lequel tu as tes médias dans le template du container ? Ensuite, est-ce que tu sélectionnes ton dossier de médias dans le container ?

The diagnostics come in a single zip, please attach that, not many user will be willing to download a bunch of files.

You stumbled upon an unfortunate bug of 6.11.2. I would advise you to downgrade to 6.11.1 for now and wait for 6.11.3. To downgrade, simply replace all bz* files on your flashdrive from the ones on the zip : https://unraid.net/download

If you want to post in german, please do it in the german subforum. If you want to post in the general forum, please use english. Also, I do not see any mention of Active Directory, so it seemed misplaced anyway.

For that much PCIe lanes, you would have to go to Workstation or Server HW. Consumer grade CPUs offer 20 to 24 lanes in general.

I would say keep this discussion in your other thread, it is difficult to coordinate answers if it's all over the place.

Fastboot is often an issue, I do remove it on all computer, just in case. Keep your EFI folder in sync with your boot option : EFI- for CSM boot EFI for standard UEFI Running make_bootable again should not be necessary but would not hurt either.

It seems you already did contact support, they will be more capable to fix your licensing issues than other users. It's one of the rare situations where the forum is not the ideal place to have quick support.

Would it work with an expander though or do you need a SAS controller for that ?

What Grafana repository are you using ? I installed it with atribe and no particular options as far as permissions. But that was 2 years ago, maybe the template changed since then ?

The benefits for Limetech and the community in general are quite obvious, but many users are really attached on limiting personal information from being disclosed to anyone. For reference, see the long discussions about linking the forum handle to the server (optionally). Not sure if Limetech is willing to take the risk of upsetting part of the community. if it were to be considered, I think a number of conditions would have to be met: - it should be optional with a very clear question (like Steam already does) - clearly details about what information is collected and make sure that the code of this function is auditable to provide reassurance to as many people as possible Note : I'm just a regular user who took 5 minutes to think about the question, my status as a moderator do not represent LT's opinion in any way.