ChatNoir

You have way more 200 Multi_Zone_Error_Rate ---R-- 195 195 000 - 2691 and the SMART test also failed # 1 Extended offline Completed: read failure 10% 59101 11293517728 The disk is clearly dying. You should replace.

In you situation, I would definitely replace the drive. ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAGS VALUE WORST THRESH FAIL RAW_VALUE 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate POSR-K 184 098 051 - 621 3 Spin_Up_Time POS--K 189 186 021 - 9516 4 Start_Stop_Count -O--CK 100 100 000 - 649 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct PO--CK 199 199 140 - 32 7 Seek_Error_Rate -OSR-K 100 253 000 - 0 9 Power_On_Hours -O--CK 020 020 000 - 59088 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 100 100 000 - 602 192 Power-Off_Retract_Count -O--CK 200 200 000 - 532 193 Load_Cycle_Count -O--CK 185 185 000 - 47430 194 Temperature_Celsius -O---K 105 096 000 - 47 196 Reallocated_Event_Count -O--CK 172 172 000 - 28 197 Current_Pending_Sector -O--CK 200 200 000 - 4 198 Offline_Uncorrectable ----CK 100 253 000 - 0 199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count -O--CK 200 200 000 - 0 200 Multi_Zone_Error_Rate ---R-- 200 200 000 - 286 Attributes 1 / 5 / 197 / 200 are generally bad news. A few units show sign of a problem to keep an eye on. You are far past the 'few units'. Also, your Extended SMART tests were working but not good either. SMART Extended Self-test Log Version: 1 (1 sectors) Num Test_Description Status Remaining LifeTime(hours) LBA_of_first_error # 1 Short offline Completed without error 00% 59088 - # 2 Short offline Completed without error 00% 59088 - # 3 Short offline Completed without error 00% 57822 - # 4 Short offline Completed without error 00% 57423 - # 5 Extended offline Completed: read failure 10% 50781 11287473616 # 6 Short offline Completed without error 00% 50657 - # 7 Extended offline Completed: read failure 10% 50480 11291383248 # 8 Short offline Completed without error 00% 50353 - # 9 Extended offline Completed without error 00% 46847 - #10 Extended offline Aborted by host 40% 46835 - #11 Short offline Completed without error 00% 46828 - #12 Short offline Completed without error 00% 46827 - #13 Extended offline Aborted by host 90% 46827 - #14 Short offline Completed without error 00% 46827 - #15 Short offline Completed without error 00% 15647 - #16 Extended offline Completed without error 00% 15539 - #17 Short offline Completed without error 00% 15479 - #18 Short offline Completed without error 00% 15335 - Emphasis on Completed: read failure (and the first one was ~9000 power on hours ago). The system should have warnings about those errors on the Dashboard. Now I wonder about the status of your other drives. If you want someone to have a look at your other drives, you should post your diagnostics.

That's by design. If you want support for an existing app, post on the dedicated support thread. If you want to create a support thread for a new app, post it there and ask to have it moved to the appropriate sub-forum.

New hardware would require a newer kernel, so things would have to change, be maintained, etc. And with time features from a more advanced branch would have to be integrated (because users would complain).

contact support

Just to be clear, the initial topic was the lack of GUID on some flashdrive (or ones that are not actually unique). If your flashdrive works, no need to worry too much as long as you have a good backup strategy for your flashdrive.

@cobolstinks when it seems too good to be true ... it often is. From the description its a ASM1064 SATA controller (4 ports on a x1 PCIe) and the 4 SATA connections are then splitted using 3 JMB575 port multipliers. Ports multipliers are a generally not recommended as it would reduce available bandwidth for each device, especially for parity checks and simultaneous data access.* It might be acceptable for very specific use cases but definitely not for most users. You should check this thread :

It would depend on the WC system you use, but I would consider that a WC system has more components thus more single points of failure than a simple fan and that it makes it reliable as a whole. One fan can fail let's say it's 90% reliable on a given period of time. If you have one fan on your WC, at least two tubes, 4 connection points, one pump, one rad (I will not consider a reservoir that might be integrated with another component, same thing for the waterblock). I'll be optimistic and say that all of them have a 95% reliability on the same period of time. I am pretty sure that's overall not as reliable as a single fan. And if it fails, you then have no cooling at all on the chip rather that less cooling with the base heatsink + a fan somewhere (attached to it or on the case). From my point of view, it's not something that I would try on a server that can run 24/7. Especially considering the higher cost, the lack of performance increase and that there is probably no sensor on the board that you can easy read and receive and alert from.

Why ? (It's a genuine question.) I get it for a modern CPU or GPU that would have better performance with better cooling, For simpler chip like a disk controller or NIC, etc. there are no benefit. Good enough is actually good enough. Often the bolt-on fan is not even required if there is enough airflow in the general area of the heatsink. If it's for a fun project, sure. But it will be more complicated, more expensive, less reliable.

Yes, simply click on the name of the first member of the pool to access the pool settings. Scroll down to the Balance status section, select 'Convert to raid1 mode' in the drop down menu and hit the Balance button. You should be good in a few minutes.

This forum is for the Unraid OS where RAID controllers are NOT recommended. I am not sure you can find some support here.

I didn't do that for quite some time but you should try the manual method: https://docs.unraid.net/unraid-os/getting-started/manual-install-method/

If the card is plugged in the first PCIe slot (generally used for Graphics Cards) I wouldn't know why it would not link at full speed.

Same thing on Chrome, it could be indicated more clearly on the site. Does not seem right as the downloaded file includes the bz* files (+400MB).

The spec sheet on Jonsbo website states : PSU Support: SFX≤105mm https://www.jonsbo.com/en/products/N3.html

Possibly if you already have an extension card using x16 (graphics card maybe), your motherboard wouldn't or couldn't provide you x8 but only x4 ?

Are you also on an old V5 Unraid or older like the OP ? If not, you would be better off asking in the current General support subforum : https://forums.unraid.net/forum/55-general-support/

This would be part of the Community Applications plugin, not Unraid itself. You should probably ask there :

It seems there are a number of Jumpers on your motherboard. You should check if they are on the appropriate position. If that doesn't help, you might try to Clear CMOS ?

Updated fine for me.

Limetech never provides ETA and Soon™ has often the answer provided in a tongue-in-cheek kind of way by the team. It has rubbed on many long time users.

Could be the trick of 1 random USB Flashdrive to have something in the array and all the other drives in Pool(s) with BTRFS/ZFS Raid. However, it's a decision that is OK to do for a end user understanding the OS and the limitations & requirements of doing that. Doing that out of the box on that kind of system seems risky. OR They except that by then, the Array requirement will be lifted as already hinted at. (6.13 ?) As for your question on the other thread about Limetech information / involvement, they could plan for using the OEM option, maybe ? But from the video it does not look super serious so everything is possible.

that is true for 6.12. It is planned to have Unraid's parity protected Array to be one pool type among others. If it is confirmed, you would have the possibility to add several Arrays. When would this be available, I do not know.

If memory serves, the license's validity is only checked at Array start, so you should be fine as long as you don't stop it, reboot, etc.

The issue is only for some users on some specific use case. It works fine for most people. It sucks when you are among the people having the issue but I am not sure it is a reason to pull 6.12 altogether.