remotevisitor

I suspect much of what you have in your go file you should possibly move to running using the "User Scripts" plugin. That then helps to separate your customisations from the base Unraid.

Haven’t tried it myself, but as already mentioned should be readable by virtually any Linux distribution, so install one in a VM on your windows system and mount the USB disk in the VM, then share it via SMB for access from your windows system. In fact, although Unraid is not officially supported in VMs it does work, so you could probably install a trial version of unRaid in a VM and then using the Unassigned Devices plugin to mount the USB disk and share it. This is definitely all something worth testing prior to any emergency with data you can afford to lose in case you do anything wrong.

I would also suggest the plugin ‘Fix Common Problems’ is also highly recommended .... I suspect it would have flagged up your original problem with your cache settings. This plugin is excellent at flagging up common configuration issues and is continually improved as new issues are identified.

Any bets that when you get the Diagnostics you will find that the cache has been set to ‘Prefer’ rather than ‘Yes’ so Unraid is trying to move files to the cache drive rather than from it?

Due you have a cache drive? Is the share to which you are writing set to Cache Yes. What schedule do you have mover set to run? About your question on why read&write .... because when files are written to a parity protected disk a write operation actually requires a read from the parity and data disk + write to parity and data disk.

Ok, so your problem is that when you copied the files off your original disk6 you accidentally copied them to a folder called disk6 on disk4. I you are ok using the command line then I would do the following: mv /mnt/disk4/disk6/* /mnt/disk4 rmdir /mnt/disk4/disk6 Otherwise you can do as Squid suggested. Update: Might be safer to do as Squid suggested as Krusader will probably successfully merge folder contents if a folder already exists when moving the files/folders from the disk6 folder.

What is the output of the command: ls -d /mnt/disk*/disk6

If I was doing this I would not bother writing the bulk transfer to the cache drive, but instead enable ‘turbo write’ (Settings -> Disk Settings -> Tuneable (md_write_method) -> reconstruct write) and then write to the shares under /mnt/user0 (by-passing the cache disk).

Back on the 1st page on this thread Limetech on 5th June, said they are looking into this issue.

The folder name must contain a character not valid in an SMB folder name so it is being displayed in a special 8 character shortened folder name.

It it actually telling you that your log file system (which is held in RAM) is 99% full. This suggests you have some program producing lots of logging messages. ‘What is the output of the command: du -h /var/log

If you are going to do this then you should use /mnt/user0/Emby rather than /mnt/user/Emby otherwise you will almost certainly end up with a load of zero length files if your are very careful/lucky. if any of those files you copied to the cache drive were already on the cache drive then they are now probably zero length.

I also had the command fail when using the terminal window provided by the gui. However, if I used putty to ssh into the server the command worked ok.

Using the command xrandr ... OK system: AMD A10-6800K APU with Radeon™ HD Graphics @ 4100 MHz shows Screen 0: minimum 1920 x 1200, current 1920 x 1200, maximum 1920 x 1200 default connected 1920x1200+0+0 0mm x 0mm 1920x1200 0.00* while the problem system: AMD A4-3300 APU with Radeon™ HD Graphics @ 2500 MHz Screen 0: minimum 720 x 400, current 720 x 400, maximum 720 x 400 default connected 720x400+0+0 0mm x 0mm 720x400 0.00* They are connecting to the same monitor.

I have 2 unRaid servers running 6.7 which are connected to the same monitor via a KVM. One server displays the GUI at the normal high resolution of the monitor, and the other server displays the GUI at the low resolution. Several releases back both displayed the GUI at the normal high resolution. Although I do suspect that the response the monitor gives to its capabilities, it possibly also depends on the something in the video driver,