Hammer8

Hi, running 6.9.2 without any Dockers running and noticing that CPU activity is at 50%+ load even when there is no network activity and all the disks are spun down. Is there a way to see what is running in the background? Thanks!

Hi, I recently built a new server with a i5-3570K CPU, 16GB RAM, an Intel 10G NIC and 45 drives connected using a LSI 2008 SAS card flashed in IT mode. The drives are split between 30 for the main Array and 15 as a pool using btrfs/RAID6. The performance seems to be somewhat spotty and things seem to really slow down (5-10 MB/s) if I am trying to read from the Array from one client while writing to it from another client. All networking is via SMB. Would upgrading my CPU help or is the performance limited given the large number of drives attached? Are there any performance tweaks that can be performed? PS - There are no vm's running on the box. Thanks!

I'm not sure if SMBv1 is on in my UnRAID server...I have this on my SMB extra settings box: min protocol = SMB2

Thank you so much for the complete set of instructions! Highlighting the difference between accessing the UnRAID server from the Network icon from the Explorer left side panel vs. directly typing in \\SERVER in the location bar was the epiphany for me. The former does not work and the latter does. Thank you so much!! With UnRAID public and private access working, I wonder if there is a way to map the UnRAID server to Explorer either as a drive or as a Network Location. For example, if my UnRAID server is called \\SERVER, would it be possible to map that "top" path as a Network Location so that when I click on it, I see all my UnRAID shares? I can access it via the shortcut method described in the document, but having it in Explorer will be easier. Thanks! hmmm....as an update, it seems after waiting a few minutes, the left panel Network icon access now works. I can see all my UnRAID shares when I click on my UnRAID server and I can access both public and private shares. I thought this was an SMB 1.0 feature which I had turned off per the document. Guess I'm confused again....but at least it all works now!!

Hi, very new to UnRAID and I am experiencing the issue described above. Not realizing, I used Krusader to move a bunch of files and it moved instantaneously, but did not really move the files from my Pool to my Array. My Array is my UnRAID Array and My Pool is a separate set of disks formatted btrfs. What I see now is space still being occupied in the Pool. Since the files have been “moved”, how can I tell what still physically resides on the Pool so I can physically move them to the Array? Thank you!

Hi, any thoughts on above? Just want to know if this is a design feature or if my file systems is corrupted. Thank you!

Hmmm…I think something is really wrong…I just tried using Krusader to move the files and while the move “finished” without error, I don’t see the files on the UnRAID Array, but they are gone from the UnRAID Pool! However, the space on the Pool occupied by the files is also not freed. Does that mean the files are still there on the disk but not listed in the directory? Maybe I don’t understand how Krusader works. Upon further testing, it seems like when I move a file using Windows, the file physically is moved from the Pool disks to the Array disks. However, when I move a file using Krusader, it looks like only the pointer to the file is moved. Is that by design? My shares are as follows: UnraidX - this is the main array PoolX - this is the Pool And the files I am moving are going from PoolX\Landing to UnraidX\Landing I had expected Krusader to physically move the files, but the process finished almost instantaneously, and so I am thinking it only moved the pointer. is there a way to physically move the files? Right now, it appears my Pool is an “extension” of the main UnRAID Array. Note, the Pool is not designated as a cache for the Array.

Hi, I’m using Windows explorer to move the files and in total, it’s probably 30-40GB of data. I’m trying again after a reboot of my UnRAID server and I’m finding I can’t even move a single folder that contains only 1 file of size 3GB. It looks like it progresses, but in the end, it fails with an “unexpected” server error code 0x8007003A. The specified server cannot complete the requested operation. My only option is to either skip or cancel the operation. I googled that error code and what I found was that it is related to running out of disk space, but I don’t believe that’s my issue since all the disks in the array have more than the 3GB of space needed to hold this file. Additionally, I also tried copying the file (that resides on the UnRAID pool) to the Windows machine and that also fails with the same error code. Trying to move the file results in the same error. However, I am able to open the file from the UnRAID pool location and so it seems like the file is there and it’s not corrupted. So strange! I did try Krusader a while back, but found that it was not much faster since the server and my Windows machine is connected using 10G NIC’s and so Windows was easier for me. BTW, I’m totally new to UnRAID and appreciate everyone’s help on this forum.

Hi, I'm moving a bunch of folders from an UnRAID pool to array in Windows and noticing that the source folders are not being deleted as they are moved. Seems if I move them a few at a time, it works fine (and the source folder is deleted), but when I move say 150 at a time, the move gets very slow and fails. Any ideas?

Will give it a try! Thanks!

Hi, since it can take a bit of time to spin up the disks is an array and the array is inaccessible during this time, is it possible to place the directory information of the array (or a copy of it) on the SSD cache so that access is "perceived" to be quicker? So for example, if we are searching for a file, the search can run while the disks are spun up even though we can't actually access the file until the disks are spun up?

Yes, using RAID6 and it is faster which is great. Thanks!

Thank you!

Hi, I understand the workaround for the 30 drive limit for an Array is to create new Pools with the new disks added to the system. Is it possible to add an SSD cache to those Pools if the risk of data loss for files temporarily placed on the SSD is acceptable? This will help to improve the response time of the Pools by providing immediate write access vs. having to wait for the disks to spin up. Thank you!

Thanks everyone for your help! Does anyone know the reason for the 30 drive limit? Is it if the limit was higher then the chance of 3 drives failing is too great? While not perfect, the ability to recover data on the non failing drives seems to be a huge offset to that risk.

Thanks for clarifying! Much appreciated! Since each installation of UnRAID can only have 1 array, is there a way besides using pools to create a separate "unprotected array" such that in this unprotected array, if 1 drive fails, only the data in that failing drive is lost? Basically, all I want UnRAID to do is expose the shares on this unprotected array as single folders that can span multiple drives so that the total size of the contents in the folders can be larger than the size of a single drive (but no single file can be larger than the remaining capacity of a drive). Thanks!

Hmmm...I think I'm almost there. Suppose my pool of 5 drives is formatted with RAID0 and 1 of the drives fail. Will I lose the data on all 5 drives (as in traditional RAID 0) or just the data on the drive that failed? Since any one file will reside entirely on a single drive, does that mean the files in the non-failing drives will be safe?

Thanks! And so RAID0 is striped which is no redundancy. If I select RAID0 to maximize storage space, does that mean if one of the disks fail, I lose all the data in the pool and not just the data on the failed drive? Just want to confirm in this use case, UnRAID behaves like traditional RAID. Thanks again!

Ah okay...I think I understand. Suppose my array of 3 and 4 TB drives fill up the 30 drive array limits. I can create a new pool with my 8 TB drives. These 8 TB drives will not be protected, but I can create shares and assign the shares to these drives using the "cache-only" option. Two things I really like about UnRAID is the ability to add new drives and if a drive fails (assuming no parity), I still have the data on the non-failing drives. Do these features also apply to pools if I choose to format the drives using btrfs, but not use RAID? I say btrfs only because I've read this is the fs I need in order to expand the pool with new disks in the future. Is not using RAID an option if I would like to maximize my storage space? Also, when I add a new disks to the pool, will I lose my existing data? Thank you for helping me understand UnRAID!!

Thanks for the clarification. What does multiple pools mean? For example, I currently have a cache pool with 1 SSD that is dedicated to my array. I've read having multiple pools is a workaround to the 30 drive array limit, but I didn't really understand what that means. Suppose I create a new pool with 3 8TB drives, will I be able to add shares to those drives similar to what I can do with an array? And is the difference that they will not be parity protected? Can the shares span multiple drives so that I can have a share that is say 12 TB in size? Thanks again for your help.

Hi, would someone be able to clarify what is the limit on the number of drives in an array? I see the Pro license says Unlimited, but reading some of the forum posts, I also see a 30 drive limits. Which is correct? I see this in the manual, "NOTE: The attached device limits do NOT refer to how many devices you can assign to the array or cache. Those limits are imposed by the software, not the license policy." But I'm not sure what that means. Eg., is there a lower limit due to "the software" compared to the "unlimited" Pro license? If there is a lower limit, what is that limit? In other words, what is the max number of drives I can have in an array if I have a Pro license? Also, is it possible to have two arrays in a single machine? I have a bunch of older 3 and 4 TB drives I would like to use in one array and a bunch of 8-10 TB drives in a second array. I'm happy to pay for two keys...my issue is to not have another motherboard/system running a completely separate array. Besides not having to have another system up, by having two separate arrays, I can also store my more "important" data on the new drives to minimize the risk of drive failure. Thanks!