xamindar

Still on 4.5.6. Will definately upgrade to 5.0 when it goes final. Or do you think it is stable enough now?

OK, I shut down and rebooted without the old parity drive and now I get a blue ball on parity. Started array and now it is syncing parity on the new drive. Thanks for the help. It would be nice if the interface was a little more robust. Hopefully 5.0 will be better.

I thought it would be simpler than this. I have three drives in this unraid system; two 1TB and one 1.5TB. I just bought a new 2TB and want to first change it to pe the parity but it isn't taking. I installed the drive and booted up the machine. Then I went to the unraid web interface and stopped the array. Went to devices and changed the parity to the new drive. Went back to main and started the array. Nothing changed. While the devices page shows the parity as the new drive the main page still shows the parity as the old drive. What did I do wrong here?

Set it however you like.

It will make a nice 6 drive unraid with a 4 port sata card installed. No required fan on the cpu is a big plus if you are looking to make a small, quiet machine. I have something similar in my unraid, 2 port sata atom board. But my atom has a fan on it My unraid is only a 5 drive system as there is no room for a 6th with the small case I used. Great little system to have sitting in the living room next to the TV.

When copying was there very much activity on the unraid hdds? Were the activity lights on at all?

Yeah, you are probably right. It is kind of odd that the cpu fan is the loudest. Another thing he can do is attach the fans to a speed dial and adjust them to a speed that provides less noise. I personally like the idea of having them off or spun down very slow and only spin up when needed (temperatures rise).

Not to point out the obvious, but why did you pick a cpu that requires a loud fan? Why not something like an atom board which either has no fan or a fan that spins slow?

That is correct.

On the other hand, I don't remember ever seeing Lime-Tech condemning anyone going halves on the keys either.

I thought the unRAID forums would be a good place to ask this. I need to buy a new fan for the power supply in my little unRAID box which appears to be an 80x80x15mm size. It is kind of rare. So far, newegg seems to be the best place I can find. It has a pretty good search so I can at least get to the 80mm size. But finding the 15mm thickness is a little difficult. Prices don't seem too bad though. I found a couple on there so far but I have no idea which brands are reliable. From the reviews so far I gather that the Silenx ones are the worst, dieing after a few months. I have also looked at Amazon but finding the right one on there is total luck. I often have to read the reviews to confirm the size. What other pc fan suppliers are out there with a good search system and of course good prices?

Did you miss the fact that the disk said "unformatted"? It should have been obvious as it is the main purpose of unRAID. unRAID is not a rescue disc, which seems to be what you tried to use it as.

It was pretty simple. I just followed the guide for the most part. I didn't document my experience unfortunately but if you ever have any questions about a particular step feel free to PM me. Arch Linux uses a similar style of rc scripts which was one of the important things. Also, the user mount wasn't mounting at first because the /mnt/user directory was not getting deleted on a shutdown. A simple addition to an rc script fixed that. unRAID is pretty simply integrated into the linux system so there isn't that much to worry about. Just have the right kernel version, similar rc scripts, udev, and a few other libs and you are set on any distro. Even samba is done well. All the changes that emhttp does are in an extra file so you can choose to ignore it entirely and set samba how you like. I just use swat now to configure samba on my unraid which allows me the full feature set of samba. I'm still only on 4.5.6 though. I probably wont try to upgrade until 5.0 goes final.

I just took a quick glance, but is your md_mod module even loading? EDIT: You built the unraid module into the kernel. Are you sure that's what the guide says? Shouldn't it be a module?

I thought he was talking about his flash drive getting corrupted. How does pre-clearing the drives have anything to do with that?

I doubt it is a hardware or memory flaw. Where do you have the USB stick mounted? I was having a similar issue with my unraid usb stick for a while. It would be fine up until I tried to write something on it. Then the filesystem would go read only because of errors. Turned out to be the cable I was using. I had a weak or unshielded usb cable inside the machine going to the usb drive also inside. I never realized how much interference is floating around inside there. Once I swapped out the cable with a beefier one all the errors were gone. Also, once you get errors like this make sure you run a scan disk on it to correct them or it will keep going read only on you even once you have corrected the issue.

Nothing wrong with people trying to get the best deal on a product, Sheesh. drealit, the movie industry also expects you to see the movie in a theater or buy the DVD for $15, not rent it for $1 from a RedBox. I hope you never rent your movies. Superorb, I guess the best route is to find a friend who wants to use unraid as well and go in with them on a dual key for a deal. Asking here just gets all the fanboys to post flaming responses on how you are ripping off people by seeking a deal you feel is more worth your money.

I stuck one of those multi flash card reader with usb port panel thingies in my extra 5.25 slot and made a script that copied any inserted card to my unraid array upon insertion and then beeped to let me know when the copy was done. It makes a great quick backup sollution for camera cards and my portable usb sticks. I also think it would be useful to have some sort of small lcd screen in a 5.25 slot to display server status info such as temperatures, drives spun up and so on but there doesn't seem to be anything like that out there.

I'm pretty sure the journaling space is already reserved so there is no need to save free space for the journal. If it wasn't then people would be corrupting their journal every time they filled up a disk.

There is no reason for things to slow down to a crawl when some of the drives are close to full. If it did that then it should be considered a design flaw on the part of unraid.

So your unraid is outside or in a garage? Normal room temperature in a house is already in the 20s. Unless you like living in an icy cold house all the time.

I'm still on version 4.5.6 I just made a change to an nfs mount from the user share tab on the unraid web interface. The change did not take effect so I took a look at /etc/exports and found that every time I modify the exports section of a share on the unraid interface it will add a whole new line to /etc/exports instead of deleting/modifying the original. So if I had made 5 changes there were 5 new lines in /etc/exports with the only difference being the change. Obviously nfs is only using the first line it sees and ignoring the rest. Now, my unraid system is modified a little so it might be my doing but I just want to confirm. Is/was this a bug in 4.5.6 or something I may have done wrong?

Yes, just build the f71882fg module and add it. I personally run unraid on a full arch linux distro and had to build my own kernel for it anyway. Just make sure you build from the same kernel source version that is used in unraid. I don't know why limetech doesn't just include all these modules in unraid, they don't take up very much space and make no difference on how it runs unless they are loaded. Some of the choices in the unraid kernel build seem pretty daft.

Ok, thanks. I'll fiddle around with this script a little and try to get it working for me. Before, I was not able to get it working properly. It looks like this script is made to only work if you do not use the user share (/mnt/user). It would sometimes start the crashplan service before /mnt/user was mounted in which case crashplan will create a new /mnt/user/crashplan directory, preventing the real /mnt/user from mounting properly. Probably just need to change it to look for /mnt/user mounted instead of any /mnt/disk# and search the log for "Retry unmounting user share" instead of "Retry unmounting disk share" or whatever it is currently doing. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I haven't looked here for a while. Is this still the way to start stuff when the array is ready? I searched around the forums and found talk of 5.0 supporting this a different way but nothing definite.