Everything posted by Philippe Bourdon
-
Server Upgrade
I think I have a pretty beefy server. I have a Ryzen 9 7300X with 128GB of RAM along with a 2TB NVme drive that I use for Cache. I also have 20 x 18TB Drives. I have a need to upgrade my current Desktop, and I figured that intead of upgrade that, I should upgrade my UNRAID server and use the 7300X for the Desktop upgrade. I am thinking of upgrading the UNRAID server with the Ryzen 9 9950X + 128 DDR5 RAM, and a new GigaByte motherboard. I have some concers however: Will swapping the hardware itself (Motherboard, CPU and Memory) create an issue? If I swap the current 2TB nvme drive onto the new motherboard, will I lose all my containers? And finally, what would the process be for upgrading my NVME form a 2 to a 4TB? wihout losing any of my containers? Thanks for you help.
-
Cache is always at 100%
So you are correct... I had to do some digging because I knew that my current environment only utilized 1.2TB. It turns out, I had a number of local volumes that were no longer being used - and filled up almost 700Gb of my docker.image file. I ran 'docker volume ls' and the dug into each of them to make sure I could remove them. After I removed them, my docker.image.file shrunk to 1.2TB. Tnanks for the help.
-
Cache is always at 100%
I think I made a mistake - my cache is 2TB and I guess I oringally had a 1TB volume which I expended to 2TB
-
Cache is always at 100%
Thank you and attached.philflix-diagnostics-20240809-1631.zip To be clear, I moved appdata temporaily off the cache drive to see if that would make a difference... Use the mover and nothing changed.
-
Cache is always at 100%
Currently running UNRAID 6.2.10 but this has been happening every since I extended my volume from 2 to 4TB on my nvme drive. So, I know my cache drive is 4TB and I also know I use about 35% of that. but it shows 100% used. Sometimes, for not particular reason, it will go back down to 35% which is the accurate dpeiction what what I am using. But if I reboot, it goes back to 100% - Is this a bug? Do I need to worry about this or is it just bad reporting? It's an xfs filesystem.