gubbgnutten

Members
  • Posts

    369
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by gubbgnutten

  1. 2 hours ago, Mysticle31 said:

    Newbie question I suppose...  Why does my missing disk have data on it?  I can see and access the data on it...?  The drive is physically not there!  I think I disabled it in the bios, but maybe I just took it out of the array.  Is Unraid putting data on it?

    Screenclip_2021-08-20_02-26-50.thumb.png.f69595533312ba98d1d3303313922f09.png

    As @itimpi wrote better and more elaborated, the missing disk is emulated and the system continues to operate as if it were present.

     

    The system is indeed putting data on it, most likely you have high-water configured as the allocation method and that’s why writes are going to that disk. Move the data away from Disk 1 to the disk you want to keep (Disk 3) and follow the linked procedure to properly have Disk 1 (and why not Disk 2?) removed from the system.

     

    2 hours ago, Mysticle31 said:

    Disk 2 is showing 3.02 GB used... but it's empty?

    Screenclip_2021-08-20_02-53-12.png.036699f9decb7dab858d238526c29b74.png

    With the sizes of today’s drives, 3.02 GB is practically nothing. That amount of usage on an empty disk is typically just overhead related to the file system.

     

    2 hours ago, Mysticle31 said:

    Background:

    My drives are developing bad sectors and the array was full so moved all the data I never use to offline cold storage, and consolidated everything to disk3.  The system is deciding to put stuff on disk1 which I removed. 

     

    Bonus question...

    I built my rig in 2014 (I think) as a Desktop/Game system that saw Unraid use right away.  It's an i5-4690K, 4th Gen with 32gb ram.  I think the ram is the only thing keeping it alive, if I had a 16gb limit I might have replaced it already!  The hardware is still fairly capable...I haven't ran into any limits with it running my dockers and a couple VMs.  More cores could be nice...I could get an 8 core cpu used and run it some more...

     

    Should I just update the drives or build a new server?  I was hoping to get a couple more years out of the hardware I have... but I'd say that a couple of years from now too!  :)  Now that it's an server, I'd like to build a smaller 4-5 external drive bay rig I can hide somewhere rather than my full tower. 

    If you don’t trust the drives, update them or retire them.

  2. On 10/12/2020 at 4:08 PM, Toskache said:

    During the test with dd:
     

    
    sync; dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/cache/testfile.img bs=5G count=1; sync

    I realized, that the max. filesize for the cache is 2G. Is that correct?

    Never seen anyone go for a block size of 5G before, that’s literally orders of magnitude larger than commonly seen...

     

    How about a reasonable block size and increased count to match instead?

    • Like 1
  3. 2 hours ago, mkyb14 said:

    Running mover, still has 200+GB on the drives.

     

    Guess I was under the impression the Downloads folder once mover was run would clear out, but there are many older files and folders still in there.  Is that normal?  Am I missing a setup in my config?

    Perfectly normal. It is simply not mover's responsibility to manage your completed downloads. Need another tool for that.

  4. 2 hours ago, squirrelslikenuts said:

    Im 100% convinced its a samba issue... or the client system Im testing from.....

     

    but the problem is that WRITES are saturating GbE ... so it can't be a network issue.

    For completeness - How fast are writes to the parity protected array (for a share not using cache)?

     

     

    When you do the write tests, what are you writing? (number of files, total size of data).

     

    I would expect all writes over the network to occur at line speed until the RAM buffer on the server is full, and you do have plenty of RAM.

     

  5. No worries :)

     

    Given the limited number of writes to the flash drive during normal use I don’t think SLC vs MLC will actually make a difference. That said, I would expect a better designed drive with quality components to be more reliable (and more expensive) than a really cheap one.

     

    So far I’ve use models recommended by Limetech and been lucky enough to not have one fail. Failure wouldn’t be a major inconvenience to me actually, thanks to the automated key replacement process. I would just grab a replacement drive (they’re cheap so I already have an extra), restore the most recent backup and be up and running within minutes.

  6. 15 minutes ago, kizer said:

     Now with the way unRAID is done the array is down briefly while it formats the drive and does some kind of pesuo pre-clear, but it is no way as good as the pre-clear. 

    It does a clear, simple as that. The drive needs to be all zeros to be added to a parity protected array.

     

    The difference is that nowadays it is cleared in the background, while older versions kept the array offline until the clear was completed. A pre-cleared drive can be formatted and used really really soon after adding it (since it is already cleared).

    • Like 1
  7. 5 hours ago, cholzer said:

    Here is what I though I should do (please correct me if I am wrong):

    1. wait for the preclear to finish
    2. create a new array in unRAID
    3. setup shares etc. in unRAID
    4. move files from my old NAS to unRAID
    5. install the old HDDs in my unRAID box and preclear them
    6. add the old HDDs to the unRAID array
    7. add the SSD as cache to the unRAID array (I am not sure if I should to that before I start moving data to the array or if I should do that last!?)
       

     

    Not saying you're wrong, just some thoughts about what I would do in a similar situation: :-)

     

    Is your old NAS fast or slow? If it is slow, I would have step 2 create a new array with parity. If it is fast, I would add the parity after step 4.

     

    For step 4, I would copy the files rather than move them, and when parity is in place verify that all files were written correctly. I usually have checksums for static files, so for me it is quite straightforward to verify files. Yes, I am quite paranoid...

    • Like 1
  8. 1 hour ago, amp3d said:

     

    I have attached a screenshot of my 2 drives side by side, same number of files, same folder numbers, litereally it's supposed to be a 1:1 clone of my media.

    Not the same numbers of folders or files, check the circled numbers... Check the contents of the sub folders, maybe you accidentally copied everything twice or something?

  9. 1 hour ago, tomo said:

    I have the same issue and I know it is an unraid problem. I have hard drives that I known can write at 100mbs+ and its writing to the array at 39-40mb/s. I had linux working on this machine before and it is NOT the hardware and NOT the network. It was the type of share working, where ubuntu had the same issue, but changing the share type and connecting in a different way get the 100mb/s write speeds back

     

    when will this issue get fixed?

    Start a new thread and attach your diagnostics zip as retrieved after writing to the array and we’ll have a look at it. :)