gubbgnutten

Members
  • Posts

    369
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by gubbgnutten

  1. If this ever becomes an option, I sincerely hope that the IEC prefixes are used (resulting in KiB, MiB, GiB, TiB and so on...)
  2. I would expect the router to be the PPPoE client. What model is the modem?
  3. ...don't forget about VMs, unRAID could absolutely be your only physical computer nowadays. Edit: But still, yeah, get a router.
  4. The general recommendation seem to be "Don't expose the built in FTP server to the internet". Have you exhausted all other options?
  5. Yikes, and here I was expecting some confusion regarding either hubs vs switches or full duplex vs half duplex. Should have seen it coming, struggled hard to not make a comment on the use of "mb" as a unit... Well, at least we have established that the reason most people don't realize it is because it isn't the case. Pretty please with sugar on top use M for mega in both cases! Granted, it is unlikely that we'll ever see a case where millibits is the intended unit, but how can we expect everyone to use B/b properly if the M is not cased consistently?
  6. Honestly never heard that before. Could you elaborate?
  7. Sounds like you have RAID 0 and 1 mixed up, @m0ngr31...
  8. The shares with more space are set to use cache, right?
  9. No advantage? What happens when there are writes to two+ data drives at the same time?
  10. Just make sure the size is fine. People have had problems with harvested drives (sold as real reds) being just a tad smaller than a real red drive of the same expected size...
  11. Yeah, each file needs to fit on one disk, and unRAID won't move files around for you to make a new one fit. Regarding your failed copies, you need to be a bit more specific. Does the copying fail immediately or after some time? How do you transfer the file(s)? Do you get an error message? Where? What does it say? New diagnostics after your set minimum free space and failed transfer?
  12. No, not caused by a NIC. Check your share settings. You have a bunch of shares with "use cache" set to "prefer", which means that the files should be moved FROM the array disks TO the cache disk when mover runs (if there is a cache disk). For most shares you probably want "yes" instead. Enable help on the page to read more about the options.
  13. Wait, so you're saying that the server is connected to a box on the fritz? The speed transitions you describe would absolutely be consistent with a bad connection, seems most likely so far, but do post your diagnostics from such a case. Try a different ethernet cable, reboot whatever the server is connected to (the fritzy box) and if possible try using another port on it.
  14. Try replacing the ethernet cable and reboot whatever it is connected to in the other end.
  15. It depends on a lot of factors... That said, the defaults are quite reasonable. The high water allocation method is a good compromise that works well in most situations. As for split level, I used to set it to a value that keeps episodes from the same season together, but now I'm fine with splitting as required. For my usage patterns the high water allocation keeps files together well enough from a practical point of view, and saves me the trouble of making sure individual disks have enough space free. Do you have any specific requirements or expectations?
  16. As far as I know SMB3 multi channel support in Samba is still only experimental, so probably won't be an option for some time...
  17. 128 gigabytes per second? Sign me up! I'd even settle for 125GB/s. Other than the unit used, my unRAID's 4-port LACP bond agrees with your statements.
  18. No, the system clock should be the consistent actual time (UTC). That way a sensible operating system can easily compensate for time zones and daylight savings and derive the appropriate local time.
  19. By correct, do you mean that it is set to UTC time? And isn't Stockholm +2 compared to UTC due to daylight savings?
  20. Well, let's agree to disagree. Or agree to agree. Or disagree to disagree. I'm actually not even sure what you so respectfully are disagreeing with... I'm not the one having a problem searching, and I am absolutely not saying that OR should be the default or that AND is not what most people would expect. What I am saying that the IPS folks made really really really bad decisions when designing the search interface. I don't see any easy overall fix, especially not one that would not break things for all users that have adapted to the current design. You keep promoting AND as the reasonable default search. I am not disputing that at all. But just imagine for a moment that both search fields had interpreted this is a test as an AND search and requiring explicit this OR is OR a OR test for OR search (almost never used anyway, right?). Then the two linked fields would have behaved consistently. I mean, there is no implicit OR in this is a test, if anything it would be an implicit AND, so why mess with + at all here? More fun with searches: Using the small search field to search for "this is a test" gets converted to "this+is+a+test" which unlike "this is a test" does not have any matches. All right, enough for now. Keep disagreeing, keep imagining I'm promoting OR, whatever makes you happy. I've taken up enough of people's time ranting about bad design decisions that are unlikely to get corrected.
  21. No, you read the last several steps! Formatting does not destroy parity as it is done while the disk is assigned to the array and the array is started. Therefore the parity is updated to reflect the formatting. After all, formatting a disk means writing an empty filesystem to it. It is just as any other set of writes, parity does not care. It only cares about the raw bits. And no, you absolutely cannot put another drive in instead here. You have to use exactly the same set of drives to maintain parity.
  22. It is a case of bad design. Really bad design. Two connected search fields should not behave completely different. Could you please enlighten me, where does it outright say that it is doing an OR search? All I can see on your picture is that it suggests searching for this OR is OR a OR test instead of the current text this is a test, not that it performed an OR search for the current text. This design clearly suggests that it did not just perform an OR search. Granted, clicking on the OR suggestion leads to a page where the search field is filled in with this is a test and familiar results, only differing in the url where search_and_or=or was appended. In this case it doesn't list this OR is OR a OR test as a suggestion anymore. Oh, and expanding the More search options in this case correctly has "Contain any of my search term words" checked. But what about the initial this is a test with removed +'s? Expanding More search options there had "Contain all of my search term words" checked... Probably only the tip of the iceberg, the IPS folks should have spent way more time thinking about how to design the search functionality+interface instead of rushing this piece of c...ode.
  23. Silly me, I thought procedure was posted as a reply to my question about where you got the idea that parity was valid after completely removing a disk. The last bunch of posts about parity seem to be based on that misconception, rather than on the wording of step 16 (or the confusing web UI text)... So where did you get the idea that parity was still valid if a drive was removed? Well, I guess it doesn't really matter as long as it wasn't from a resource relating to this thread. Happy conversion and may your files live long and prosper!
  24. Step 16? Pretty sure your confusion about what was happening started no later than step 14.
  25. Sorry, where did you get the idea that parity remains valid if you remove a disk? Exactly what guide/procedure are you following? With single parity you can reorder disks and still maintain valid parity, but parity won't remain valid after removing a disk (unless you actually write zeros to the entire raw disk before removing it).