gubbgnutten
-
Posts
377 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Store
Gallery
Bug Reports
Documentation
Landing
Posts posted by gubbgnutten
-
-
25 minutes ago, opentoe said:
Amcrest told me to put it in like this
/sun/security/recordings
Listen to @bonienl, not to Amcrest.
-
Rebuilding a disk won't fix file system problems on it, if that's what you're asking.
-
Just to confirm, it is the DATAZ share that contains those 500G, right?
Edit: Oh, 6.4.0-rc6?
-
Manually moving stuff is risky, not going into details since it has already been mentioned.
Could the initial problem be that you had the shares cache settings set to Prefer? That would cause mover to move files from the array to the cache and not the other way round.
-
Did you try safe mode as suggested by the FAQ entry?
-
Zeroing a new drive before it is actually added keeps the parity correct at all times and is extremely straightforward to implement.
Adding a drive by reading from it and updating the parity on the other hand, yikes. Not only would the parity be invalid (or at best require special handling) during the update, it would also in virtually all cases be way slower than filling a drive outside of the array with zeros.
-
If this ever becomes an option, I sincerely hope that the IEC prefixes are used (resulting in KiB, MiB, GiB, TiB and so on...)
-
44 minutes ago, TheBlueKingLP said:
My modem is already a router,but it require PPPoE to connect to internet
I would expect the router to be the PPPoE client. What model is the modem?
-
13 minutes ago, CHBMB said:
Not much point having a NAS without a network.....
...don't forget about VMs, unRAID could absolutely be your only physical computer nowadays.
Edit: But still, yeah, get a router.
-
19 minutes ago, NAStyBox said:
It's actually not so simple, but it's definitely not transferring 100mb of data per second. 12.5mb per second is the max real data transfer speed on a 100mb network.
Why? Overhead. Folks often think of ethernet as this flawless digital connection, but there are all sorts of factors that affect speed. This might help shed some more light on it.
http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/definition/Ethernet
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.
14 minutes ago, Squid said:You're confusing MB/s (megabytes) with mb/s megabits.
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?
-
19 minutes ago, NAStyBox said:
Most people don't realize that a 100mb switch is essentially 50mb. (50/50).
Honestly never heard that before. Could you elaborate?
-
Sounds like you have RAID 0 and 1 mixed up, @m0ngr31...
-
The shares with more space are set to use cache, right?
-
2 hours ago, trurl said:
Parity faster than any data drive provides no advantage, but there is a disadvantage to having parity slower than a data drive.
No advantage? What happens when there are writes to two+ data drives at the same time?
-
On 4/26/2017 at 5:19 PM, emmcee said:
Sill, cheap WD reds - whats not to like!
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...
-
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?
-
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.
-
8 minutes ago, b0mb said:
i will try changing the cable tomorrow but it´s really wicked...
100 MBIT => reboot => downloading with 450 MBiT@peak => 100 MBiT
hmmmmm
btw. the switch the server is connected to is a cable fritz box
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.
-
Try replacing the ethernet cable and reboot whatever it is connected to in the other end.
-
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?
-
19 hours ago, crowdx42 said:
Did you guys ever take a look at the video linked below? From what it is describing, a lot of the issue is the settings in Windows.
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...
-
10 hours ago, ken-ji said:
AFAIK, standard bonding (LACP) only helps if you have lots of clients contending to access the server, since the bonding does some hashing with the client MAC address to pick which link to use. So in this case a single client will max out its transfer at 128GB/s (including protocol overhead). LACP is mainly for high availability and scalability with many clients - not high capacity for single/few clients
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.
-
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.
-
11 minutes ago, zin105 said:
I'm in UTC+01.00 Stockholm.
BIOS time is correct.
By correct, do you mean that it is set to UTC time?
And isn't Stockholm +2 compared to UTC due to daylight savings?
Can't FTP into unraid
in General Support
Posted
Try the exact path suggested earlier and post log from using that path.