gubbgnutten

Members
  • Posts

    377
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by gubbgnutten

  1. 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. :P

     

    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. :D

  2. 31 minutes ago, tunetyme said:

    If you follow through the process, after you swap the new drive with all the files copied on it then you format the old RFS drive as XFS (formatting would destroy parity) or you could put another drive in that is already formated XFS (Like a larger drive) and repeat the process. Read the last several steps.  

    No, you read the last several steps! :D

     

    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.

    • Upvote 1
  3. On 3/29/2017 at 11:33 PM, Squid said:

    Its not a bug, nor is it a problem.

     

    When entering in multi-word searches, IPS assumes (rightfully) that you want to find threads that have all the words in it in order.

     

    IE:  Search for this is a test (this+is+a+test) yields 3 pages of results

     

    Searching for this is a test and then changing it to this is a test (get rid of the +'s) yields 924 pages of results because it'll do an OR search, and find any of the words present in any posting.  (It even outright says that its doing an OR search when removing the +'s)

     

     

    Untitled.png

     

    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. :P

  4. 1 minute ago, tunetyme said:

    Nope I got those steps right.  It was the warning that the parity drive would be erased. That is what started this discussion. See page 24 5th post down 

     

    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! :)

  5. 35 minutes ago, tunetyme said:

     

     I do understand how parity itself works and I understand how it works across drives basically odd or even. What I was trying to express is once I have made a duplicate set of files (rsync) on two different size disks with different formats (RFS v XFS) I am now able to remove the old disk and replace it with the new disc (same slot) and parity is still valid.

    By removing the old disk did I just remove one of the bits being counted? By swapping the new disk with the old and removing the old disk (changing slots and removing the old disk completely) how is parity maintained? I have just swapped and removed one disks that was being counted in the odd even for each bit of data. I used to deal with parity issues when dealing with serial and parallel data communications. As I have tried to explain I tend to think in terms of an absolute address on each disk where a bit is counted as odd or even. any changes in the bit being counted or the quantity of bits being counted (number of disks) changes parity. 

     

    As I have said I need to think about what relative addressing means.

    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).

  6. 11 minutes ago, tunetyme said:

    OK, let me see if I can explain my dilemma in a different way.

    Using bits

    At address x on a 2TB drive RFS (not that the format is essential) =1 and address y = 0

    I use rsync to copy the data to a 4TB drive xfs I am assuming that both formats use the same address scheme 

    you are saying that address x = 1 and address y = 0

     

    I guess I am thinking like Windows where if I copy a file from drive a to drive b it also defragments the file when it is copied..

    Are files ever fragmented under Linux?

    Words have apparently not made things less confusing, so I'll give a more practical example a stab. Let's pretend we have three drives, a 4 bit parity disk, a 2 bit data disk (Disk 1) and a 3 bit data disk (Disk 2):

     

    We start out with the following raw contents:

    Parity: 0110
    Disk 1: 01
    Disk 2: 001

    The we copy a (pretend) one bit file from Disk 1 (second bit) to Disk 3 (different filesystem, ends up at other address on other disk), now we have:

    Parity: 1110
    Disk 1: 01
    Disk 2: 101

    Replace the small Disk 1 with a fancy new 4 bit disk and rebuild. Extra space is filled with values calculated using parity disk and the other data disk, so parity remains valid:

    Parity: 1110
    Disk 1: 0100
    Disk 2: 101

     

  7. When I click the search box a drop-down defaulting to "All Content" appears to the left of the text field. Changing it to "This Topic" limits the search to ... this topic! :)

     

    The new desk build search is a bit weird. Seems like it gets converted to new+desk+build. Replace that text on the search page with new desk build and your unRAID Desk Build will be in the search results... :S

     

    Edit:

    More specifically, if I enter new desk build in the small top right search box, I get sent to:

    https://forums.lime-technology.com/search/?type=all&q=new+desk+build
    

    Entering new desk build in the big search box on that page sends me to:

    https://forums.lime-technology.com/search/?&q=new%20desk%20build

    I would expect different search boxes to behave the same way, so absolutely a bug.

    • Upvote 1
  8. 6 minutes ago, tunetyme said:

    Before I begin the next phase up upgrading my disks I would like to resolve the problem with password for root.

    I have rebooted my system and of course the password was not there (from the command line.) 

     

    I will try to set from the GUI. Do you recommend from the console or connected PC?

    Should not matter, it is the same web UI.

  9. 2 hours ago, kingy444 said:

    im curious, what's wrong with moving data to the empty XFS, reformat the newly empty drive and rinse and repeat?

    Nothing wrong with that, really, that's basically how I did it: Copy data to empty disk, verify checksums, format old disk, rinse, repeat...

  10. 6 hours ago, tunetyme said:

    Version 6.3.2 I have tried to set the password for root without success. I can It only lasts during that session if I log out then back in. Right now a carriage return is all that is needed.

    How did you try to set the password? Using passwd won't stick, it has to be done through the web UI.

  11. 6 hours ago, jonathanm said:

    +1

    Linked to a recent non-correcting check, it would be possible to correct only the sectors found in error.

     

    What I would like to see...

    Every non-correcting check logs errors to a dedicated single use log file overwritten each time, with strict limits on number of errors logged before it gives up. A non-correcting check that exceeds that number fails out with an error, aborting with a message urgently requesting a full correcting pass or further troubleshooting.

    If the number of logged errors is low enough, an option to run either a full correcting pass OR a pass utilizing the latest non-correcting logged list, followed immediately by a second non-correcting pass with a special flag that aborts on ANY error, and requests a full correcting pass or further troubleshooting.

    Would love that. Maybe should be extracted to a dedicated feature request?

  12. Well, "Cannot allocate memory" is certainly not good.  Either you don't have enough memory, or something is misbehaving.

     

    Unfortunately syslog snippets are rarely useful... Could you try to grab diagnostics and attach it? Check the following post for more info:

     

  13. 8 hours ago, ninthwalker said:

    If I change the Title of my post it changes the URL as well.
    If I wanted to reference this post somewhere else, the URL would break.

     

    Are you sure the URLs actually break? As long as the number does not change, it should still work even if the words from the title are different.

     

    • Upvote 1
  14. 3 hours ago, avpap said:

    An update on my issue. When copying from disk to share everything worked fine.

     

    Copying should work fine, only moves within the same mount point are problematic.

     

    On a related note - Don't mix disks and user shares unless you know exactly what you are doing, there are situations where you can lose data...

  15. 4 hours ago, BRiT said:

    Please don't change the default to on.

     

    At least the signatures are now limited in size and there is usually plenty of free space at the end of posts, so it wouldn't be as bad as it was in the old forum...

     

    Default to off is nice, though. Maybe that can help posters realize that the signature is not actually part of a post. Always fun to encounter old posts referencing a signature that does not match the post anymore. ;D

  16. 22 minutes ago, kizer said:

    With my below setup and running Plex Docker and a few Plugins everything came up just fine from 6.2.4 to 6.3.2

    I guess the only thing I noticed is it appeared to take a little longer to spin up the array and verify my license, but so far everything seems just fine. 

     

    I assume your "below setup" is referring to your signature? For someone who has not explicitly enabled signature viewing, it sure looks like you forgot to add something to your post :D