Auggie

Members
  • Posts

    380
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Auggie

  1. I do understand the concept of what you are postulating, but can you provide any documentation on the statement, "They are mutually exclusive by definition." Where is that "definition?" A legitimate question. The quote I provided from the "unofficial" manual is explicity clear that we can set each setting independently and separately. So I'm genuinely interested in reading up on this "definition" you've referred to because it may not be working as you've stated. Remember, what we "think" of how it should be behave based on our individual paradigm of user interface design may not be the paradigm of the developers. The problem with software development is that we as a developer can write code to do whatever it is we want, regardless of interface guidelines and whatnot. I've been writing code since 1980: BASIC, Fortran, Assembly 6502, COBOL... and interface design can get real messy I will say when I initially added that drive to the array I noticed that a new sub-folder was created from another User Share which I forgot to "exclude" from it's settings; since adding the new drive to the "exlude" list of the other User Share I have not seen any unwanted sub-folders created. ANYWHO, an update to this situation: that recently "new" drive eventually filled to maximum capacity I wanted so I added another "new" drive. So far, with all the settings I've had for many years (allocation method High-Water, both Include and Exclude disks entered, Automatically Split), it's now working as intended: All new file transfers goes to the "new" drive. Of note: the first "new" drive was added to the "middle" of the array (disk 11) whereas the new "new" drive was added at the end (disk 24). Not sure if that has any bearing but so far, that's the only difference in setup.
  2. Just to be redundant in forcing my expectations. The developer of uNRAID apparently added these two options individually, separately, with no dependancies between them, meaning you can mix and match to your heart's content. Which I've been doing now for 11 years with ZERO issues (of which this is not related to the issue I'm reporting on). That assumption is absolutely incorrect according to the unRAID's Unofficial Manual: SECOND SENTENCE: These parameters can be used separately or together to define the group of disks allowed for each user share. The design of which is obviously ambigious enough to cause debates, such as yours, as to the correct usage, but the above statement is crystal clear on the functioning of these two featues. I don't disagree that this is not a very well though-out presentation of these features, which is why I filled out both Include and Exclude to ensure it behaves according to my intentions.
  3. I will reiterate, my experience does not indicate that that is what happens. If what you state happens, then all contents with the same parent folder (e.g. "My Favorite Movie" with contents of "My Favorite Movie (1984)" and "My Favorite Movie (Bonus Disc) (1984)," will both be on the same disk as the parent "My Favorite Movie," including any other files, such as poster art and fanart. But no sir, that's not what I see across two unRAID setups over the 11 years I've been using unRAID: individual files/folders can be split across multiple drives if copied/moved over in separate sessions. What I do see is that during a move/copy to the NAS, unRAID will keep all filers and folders in the move in the same disk during the same operation.
  4. My experience is that this is not what actually happens: unRAID will still typically place the files/folder according to the allocation method, even if there is a same-named folder on one or more drives. I'm moving files and folders from a Mac (presently running Big Sur) through the Finder and the user share mounted on the desktop. I do notice a few empty folders here in there on one or more drives, while the actual contents may reside on different drive. Not often and not a deal breaker and so far that I can tell, not related to the issue I'm having because those situations with empty folders are not invovled with the current file operation causing my headaches.
  5. I don't agree with this train of thought: I believe you can have both, so long as there is no conflict with disks in both exceptions, which I don't have any. But just to prove this theory, I removed all disks under "exclude" and just tried copying files to the NAS and nope, it still wrote to one of the almost-full drives versus the newly added drive with the most free. For years I had everything set to Highwater (in fact, all my other user shares are still set to Highwater); it's only when unRAID kept filling up the other drives until they had zero (0) free space is when I switched to Most Free in hopes of forcing it to the new drive, but nope, it kept behaving unexpectedly. IIRC correctly, I read somewhere, perhaps in an unRAID FAQ, to set Minimum Free to 0; I know when I started having this issue and bumped it to, say, 256GB, I couldn't move/copy any files to unRAID because it said there was no more free space, when in fact, the new drive had about 3TB free whilest the original drives were less than 80GB. I again set minimum free to 128GB in this similar situation and it still wrote to the other drives with less space. BTW, I don't use cache drives...
  6. Hope this helps track down the issue... nas-diagnostics-20211002-2121.zip
  7. I recently added a new drive to the array and assigned it to a specific share where all the other drives are almost full, but when I save files to the share, unRAID does NOT save the files to the drive I've intended it to (Most Free) and instead attempts to save them to the other drives until there's no more free space and I get errors (OS X). I've tried setting the Allocation Method to High-Water but same situation: it doesn't always send files to the most free drive. In the past, I've never had this issue when expanding an array and assigning new drives to a specific share. This is the first time I've done so under 6.9.2, so I don't know if there's a new bug introduced with this version, or something else. Sys log shows nothing out of the ordinary. In the meantime, I'm now stuck moving files from the full drives to the new drive to regain the ability to save files to the share again without encountering errors which stops file transfers to the NAS.
  8. Yep, I know the differences! But I am not directly manipulating blocks and sectors; and for the topic at hand, it would sound rather obtuse saying "I want modify sectors on data drives," which may imply I'm using a utility to directly manipulate drive blocks and sectors... 😃
  9. I thought I came across the answer many eons ago, but haven't been able to find the thread. Is it okay to pause a data drive rebuild (due to upgrading to larger drive) in order to do some large file movements involving different data drives, then continue the rebuild after the file operations are completed? Again, I thought UnRAID would keep track of all file ops and update the parity on-the-fly, even when performing a data drive rebuilds, but I want to have confirmation one way or the other...
  10. You are completely ignoring that there are other applications of unRAID that require the largest arrays possible, such as media servers. Cache pools are of limited value in these setups. You may not understand it, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a truly legitimate need for these types of arrays. I welcome any new features to unRAID, including the increasing the number of cache pools available, as it expands unRAIDs capabilities for those in the mass market that could use them. But the spirit of this particular thread is to encourage the expansion of the number of data drives unRAID is capable of incorporating into a protected array, which at the present, is limited due to how the super.dat file is formatted.
  11. When you say "cache pools," this doesn't mean the ability to have multiple arrays running simultaneously on a bare-metal server, no?
  12. As I had to revisit recreating my Ubuntu 16 VM, then while I was at it, decided to upgrade to Ubuntu 18, I noticed the missing cursor bug was still present with UnRAID 6.7.2; two years after I reported this error in this forum (I had been using Xorg and Microsoft RDP and hadn't touched UnRAID's VNC Remote since my first reporting). Thany mentioned this is a Javascript/browser issue, so I'm now confused. Since this issue still exists and effects other users, is this truly a simple Javascript/browser issue that can be corrected by a preference setting? Or this really an UnRAID bug?
  13. Well, for some reason the libvirt.img on my original cache drive got corrupted beyond accessibility and repair, so I bit the bullet to resinstall an Ubuntu VM from scratch. But lo and behold, after creating a new VM, downloading the latest Ubuntu and firing it all up, my original Ubuntu VM was started ; it appears all my files and settings are still intact. Whew! Apparently, since I had the original vDisk that wasn't corrupted, UnRAID's VM module simply launched it without wiping and installing a clean system. All is well again...
  14. It was on the original cache drive, which I upgraded to a larger one and had copied over all of its contents. I had even reselected the libvert location on the "new" cache share, but the VMs still did not show. Unfortunately, UnRAID was also getting errors opening the libvert.img file which prevented VM daemon/application from starting, so I tossed it, not knowing it contained the actual settings of the VMs themselves, and redownloaded a new version which solved the errors and allowed the VM module to start. When I get home I'll check to see if the libvert.img file is still available on the original cache drive which I don't believe I touched or reformatted.
  15. I had an unassigned drive as the shared storage for my VMs, then I did some disk and file rearranging, copying all raw VM files to a new cache drive and now my VMs disappeared. Reinstalling the original drive did not restore any VMs. Am I FUBAR'd or can I recover?
  16. For me, I'm concerned about running an UnRAID-based media server in VM; it doesn't matter for my backup server. All my videos are 1:1 imaged full Blu-Ray discs (which precludes running Plex or any other current media streamer) so anything that could impede performance and cause drop-outs, stuttering, or pauses in playback would be unacceptable.
  17. This would be a sufficient solution for my very narrow needs. If the multiple-array feature should eventually be incorporated, then I would definitely want to run multiple arrays (servers) on the same iron since at the max data drive capacity, my 48-bay Chenbro would never be fully utilized (prefer to run native vs virtual to reduce the potential for latency issues during media playback).
  18. I should add that I'm not seeing this issue with my other UnRAID NAS, which uses an older X9SCM motherboard with one SuperMicro AOC-SAS2LP HBA, one LSI 9211-8i (IT Mode) HBA, and one IBM M1015 (IT Mode) HBA. The X11 setup has built-in SAS3 3008 chip (IT Mode) connected to the Chenbro's built-in SAS expanders so the latest UnRAID version appears to have an issue with this setup.
  19. I noticed this sometime ago, but I wasn't sure exactly what was happening. About a month ago I noticed 128 errors after a parity check was completed but saw it only after a week or so had already passed. All SMART reports were good. I ran my monthly parity check several days ago and the exact same number of 128 errors occurred. All SMART reports were again good with zero anomalies on all drives. The syslog showed a spin down an hour or so after parity check was started (FYI, my disk settings are set to spin down after an hour) and that's when the read I/O errors occurred (specifically involving only three drives at that time). After performing an XFS repair on the three drives with zero issues, I again ran the parity last night. This morning, I noted in the syslog that again an hour after parity check was initiated, UnRAID spun down ALL drives and soon thereafter I/O errors on ALL drives were reported. Two hours later, again UnRAID spun down ALL drives and I/O errors started. This appears to be a UnRAID 6.7 bug wherein it's incorrectly spinning down drives that may be physically I/O active. I don't believe its hardware related as I've had this particular motherboard/chassis (SuperMicro X11SPH/Chenbro 48-bay RM43348) combination running for over six months now and never experienced anything like this before. Attached is my syslog (FYI, the parity check is still in progress and although there were numerous I/O errors, the parity check has reported ZERO errors thus far). syslog.txt
  20. It appears the problem is due to the Dynamix Cache Dirs, which I had installed recently. Removing it and the issue has not surfaced since.
  21. This has been an ongoing irritating issue with my Media Server for some time now; I can't pinpoint when this started happening, whether it was in recent 6.x releases or earlier releases (I don't recall experiencing this issue under v5 and certainly not under v4). Upgrading to a completely brand new system in every single aspect has not resolved the issue. As I watch a movie, every 20 minutes or so the video would freeze for 10-20 seconds. It's almost like clockwork. I have several different media players from different companies so it's not an issue specific to media players (though my Oppo 203 seems to experience this less often; however, it is used only to watch 4K). If I log onto the NAS and spinup all drives, this seems to alleviate the issue for the remainder of the movie. These movies are full copies; no re-encoding so they command a lot of NAS/network traffic when playing. Regarding network, I recently moved so the topology is completely different, with only one switch (16-port rackmount NetGear ProSafe) transferred to new LAN. My drives are set to the default 1 hour spin down delay. I don't believe the issue is with the specific drive the movie is on, but I haven't dug into the logs to see if UnRAID was attempting to spin that drive down, or any other drives. Perhaps it's when UnRAID is attempting to spin another drive down that it unexpectedly causes a problem with other drives. I have the Cache Directories, Auto Fan Control (I no longer need this and will delete), Nerd Tools, VM Wake-On-LAN, and Unassigned Drive plugins. My VMs are currently not running (haven't resolved libvert service error since hardware migration), though they have been in the past. When It happens again, I will try to review the logs at that time. Until then, has anyone else experienced this issue?
  22. Interesting. I will test on my 9211-8i to see if the LSI's are more immune to the PWDIS feature...
  23. Is there one molex connector per backplane, or two? The version with one is the newer with which the system I have had to have the pins taped. If you have the single, what HBA's are you using?
  24. It didn't with mine with 1 LSI 9211-8i, 1 SuperMicro SAS2LP, and 1 IBM M1015, connected to a Norco 4224. Not sure which of the HBA's I initially tried without taping, but it was with at least two drives that I experienced no power-up unless the pins were taped, after which I started taping them all immediately after shucking. FWIW, the Norco in this setup is the "newer" version that supports only a single PSU and thus has a differently designed "backplane". I've retired this case and relocating the X9 hardware to my older, dual-PSU capable 4224 for my backup server. And next PWDIS drive I get I'll test it without tape in both my new Chenbro as well as the Norco system (all three HBA's)... FYI, rebuilding an 8TB drive on the X9/Norco setup netted an average of 110MB/s. Rebuilding a 6TB of the same array on the new X11/Chenbro averaged 198MB/s, and replacing an 8TB with a 10TB averaged 117MB/s; the CPU utilization maybe pegged 50% now and then, but it was typically idling around 5%, unlike the X9/Pentinum which maxxed out quite often during rebuilds. Certainly a big step up, especially for my VMs. Now I have to build a noise reduction cabinet to quiet down this maddingly howling rig, and upgrade my home network to 10Gb...
  25. I got it all sorted out so this is to provide closure and hopefully help anyone else who expereinces similar networking issues. By default, UnRAID automatically activates and uses the first network interface it comes across, which may not be the physical first one (i.e. eth0, which is the case on my SuperMicro X9 board as UnRAID selected eth1 as the default), regardless of which port is physically connected to the LAN. All other network interfaces are then automatically set to inactive (shutdown). Since I didn't know the physical port order on the 2-port IBM NIC, I had plugged the ethernet cable to the most convenient one at the time of initial setup, which happened to be port 2 (eth1), which was the port closest to the motherboard PCIe slots. This caused all the problems I had experienced with no IP assignments and thus no network connectivity other than through the dedicated IPMI port. During my back and forth testing, I had by chance reconnected the ethernet cable to the other port (port 1 or eth0) when I had installed the trial UnRAID stick. This is why UnRAID network connectivity had become fully functional under that system, which I had initially attributed it to some configuration setting difference between my registered UnRAID stick and the trial; that was not the case here. It's all due to how UnRAID detects, enables, and disables the network ports it discovers. My recommended procedure for handling a new system and/or new NIC with multiple ports is to boot UnRAID into GUI mode (I had never before used the console GUI as all my UnRAID servers are headless) to determine which port had been assigned the default network port, and if it's currently active. If not, you can either switch the cable to the actively assigned port, or manually enable and assign the port you wish to use on the Network Settings page.