Takiyon

Stay far away from btrfs. I had a drive die in one of my pools and it was a nightmare, and kept locking up the whole system. ZFS is basically remove and replace.

Yes sorting the running containers and putting the stopped ones on the bottom seemed to work. Thanks.

Apps not showing in the proper folder that is was selected.

Just rebooted and pool is back to this... 😞 pool: alpha state: ONLINE scan: resilvered 560G in 06:20:21 with 0 errors on Fri Jul 28 15:54:58 2023 config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM alpha ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 sdn ONLINE 0 0 0 sdr ONLINE 0 0 0 sdq ONLINE 0 0 0 sdp ONLINE 0 0 0 sdm ONLINE 0 0 0 sdo ONLINE 0 0 0 cache wwn-0x50015178f35974f1 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors pool: bravo state: DEGRADED status: One or more devices is currently being resilvered. The pool will continue to function, possibly in a degraded state. action: Wait for the resilver to complete. scan: resilver in progress since Fri Jul 28 18:25:14 2023 10.4T scanned at 6.91G/s, 585G issued at 388M/s, 11.5T total 195G resilvered, 4.98% done, 08:10:14 to go config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM bravo DEGRADED 0 0 0 raidz1-0 DEGRADED 0 0 0 replacing-0 DEGRADED 0 0 0 16473841147996356439 UNAVAIL 0 0 0 was /dev/sde1/old sde1 ONLINE 0 0 0 (resilvering) sdf1 ONLINE 0 0 0 sdc1 ONLINE 0 0 0 cache wwn-0x55cd2e404b65069d ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors

fixed with this command if anyone cares. zpool import -d /dev/disk/by-id/ <PoolName> Now my pools look like this: pool: alpha state: ONLINE scan: resilvered 560G in 06:20:21 with 0 errors on Fri Jul 28 15:54:58 2023 config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM alpha ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 wwn-0x5000cca254ecefe6 ONLINE 0 0 0 wwn-0x5000cca23bdb5b97 ONLINE 0 0 0 wwn-0x5000cca23bdc527b ONLINE 0 0 0 wwn-0x5000cca23bdc1887 ONLINE 0 0 0 wwn-0x5000cca23bdc4ff4 ONLINE 0 0 0 wwn-0x5000cca23bdbf920 ONLINE 0 0 0 cache wwn-0x50015178f35974f1 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors pool: bravo state: DEGRADED status: One or more devices is currently being resilvered. The pool will continue to function, possibly in a degraded state. action: Wait for the resilver to complete. scan: resilver in progress since Fri Jul 28 11:07:55 2023 1.82T scanned at 15.0G/s, 172M issued at 1.39M/s, 11.5T total 0B resilvered, 0.00% done, no estimated completion time config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM bravo DEGRADED 0 0 0 raidz1-0 DEGRADED 0 0 0 replacing-0 DEGRADED 0 0 0 16473841147996356439 UNAVAIL 0 0 0 was /dev/sde1/old wwn-0x5000cca23bd460eb-part1 ONLINE 0 0 0 wwn-0x5000cca23bc7a55d-part1 ONLINE 0 0 0 wwn-0x5000cca260e38403-part1 ONLINE 0 0 0 cache wwn-0x55cd2e404b65069d ONLINE 0 0 0

Another idea not sure if it is already planned but this one would be a big deal for anyone using ZFS pools. My server had a kernel fault today and I had to restart it. After it restarted all of the drive designations changed. Since unraid uses drive letters for ZFS pools the two ZFS arrays that I have went bonkers with drives from one array being moved to the other and thankfully only degraded the array. I am now rectifying this situation by using drives by-id only but this should be something that the backend should know when ZFS pools are created from the GUI.

So I have a Proliant ML350 G6 and so far its been working great until today I find this on my ILO. I had to hard reset the system. Anyone out there have any ideas as to what happened? It would scroll and scroll and stop here. then do it again in like 3 minutes . Looks like a kernel fault.

Awesome! As I slowly migrate all my data over to my 2 ZFS pools. I had another good idea where datasets could be duplicated across pools. I guess this would work well with the idea of treating each pool as a single disk to be merged with the existing FuseFS system. So from the GUI, if I make a dataset called "movies". It should be automatically create that dataset on any pool that is part of the file system to keep FuseFS consistent. This way the mover can balance the storage pool space. I am sure as I use the system there will be other ideas but this is just one of them that is on the top of my head.

Hey everyone! So, I bought unRaid pro two weeks ago. Still in the process of migrating all my data from Open Media Vault which I have been using for years. I chose unRaid because of the ease of VM use as well as the community plugin support which is a huge selling point IMO. Anyway after trying the setup with a regular array. It was too slow for me. Nothing wrong with it but it is just not good for my main server use case at this time. So I set up my server with 3 Pools. 6 x 8TB RAIDZ1 Pool - Named "Alpha" 3 x 8TB RAIDZ1 Pool - Named "Bravo" 3 x 8TB BTRFS Pool - Named "Charlie" 2 x 2TB BTRFS SSD Pool - Name "Cache" My issue right now is that it is my assumption that with unRaid using MergerFS "All" files regardless of where they are consolidated under /mnt/user. This is great and works fine since it would be a single path for any of my dockers to point to. Everything is working great right now except for the following, and I am not sure if this is intentional or maybe a feature that can be implemented. Basically if I create a share called "My Files" and set the primary storage to pool "Alpha" I should be able to set the secondary storage to "Bravo". Just like if I set my primary to "Cache" and secondary to "Array". Right now shares created on one pool are strictly for that pool. It would be great if the Pools themselves were treated as single disks in this manner so that if "Alpha" fills up the mover process can automagically move stuff to "Bravo" or any other 2 pools that I set. Or have some kind of "Pool Balancing" to keep equal space on both or all pools. If this is not possible then I would request that, as a feature to be able to shut off MergerFS. This way /mnt/user is not used, and all of my paths are set explicitly avoiding confusion as to where the files are. This will also allow to spin down pools that are not being used as well. Also it would be great if we did not need the "Array" portion of the system. Right now I am using one SD card just so the system can start the "Array" and not complain but it is never used. Not in this case anyway as my main server. I plan on buying another 2 or 3 unraid licenses for other use cases where this would make sense. But I do think as use cases expand for unRaid certain features may need to be turned off or be able to be accommodated. It opens up other uses and other markets where one would not otherwise be. Making more $$$ for LimeTech and their great software. 🙂