Fireball3

If you have this card, it should already be in IT mode! That's what HBA refers to!

This case is discontinued? Aplus, as a manufacturer, is also not present on the net anymore? You could fit a third of those "build-in-cages" as far as I can see from pics?

I think it's both from 2013.

If you have more than one controller you have to specify the desired one - same for the erase operation! Better make sure you have only the desired controller plugged. Also, the -list is usually somewhat lengthy so it won't fit into your screen buffer. The line with the BIOS info is at the beginning of the dump. You may have to pipe the output into a file. There is a log option "-l settings.log" also, but I found it doesn't always work for some reason. But you can also simply reboot and see that there is no BIOS anymore.

I'm not sure if "5" is the right option. Prepare yourself for a full re-flash in case it does not work.

Necromancers @work!

Most of the listed cards are PCIe2.0 - by the time the list was started it was state of the art. The SAS2008 cards from LSI or their rebrands are recommended. PCIe3.0 maybe more future proof, but not necessarily budget. Dependent on your location, especially the rebranded cards can be very competitive in terms of pricing, but they have to be crossflashed. In certain regions even the LSI cards are inexpensive, you have to check.

With regard to the error 23 I wrote my experience here: I haven't used the plugin since then, so I can't say if those issues have been resolved yet.

I was presuming you want to set up an unRAID machine since this is the unRAID forum.

I also fear that the controller you ordered is a full hardware RAID controller. It won't be possible to simply pass-through the drives to the unRAID OS. Like that, unRAID won't be able to manage the drives. Maybe if you set them up as JBOD but that is usually a painful and not very recommended procedure.

There is a wiki page about controller cards. https://lime-technology.com/wiki/Hardware_Compatibility#PCI_SATA_Controllers Many LSI based controllers are listed. Just check which ones are available at your location for reasonable prices.

Yes, I've been running it since 5.0.2, but no problems with unRAID 6.1.X. I just updated to 6.4, but didn't see a workload increase because of that (CPU still around 4% and RAM around 20% utilized). Idle and some easy file serving tasks shouldn't be of an issue. How is the parity check performance? Any increase in time when switching from 5.0.2 to 6.1.x? CPU load?

This plugin is vital in my use case. I suppose the plugin will be updated so it doesn't cause issues any more? Will you then update the OP accordingly? I'm holding back the update as long as S3 sleep is not working.

Are you running unRAID 6 on that CPU? I hat real issues with parity checks. Speed went down and CPU load was pinned @100%

It certainly got less since the time-based post limit is in place, but there are still many different users coming through. Maybe a character limit for the first post can help blocking those posts. Those posts were often very lenghty - just an idea...

You can still use the old way without SSL. But I'm also wondering, what's the intended use case of the whole "secure access" thing, if the server is in a trusted environment (LAN)?

A nice collection of tower style cases http://tinyurl.com/ycpy9d47

I had the same issue. My server doesn't run 24/7 so I chose to check once for issues and then uninstall the FCP plugin.

Preferably an i7-8700 (K) because of it's 6 hyperthreaded cores and high single thread rating. For multi-core capable games a Ryzen 1800x would also be a viable option. (can't tell how good passthrough support is in the meantime)

PCIe 3.0 x16 @32 GB/s It will get crowded in the PCI bus.

No, according to the picture, they just use half of the heads on one actuator but based on the same coil. By separating the actuators they can position 2 heads simultaneously. A next step could be multiple actuators or ideally one actuator per head. Exactly this!

Yes it does - unless I'm totally misunderstanding something here... Given the fact that only one head can read/write at a time in a single actuator coil, it is very likely that a second head that can position itself independently from the first one can read/write a similar amount of data (in the same time). Only thing is that data has to be spread accordingly.

Well, that depends on the strategy. I could imagine having different types of operation. Either focused on IO or throughput. That would change the way data is written/spread across the drive. Pretty much like RAID levels are doing today.

https://blog.seagate.com/enterprises/multi-actuator-technology-a-new-performance-breakthrough/ Hopefully this will bring parity checking times on those 10TB+ monsters back to reasonable amounts.