JorgeB

Pool is missing one device: Sep 2 18:58:04 BigServer emhttpd: /mnt/cache Total devices 4 FS bytes used 243.63GiB Sep 2 18:58:04 BigServer emhttpd: /mnt/cache devid 1 size 119.24GiB used 9.00GiB path /dev/sdi1 Sep 2 18:58:04 BigServer emhttpd: /mnt/cache devid 3 size 111.79GiB used 1.00GiB path /dev/sdf1 Sep 2 18:58:04 BigServer emhttpd: /mnt/cache devid 4 size 238.47GiB used 122.03GiB path /dev/sdm1 Sep 2 18:58:04 BigServer emhttpd: /mnt/cache *** Some devices missing And it's not allowing degraded mounts, this indicates that the pool was not redundant (or there were dual data profiles in use and one of them wasn't). Do you know what happened to the missing device?

The below sometimes helps: Some NVMe devices have issues with power states on Linux, try this, on the main GUI page click on flash, scroll down to "Syslinux Configuration", make sure it's set to "menu view" (on the top right) and add this to your default boot option, after "append initrd=/bzroot" nvme_core.default_ps_max_latency_us=0 e.g.: append initrd=/bzroot nvme_core.default_ps_max_latency_us=0 Reboot and see if it makes a difference.

Please post new diags.

It's in the release notes: https://forums.unraid.net/bug-reports/prereleases/unraid-os-version-6110-rc-series-r2037/

Perfectly safe, just won't be able to trim it.

Those are read errors, not parity sync errors, there are issues with both disks: Sep 3 06:41:20 Moulin-Rouge kernel: ata3: link is slow to respond, please be patient (ready=0) Sep 3 06:41:20 Moulin-Rouge kernel: ata1: link is slow to respond, please be patient (ready=0) Sep 3 06:41:24 Moulin-Rouge kernel: ata3: COMRESET failed (errno=-16) Sep 3 06:41:24 Moulin-Rouge kernel: ata3: hard resetting link Sep 3 06:41:24 Moulin-Rouge kernel: ata1: COMRESET failed (errno=-16) Sep 3 06:41:24 Moulin-Rouge kernel: ata1: hard resetting link Sep 3 06:41:29 Moulin-Rouge kernel: ata3: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 310) Sep 3 06:41:29 Moulin-Rouge kernel: ata3.00: configured for UDMA/133 Sep 3 06:41:29 Moulin-Rouge kernel: ata3: EH complete Sep 3 06:41:30 Moulin-Rouge kernel: ata1: SATA link up 6.0 Gbps (SStatus 133 SControl 300) Sep 3 06:41:30 Moulin-Rouge kernel: ata1.00: configured for UDMA/133 Sep 3 06:41:30 Moulin-Rouge kernel: ata1: EH complete Do they share a power splitter or something?

Disk2 appears to be failing to mount just because of the read errors, it should once those are solved.

No, they are faster than if you use HDDs and trim works fine, and as long as you have stable hardware it should be fine, I have like 15 raid5 btrfs pools between my servers, some of them running for 4 or 5 years without any problems, but like mentioned there are still some known issues.

Everything looking good so far.

Disk should mount now, look for a lost+found folder.

Blacklist the GPU driver from loading to see if it makes a difference, you can find the instructions for example here.

Start here: https://forums.unraid.net/topic/46802-faq-for-unraid-v6/?do=findComment&comment=819173

There’s no dedicated parity in pools, and perfectly fine to use SSDs, but note that btrfs raid5/6 is still considered experimental, I use it but there are some known issues, so make sure you have good backups of anything important.

Run it again without -n or nothing will be done, if it asks for it use -L.

They don't need to be starting with v6.10.3, like mentioned it's the Unraid default now.

Does it have USB 2.0 ports? You can also try a different flash drive.

By the description looks like flash drive problems, diags from when it happened might shed some light.

Lines above won't so anything since v6.10.3, it's already the default.

Then rebuilding will have the same result.

It could.

Could be some firmware compatibility issue, with the drives or the LSI.

If it's appdata folders from old apps that are no longer installed you can delete them.

Yes, the mover will never overwrite any files, you need to delete one of the copies.

Whatever shows in the emulated disk is the same that will be on the rebuilt disk, so you can check before rebuilding.

Yes, I know that won't work for you, just mentioning that there were 3 known cases where interface-rules was not working correctly and now there are 2, yours and another one.