JorgeB

@SpencerJ

Please use the existing docker support thread:

While there's no parity it's not a problem, if you then need to remove a disk just do a new config, note that after parity is assigned any new data disk will be cleared (erased) first.

Had some time to test this today, this is with v6.10.3, it's working correctly for me with one Mellanox NIC as eth0: This is the Mellanox NIC I'm using, a ConnectX-3: When you have a chance check if v6.10.3 solves the issue for you, if it doesn't it might be a NIC related, like bad firmware or other issue.

Check filesystem first.

That's good news.

@songI can replicate your issue with a GTX670, works fine with v6.9 and get code 43 after updating to v6.10, I found that this works for me, please try it, edit the XML and in the features section, below </hyperv> add this: <kvm> <hidden state='on'/> </kvm> Note that if you have "fast startup" enabled in Windows, and it's enabled by default, first boot after the change will still have the problem, you need to re-start the VM (not shutdown and turn on again). P.S. besides the code 43 issue I also had to dump the VBIOS to use the GTX670 with v6.10, but that's a different issue since there's no display output without it.

See if this helps you: https://forums.unraid.net/bug-reports/stable-releases/6100-6102-network-lost-after-some-days-working-r1971/?do=findComment&comment=19909

Any SSD, doesn't matter if it's in the array or in a pool, will be 1MiB aligned, this is done for performance and write amplification issues.

LSI 9207 consumes around 9w by my measurements, a little over the 6w a 9211 uses due to being clocked higher.

Please post new diags.

Do you mean that both NICs are set to DHCP and getting an IP from the same router?

Wipe the device with blkdiscard -f /dev/sdX Then reformat.

You just need to assign one device to a data slot, not clear if you want parity but it's optional, you can add more data disks anytime, but they will be cleared before being added, you can also add parity now or later.

Doesn't look like a disk problem, suggest running and extended SMART test before replacing it.

This indicates that xfs_repair is aborting due to a disk read error, xfs_repair won't work in a failing disk, you can clone the disk first with ddrescue then run xfs_repair.

If it boots in safe mode it suggests a plugin problem, remove/rename plugins then install one or a few at a time until you find the culprit.

Yes, do a new config, Tools -> New config, then sync parity after array start.

Disks are not showing as NTFS, that's why UD doesn't recognize them, but don't ask me what kind of partitions are those, were the disks basic or dynamic?

Disk is still showing a crazy amount of ATA errors, and not even giving a valid SMART report, if you replaced both cables you'll likely need to get a new disk.

Don't think so, see how that goes, alternatively you can also clone the disk with ddrescue to try and recover as much data as possible.

Was that after replacing the cables?

Suggest you do this, and there's no need for the assignments, since you need two new disks and to rebuild the array anyway.

While there could be some issues most emulated data should probably be still OK, but any array changes like moving data will make that much less likely, or impossible.

Fix the problems first then upgrade.