JorgeB

You can do the upgrade using the GUI: Tools -> Update OS and change the brach to "next" then check for updates, no data is lost but good to read the release notes.

That would mean a disk clearing, any data there will be deleted.

Isn't the old 3TB disk missing from the array?

Unassign parity, start/stop array, re-assign parity.

You already had a missing disk on the previous diags, check connections.

No, backup current flash, re-do it and then restore only the config folder.

Yes. Two SFP+ NICs (e.g. Mellanox ConnectX-2/3 and a cable.

NIC isn't loading a driver, try the latest beta.

There's no NIC driver. there might (should) be on the latest beta.

Array drive to drive transfers are always slow with Unraid, it should go a little faster with turbo write.

I mean if in the tests you did with the NVMe was as a cache device, but I guess reading again you meant a single zfs pool, in that case: You could try formatting the NMVe device with another filesystem, just for testing.

Like mentioned it's out of date, but also says:

Possibly, is network.cfg being created? If not see if you can get the diags from the console by typing "diagnostics"

It's out of date, current release should be run on at least 4GB, 2GB should do it if is just basic NAS stuff.

You'd need to post the diags, and probably a good idea to use the existing UD support thread instead.

If the NVMe device is assigned to cache try enabling disk shares and see if read speeds are better using that, it won't help with ZFS pools though, but in my experience ZFS has almost always faster writes than reads.

Since it's an upgrade you can just select the new parity drive, no need to start without the old one.

See here for some recovery options, if you decide to use check --repair upgrade to latest Unraid beta first, since it includes much newer btrfs tools.

LSI SAS1 controllers are limited to 2.2TB max device size, look for a SAS2 or newer model.

SMART is reporting a clearly wrong temperature, nothing Sinology can do about that, SMART attributes can't be changed by the user, and you'd have the same issue with Unraid

For me ZFS pools with be a great option mostly for the cache pools, especially since they now can have up 30 devices, I don't see LT making the array also a pool, Unraid name would stop making sense, and it wouldn't be a thing I would want anyway since being able to fully use different capacity disks in the array and don't loosing the whole array even if you lose more disks that parity can recover are some of Unraid's biggest selling points for me, though besides being able to use ZFS with cache pools I would still welcome ZFS as file system option with the way the array works currently, i.e. every data disk as an individual filesystem.

That's not why I asked, it's just a way to rule out other things, but you do what you want.

This.

If it doesn't finish booting try redoing the flash drive.