JorgeB

So if I were to copy some hashed files to a backup server running the same plugin I'd have to rehash them?

The BLAKE2 package is installed together with the plugin, but the plugin can't tell whether it runs on your processor or not. Ps. The checksums are not added to the file itself, but to the extended attributes which are maintained by the OS, the original file is never touched. Well, it looks like BLAKE2 works after all on my CPU, I remember failing a test on Squid’s Checksum plugin, because SSE4.1 was required.

Yep, and PARs could still help in case a 3rd disk failed with dual parity, although unlikely it's possible, so I may keep using them.

Little bug, with SHA2 selected in settings, Hashing method in File integrity control appears as none, works as expect with MD5 or BLAKE2.

I have to confess I didn’t really like the idea of adding the checksums to the file itself, maybe because I don’t understand how that works, but after trying it I really like how the plugin works. Great work as usual! PS: I believe that my AMD neon based HP N54Ls can’t handle Blake2, I will use SHA2, but I can select Blake2, shouldn’t this option be disable?

Dual parity won't help in the case you described => if the files are corrupted, the BOTH parity disks will have been updated to reflect the corruption. You'd still need some way of correcting the corrupted data. The corruption happened because a 2nd disk had read errors during a rebuild of another failed disk, with dual parity I could disable the 2nd disk and rebuild both from parity, your am I wrong?

That’s why I use 5% PAR2s for my media servers, can’t afford to backup it up all and once had a disk with some read errors while rebuilding a failed disk that left me with some corrupted files, I had checksums so I knew what files were damaged but no way of fixing them. I will probably go back to checksums only once dual parity is available.

For normal read/write operations to the array performance will be similar, for parity check/syncs and disk rebuilds a fully loaded SASLP will limit you to ~80MB/s, SAS2LP can do 300MB/s+.

Keep an eye on ebay, just recently bought two 1430SA from a German vendor, about 25€ each.

See reply #6 from this thread: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=43538.msg415645#msg415645

Shouldn't have to. How many people will replace drives because they've seen this error coming up, and not come on to the forums and found this thread? This needs fixed ASAP. It’s not clear to me how important this attribute is, all my Seagate drives are at 0, if this value starts increasing regularly I’d like to know, but you can disable that attribute notification from the SMART notifications settings.

For 2 ports I would recommend Asmedia 1601 based controllers, much better performance and they are cheap, like this one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816124045 The one I used for testing was onboard but performance should be very similar.

There was an issue with any V6 and parity check performance, although it didn’t affect all users, it was fixed in 6.1.4, will post test results soon.

Md_write limit was removed from V6, don’t know if it makes a difference in speed but I change it directly in the flash/config/disk.cfg

Confirmed, no longer appears on my server that doesn't support blake2

I don’t know if you have plans to add more Seagates to the SASLP, but so you’re not surprised, expect parity check to slow down considerably with each additional disk you add past the 3 you have now.

Mine make the same click sound, I don’t like it, but from a google search it appears to be normal for these disks.

What OS is giving you that speed graph during the copy? Is that win10? Windows Server 2012 R2, but both Win 8 and 10 have the same graph.

I already posted on other thread but since this is the official one and for anyone interested in these disks I’ve found them to be some of the fastest I’ve used for parity check/sync speeds. This is from my latest server, still has one 3TB Toshiba 7200rpm, with all 8TB Seagates it would be slightly faster. Subject: Notice [TOWER7] - Parity sync: finished (0 errors) Description: Duration: 15 hours, 47 minutes, 30 seconds. Average speed: 140.7 MB/sec Subject: Notice [TOWER7] - Parity check finished (0 errors) Description: Duration: 15 hours, 53 minutes, 3 seconds. Average speed: 139.9 MB/sec Parity check is slightly slower because as I discovered with these drives the HP N54L has ~750MB/s max usable bandwidth on the onboard sata ports, parity sync was faster because only 3 of the 4 drives were reading, it appears the A-Link is full duplex. As for normal usage write speed, I’ve found it to be between 45 and 60MB/s for large files, and as expect slower than normal drives for smaller files, see image 2, as these are a very small percentage of my files I’m very happy with the performance.

That’s a very cool unraid server! I believe the CPU is soldered on the board, so not user replaceable. Be interested to know how the parity check speeds holds up as you add more disks, I believe that those CPUs have a single gen 2 PCIe 4x interface, although even if used by the 10 drives should provide ~160MB/s for each, which is not bad.

OK, thanks for the explanation.

Just checked and my HP N54L servers (with AMD CPU) also can't do blake2, I was using the default md5 because I hadn't notice this from your notes on the 1st post: Since md5 checksums can still be checked by corz what's the disadvantage of using it instead of blake2?

Latest bios is 2507, you can download it from the adaptec website and flash it. http://www.adaptec.com/en-us/downloads/bios_fw/bios_fw_ver/productid=aar-1430sa&dn=adaptec+serial+ata+ii+raid+1430sa.html Johnnie, My card just arrived and the bios is v6.0-0 B2322. Is the number you listed just the end of the version number? Otherwise mine is 2,501 versions out of date! Adaptec doesn’t release every build, the last 2 on the site are: 6.0-0 Build 2507 6.0-0 Build 2329 You need build 2507 for >2TB support

Played a little with the new par2 creation, working great, many thanks! I know this is a very early version but is it possible to save the settings like recursive and redundancy %?

So start the array with the disk to be precleared so it builds "disk.cfg", stop the array, remove the drive from array, build "new config", then preclear_disk.sh should work? I just tried it to make sure and in fact you only need to do a new config, it creates the disk.cfg