TaterSalad

Well. I pulled the trigger. I was able to score an open box deal on NewEgg for the motherboard and saved $50. Hopefully, it won't be too sketchy. If it is, I will just return and order a new one. I combined the open box deal with the Jet.com TRIPLE15 promotion for the other components, which ended up saving me another $75. (You can save up to $90 with this promotion, but I wasn't able to maximize the promotion. The motherboard wasn't available on Jet.com. It's a great deal if you're looking for a new build.) Anyways, here's what I ended up with: Xeon E3-1245 v5 CPU ASRock C236 WSI (open box) Kingston ECC 16GB Module - DDR4 2133MHz Corsair SF Series SF450 Lian-Li PC-Q25B Case Total: $680.94 Thanks to everyone for all the advice. I think the ECC, the extra 2 SATA ports, and higher-end CPU will ultimately be a wise-choice. My last rig lasted me 6 years. And I'm hoping to squeeze another 6 out of this one! I'll throw some pictures up once I get running. Also, unrelated... this board+CPU is a beast for an ITX. I may have considered it too if my budget was a little higher. SUPERMICRO MBD-X10SDV-TLN4F-O Mini ITX Server Motherboard Xeon processor D-1541 FCBGA 1667

ECC RAM is pretty much the same cost as non-ECC RAM these days, so I'd definitely consider switching. Anyways, I think I'm closing in on a configuration. I priced out some low, medium and high-end options. I could have gone lower and cheaper, but those specs ended up not being worth it for me. The low option is not a bad choice, but I think I could get longer life from these medium and high-end options. Low PROS: + Motherboard connectivity WiFi, Bluetooth, USB Type-C, and m.2 + Cheapest CONS: - Slowest Passmark at 7652 - No ECC - No hyperthreading - only 6 SATA BUILD: i5-6600 3.3GHz CPU GIGABYTE GA-Z170N-WIFI G.SKILL Ripjaws V 16GB RAM Silverstone SFX Series SX500-LG Lian-Li PC-Q25B Case Price: $576.79 Medium PROS: + Motherboard connectivity WiFi, Bluetooth, USB Type-C, and m.2 + Decent Passmark at 9969 + Hyperthreading CONS: - No ECC - Only 6 SATA BUILD: i7-6700 3.4GHz CPU GIGABYTE GA-Z170N-WIFI G.SKILL Ripjaws V 16GB RAM Silverstone SFX Series SX500-LG Lian-Li PC-Q25B Case Price: $658.28 High PROS: + Motherboard connectivity: 8 SATA + onboard USB3.0 + Xeon support + ECC support + Best Passmark (by a hair) at 10053 + Hyperthreading CONS: - No WiFi / Bluetooth / m.2 - Most Expensive - Most TDP at 80W BUILD: Xeon E3-1245 v5 CPU ASRock C236 WSI Kingston 16GB Module - ECC DDR4 2133MHz Silverstone SFX Series SX500-LG Lian-Li PC-Q25B Case Price: $737.34 I'm really leaning towards that Medium option. The premium for the High buys me ECC and 2 extra SATA ports. That doesn't seem worth it to me. I've been running non-ECC for ages, and can live with a few memory errors. 8 SATA is nice, but 6 has always been plenty for my needs. And if the i5-6600 had hyperthreading, I'd jump on the Low option in a heart beat. Medium seems like the best bet (unless you guys can convince me otherwise). I'll probably pull the trigger tonight. I've already put WAY too much thought into this. (You should see the complex spreadsheet I've built for this. It's embarrassing, really.)

I priced out a ES-1245v5 / ASRock C236 build and it's about $170 more at $746. PassMark showing a score of 10053. And the ES-1245 has Hyperthreading. So tempting... Besides the extra performance boost, the hyperthreading, and ECC benefits, is there any other benefits that I should be considering?

Thanks to you all! Here's some comments on your suggestions. True, but the Z170 also has a m.2 slot while the ASRock does not. So, the difference is arguably 6 SATA+1 m.2 vs 8 SATA ports. m.2 is attractive for a cache drive or any fast I/O VMs. 8 SATA is nice, but it's hard for me to justify the extra cost for that additional port. Agreed, but I'm having a hard time justifying the extra costs of ECC and the server-grade board. I too have been running non-ECC for a long time without issue. You're probably right. I guess I am dreaming on 2x32GB support. The VMs are important to me and I could easily outgrow the 16GB. I will probably start with 1x16GB for now. I foresee 2x16GB not too far down the road. It's tempting, no doubt. But there's quite a premium on HyperThreaded CPUs. I don't think I can justify the extra costs my casual gaming habits. Currently, I occasionally game on console (gasp! the horror, I know). PC gaming is just something I'd like to dabble in when time allows. If I'm hooked, maybe I will upgrade my CPU and pour some money into a nice GPU. For now, HT would be more appealing for the virtualization use-case. This is something that I realized last night and a very important point. The 6600 non-K is a bit cheaper and includes the stock cooler. That can be a significant savings over the 6600K. Thanks! Judging by the pics of other builds, I agree. The ATX builds look significantly more crammed. Here's what I'm leaning towards currently: Lian-LI PC-Q25B Gigabyte GA-Z170N-WIFI i5-6600 3.3GHz CPU G.SKILL Ripjaws V 1x16GB DDR4 3200 (PC4 25600) RAM Silverstone SFX Series SX500-LG I can get all of that for $576.79 shipped. Jet.com is running a deal to save up to $30 on your first three orders ($90 total). This is well under what I could find across NewEgg, MicroCenter, Frys, Amazon, etc. I'm coming from a AMD FX-6300 (passmark of 6333) so I think the i5-6600 (passmark 7652) will be a nice bump. My current machine runs everything nicely, but without the gaming. When I decide to fire up the gaming VM, I may be CPU-bound on some games. And that's ok (for now). Gaming performance will also be very dependent on how much I invest into a GPU later down the road. My only small concern now is going from 6 threads with the AMD down to 4 with the i5. From all the multi-core benchmarks I've read, the i5-6600 will always beat the FX-6300 despite the 2 less threads. So that's promising. Anyways, thanks for all the input. I will probably pull the trigger tomorrow unless you guys can convince me otherwise! This community is awesome!

I'm building a Q25B system and looking for some advice in another thread. If anyone has any thoughts, I'd greatly appreciate it! (Sorry for the double post, but this thread seems way more active. The items I'm looking at are on-sale and the sale ends tomorrow.)

It cracks me up how these types of chassis still have a HDD activity LED. Yes, one of your 45 HDDs is active.

Hello! I'm a long-time unRAID user and I'm looking for some advice for my next SFF build. Hardware Goals small ITX build with room for at least five 3.5" HDDs (moving my existing HDDs over) I'd also like room for a full size dedicated graphics card (future purchase) but I want to have my cake and eat it too. I want all of this in the smallest possible package. dual-nics are a must for pfSense VM. Intel chipset preferred (no Realtek crap) I also want an ITX board that supports mor than 32GB RAM. But that doesn't seem to exist in LGA1071... Software Goals I plan to run some applications and VMs. Some will be always-on while others will be on-demand. Here's a short list: always-on: pfSense VM (for experimentation, maybe replace my router if it works well) Plex Media Server (max 2 - 3 concurrent transcodes) Sickbeard Couchpotato Deluge on-demand: Win10 VM (with GPU passthrough for gaming) misc environments for testing Case I'm pretty set on the Lian-Li PC-Q25B. It's amazing and nothing else comes close IMHO. Motherboard I'm really split between these three: Gigabyte GA-Z170N-WIFI Gigabyte GA-H170N-WIFI ASRock C236 WSI The difference between the H170 and the Z170 is small. The Z170 has more chipset lanes and the ability to overclock. I have no intention of overclocking though. The chipset lanes are enticing for running the GPU and m.2 PCI-e SSD at full speeds. The difference with the C236 is that it supports Xeon processors. It also has 8 SATA and onboard USB3.0. But no m.2 slot. The Xeon support is enticing for CPU upgrades down the road. But by the time I want a new CPU, am I just going to want another mobo too? CPU Here's where I'm mostly undecided. I've narrowed it down to these four: i5-6400 2.7GHz CPU i5-6500 2.8GHz CPU i5-6600K 3.2GHz CPU Xeon E3-1225 v5 CPU (cheapest Xeon with iGPU) The Xeon would require the ASRock C236. I'd like to do some light gaming in the Windows VM. I don't want to be too bound by CPU. (also, my gaming standards arent too high. I just want recent games to be mostly playable.) Also, no dual-parity. Memory I plan to use a 1x16GB with something like G.Skill Ripjaws V Series DDR4-3200. This will give me room to upgarde to 2x16GB down the road. Am I loosing much speed by using 1x16GB vs 2x8GB? Any chance that future 2x32GB DIMMs might "just work"? Power Supply Definitely going SFX. Probably something like the Silverstone 500W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular. Maybe something higher in wattage if I go with a Xeon. Budget $550 - $650. Cheaper or more expensive is ok too. I'm more interested in getting the hardware to best fit my needs with some upgradability rather than maxing out everything. Any advice? I'd really appreciate it!

Back in business! Drives mounted and all data is there. Thank you, JoeL. How many petabytes of data have you collectively saved from your top-notch advice? Thanks again.

Ran unraid_partition_disk.sh in test mode and got the following output: [root@tower ~]# ./unraid_partition_disk.sh /dev/sdc ######################################################################## Model Family: SAMSUNG SpinPoint F2 EG series Device Model: SAMSUNG HD103SI Serial Number: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Firmware Version: 1AG01118 User Capacity: 1,000,204,886,016 bytes Disk /dev/sdc: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes 1 heads, 63 sectors/track, 31008336 cylinders, total 1953525168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00000000 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdc1 64 1953525167 976762552 83 Linux Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary. ######################################################################## ============================================================================ == Disk /dev/sdc is NOT partitioned for unRAID properly. == expected start = 63, actual start = 64 == expected size = 1953525105, actual size = 1953525104 ============================================================================ All that seems expected. Then, the following: # ./unraid_partition_disk.sh -p /dev/sdX should modify the MBR to start the partition on sector 63, correct?

Here are my results from fdisk -lu [root@tower ~]# fdisk -lu /dev/sdc Disk /dev/sdc: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes 1 heads, 63 sectors/track, 31008336 cylinders, total 1953525168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00000000 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdc1 64 1953525167 976762552 83 Linux Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary. [root@tower ~]# fdisk -lu /dev/sdd Disk /dev/sdd: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes 1 heads, 63 sectors/track, 31008336 cylinders, total 1953525168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00000000 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdd1 64 1953525167 976762552 83 Linux Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary. [root@tower ~]# fdisk -lu /dev/sde Disk /dev/sde: 2000.4 GB, 2000398934016 bytes 1 heads, 63 sectors/track, 62016336 cylinders, total 3907029168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00000000 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sde1 64 3907029167 1953514552 83 Linux Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary. [root@tower ~]# fdisk -lu /dev/sdf Disk /dev/sdf: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes 1 heads, 63 sectors/track, 31008336 cylinders, total 1953525168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00000000 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdf1 64 1953525167 976762552 83 Linux Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary. The MBR says to start on sector 64. But to confirm the super block is actually on sector 63, I did the following dd: [root@tower ~]# dd if=/dev/sdc count=195 | od -c -A d | sed 30q 0000000 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 * 0000448 \0 \0 203 \0 \0 \0 @ \0 \0 \0 p m p t \0 \0 0000464 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 * 0000496 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 U 252 0000512 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 * 0097792 256 \r 216 016 330 m 343 \0 227 332 Q 004 022 \0 \0 \0 0097808 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 004 \0 \0 263 214 274 L 0097824 204 003 \0 \0 036 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 020 314 003 0097840 234 \0 001 \0 R e I s E r 2 F s \0 \0 \0 0097856 003 \0 \0 \0 005 \0 035 035 002 \0 \0 \0 366 , \0 \0 0097872 001 \0 \0 \0 031 315 \0 242 7 025 B V 242 - 236 365 0097888 g 326 \r 340 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 0097904 \0 \0 \0 \0 250 \0 036 \0 026 ] 307 L \0 N 355 \0 0097920 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 * 0097984 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 001 \0 \0 \0 0098000 ~ \0 \0 \0 177 \0 \0 \0 201 \0 \0 \0 202 \0 \0 \0 0098016 204 \0 \0 \0 212 \0 \0 \0 E 001 \0 \0 F 001 \0 \0 0098032 I 001 \0 \0 J 001 \0 \0 L 001 \0 \0 M 001 \0 \0 0098048 364 002 \0 \0 365 002 \0 \0 366 002 \0 \0 E 003 \0 \0 0098064 F 003 \0 \0 G 003 \0 \0 201 005 \0 \0 202 005 \0 \0 0098080 346 005 \0 \0 347 005 \0 \0 353 005 \0 \0 354 005 \0 \0 0098096 $ 006 \0 \0 % 006 \0 \0 & 006 \0 \0 ' 006 \0 \0 0098112 ! \a \0 \0 # \a \0 \0 1 016 \0 \0 p 016 \0 \0 0098128 315 021 \0 \0 316 021 \0 \0 327 021 \0 \0 330 021 \0 \0 0098144 " 027 \0 \0 = 027 \0 \0 < 033 \0 \0 W 033 \0 \0 0098160 y 036 \0 \0 z 036 \0 \0 | 036 \0 \0 177 036 \0 \0 195+0 records in 195+0 records out 99840 bytes (100 kB) copied, 0.00225564 s, 44.3 MB/s The ResierFS string appears at 0097840, which corresponds to sector 63. So adjusting the MBR to start on sector 63 would look something like this, correct? # mkmbr /dev/sdX 63 0x83

I honestly can't remember. However, your comment did make me notice something else. In the past, my MBR for my data disks has said MBR: unaligned but now it is showing as MBR: 4K-aligned. Could that be the issue?

Back story: I dual boot my UNRAID box with Windows. I occasionally need to boot into Windows. This normally works fine. However, I made the mistake this time of not disconnecting my UNRAID drives before booting into Windows. I am guessing this may have corrupted my filesystems. After booting back into UNRAID and starting the array, my 4 data disks now show as Unformatted. # reiserfsck --check /dev/md1 ..says I need to do an --rebuild-sb. Checking the others disks with reiserfsck say the same. Should I try a --rebuild-sb ? Do I issue this against /dev/mdX while the array is up? Or against /dev/sdX1? Using UNRAID Version 5.0RC11 Relevant syslog: 1 Aug 20 20:14:36 tower emhttp: Spinning up all drives... 2 Aug 20 20:14:36 tower kernel: mdcmd (30): spinup 0 3 Aug 20 20:14:36 tower kernel: mdcmd (31): spinup 1 4 Aug 20 20:14:36 tower kernel: mdcmd (32): spinup 2 5 Aug 20 20:14:36 tower kernel: mdcmd (33): spinup 3 6 Aug 20 20:14:36 tower kernel: mdcmd (34): spinup 4 7 Aug 20 20:14:36 tower emhttp: shcmd (27): /usr/local/sbin/set_ncq sda 1 >/dev/null 8 Aug 20 20:14:36 tower emhttp: shcmd (28): /usr/local/sbin/set_ncq sdc 1 >/dev/null 9 Aug 20 20:14:36 tower emhttp: shcmd (29): /usr/local/sbin/set_ncq sdd 1 >/dev/null 10 Aug 20 20:14:36 tower emhttp: shcmd (30): /usr/local/sbin/set_ncq sdf 1 >/dev/null 11 Aug 20 20:14:36 tower emhttp: shcmd (31): /usr/local/sbin/set_ncq sde 1 >/dev/null 12 Aug 20 20:14:36 tower emhttp: writing mbr on disk 0 (sda) with partition 1 offset 64 13 Aug 20 20:14:36 tower emhttp: re-reading (sda) partition table 14 Aug 20 20:14:36 tower kernel: sda: sda1 15 Aug 20 20:14:37 tower emhttp: writing mbr on disk 1 (sdc) with partition 1 offset 64 16 Aug 20 20:14:37 tower emhttp: re-reading (sdc) partition table 17 Aug 20 20:14:37 tower kernel: sdc: sdc1 18 Aug 20 20:14:38 tower emhttp: writing mbr on disk 2 (sdd) with partition 1 offset 64 19 Aug 20 20:14:38 tower emhttp: re-reading (sdd) partition table 20 Aug 20 20:14:38 tower kernel: sdd: sdd1 21 Aug 20 20:14:39 tower emhttp: writing mbr on disk 3 (sdf) with partition 1 offset 64 22 Aug 20 20:14:39 tower emhttp: re-reading (sdf) partition table 23 Aug 20 20:14:39 tower kernel: sdf: sdf1 24 Aug 20 20:14:40 tower emhttp: writing mbr on disk 4 (sde) with partition 1 offset 64 25 Aug 20 20:14:40 tower emhttp: re-reading (sde) partition table 26 Aug 20 20:14:40 tower kernel: sde: sde1 27 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower kernel: mdcmd (35): start STOPPED 28 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower kernel: unraid: allocating 28600K for 1280 stripes (5 disks) 29 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower emhttp: Start array... 30 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower kernel: md1: running, size: 976762552 blocks 31 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower kernel: md2: running, size: 976762552 blocks 32 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower kernel: md3: running, size: 976762552 blocks 33 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower kernel: md4: running, size: 1953514552 blocks 34 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower emhttp: shcmd (32): udevadm settle 35 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower emhttp: shcmd (33): /usr/local/sbin/emhttp_event array_started 36 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower emhttp_event: array_started 37 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower kernel: mdcmd (36): check NOCORRECT 38 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower kernel: md: recovery thread woken up ... 39 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower kernel: md: recovery thread checking parity... 40 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower emhttp: Mounting disks... 41 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower emhttp: shcmd (34): mkdir /mnt/disk4 42 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower emhttp: shcmd (35): mkdir /mnt/disk3 43 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower emhttp: shcmd (36): mkdir /mnt/disk2 44 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower emhttp: shcmd (37): mkdir /mnt/disk1 45 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower emhttp: shcmd (38): set -o pipefail ; mount -t reiserfs -o noatime,nodiratime /dev/md3 /mnt/disk3 2>&1 |logger 46 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower emhttp: shcmd (39): set -o pipefail ; mount -t reiserfs -o noatime,nodiratime /dev/md4 /mnt/disk4 2>&1 |logger 47 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower emhttp: shcmd (40): set -o pipefail ; mount -t reiserfs -o noatime,nodiratime /dev/md2 /mnt/disk2 2>&1 |logger 48 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower emhttp: shcmd (41): set -o pipefail ; mount -t reiserfs -o noatime,nodiratime /dev/md1 /mnt/disk1 2>&1 |logger 49 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower kernel: REISERFS warning (device md1): sh-2021 reiserfs_fill_super: can not find reiserfs on md1 50 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower logger: mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/md1, 51 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower logger: missing codepage or helper program, or other error 52 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower logger: In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try 53 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower logger: dmesg | tail or so 54 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower logger:. 55 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower emhttp: disk1 mount error: 32 56 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower emhttp: shcmd (42): rmdir /mnt/disk1 57 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower kernel: REISERFS warning (device md2): sh-2021 reiserfs_fill_super: can not find reiserfs on md2 58 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower logger: mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/md2, 59 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower logger: missing codepage or helper program, or other error 60 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower logger: In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try 61 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower logger: dmesg | tail or so 62 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower logger:. 63 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower emhttp: disk2 mount error: 32 64 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower emhttp: shcmd (43): rmdir /mnt/disk2 65 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower kernel: REISERFS warning (device md4): sh-2021 reiserfs_fill_super: can not find reiserfs on md4 66 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower logger: mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/md4, 67 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower logger: missing codepage or helper program, or other error 68 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower logger: In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try 69 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower logger: dmesg | tail or so 70 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower logger:. 71 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower emhttp: disk4 mount error: 32 72 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower emhttp: shcmd (44): rmdir /mnt/disk4 73 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower kernel: REISERFS warning (device md3): sh-2021 reiserfs_fill_super: can not find reiserfs on md3 74 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower logger: mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/md3, 75 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower logger: missing codepage or helper program, or other error 76 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower logger: In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try 77 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower logger: dmesg | tail or so 78 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower logger:. 79 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower emhttp: disk3 mount error: 32 80 Aug 20 20:14:41 tower emhttp: shcmd (45): rmdir /mnt/disk3 81 Aug 20 20:14:42 tower kernel: md: using 1152k window, over a total of 1953514552 blocks. 82 Aug 20 20:14:42 tower kernel: md: parity incorrect: 64 83 Aug 20 20:14:42 tower kernel: md: parity incorrect: 72 84 Aug 20 20:14:42 tower kernel: md: parity incorrect: 120 ... (parity errors go on)

Glad I was of help. I had the exact same problem and it took a few days (and a few forum posts) for me to get it right. I am not sure if this is something that affects everyone or not. If it does, adding Device Drivers -> Multiple Device Support -> (*) Multiple devices driver support (unRAID) and <M> RAID support should definitely be added to the Wiki. Can anyone more versed on the subject comment?

Do you see a /proc/mdcmd ? If not, that means your kernel was not properly built and unRAID didnt get implemented into it. In the 5.06a guide, I had to add the following in my make menuconfig: Device Drivers -> Multiple Device Support -> (*) Multiple devices driver support (unRAID) and <M> RAID support Watch your build and make sure unRAID gets implemented. You should see something like this compile: drivers/md.c And something about unRAID later...

Ah. Good thinking Joe. Judging by the output from reiserfsck, it looks like it did some modification to /dev/sde. Are any of those modifications any thing to be concerned about? Also, does mkmbr need to be run on parity too? or just data disks?