TSM

Did you ever find a solution to this problem. I think I'm seeing similar behavior.

I mean... You all know this of course, but Firefox is what's in the Unraid GUI option... So...

Thanks again MAM59. I tried the "vm.dirty_backround.ratio" and "vm.dirty.ratio", using the suggested settings in the plugin of 2 and 3 respectively. It's not completely perfect, but the performance on large file copies is definitely much better. So, fingers crossed that when I am using better hardware, and planning on using nvme for the cache it will be completely a non-issue.

Thanks MAM59, this makes a lot of sense. I didn't mention it in my original post, but I did notice that even after my pc showed file moves were completed, I still saw drive activity on the Main page. That's why.

Hello Folks, I've been playing around with it for a few days, and I finally got 2.5gb networking working between my pc and unraid server. Let me preface my question here by saying that the 2.5gb networking is just the first step in several upgrades I'm planning to my home LAN setup. So this question may end up being moot but I'm curious none the less. In my Unraid server I have a Celeron 3920, which is a dual core unit running at 2.9ghz. I am not currently using a cache drive, but I will be after all of my upgrades are complete. And I will also be using a much faster processor, but I'm not there yet. So, dual parity calculations are taking place in real-time as the files are being moved to the server. Slow cpu yes, but at 1gigabit it was never a problem. In a setup like this would the cpu be a bottleneck for 2.5gb networking? Is the overhead of having to do dual parity calculations at that speed going to kill this cpu? Both pc and unraid server report network adapters running at 2.5gb, and with small single file copies I see speeds that are consistent with what you'd expect with 2.5gb going to a mechanical drive. Between 140 megabytes and 180 megabytes. But doing large multi file copies with teracopy it was choppy, inconsistent. Sometimes seemed to be going very fast, and right around the 4th or 5th gigabyte it would stop completely and then start again several times until it was done depending on the overall size of the copy. Looking at the dashboard screen, at the times it was stopping, either 1 of the 2 cpu cores was being pegged at 100%, or both cores were getting up into the 90% range on utilization. If I turned Teracopy off, the regular Windows explorer copy process, behaves similarly but different. After 4 or 5 gigabytes, the cpu starts to get high utilization again maybe getting into the 90s for a second, but instead of file copy stopping altogether for a moment, explorer throttles the copy speed down considerably to like 30 or 40 megabytes, but it never seems to stop and the unraid server cpu never gets pegged at 100%. I'm guessing that some sort of Windows QOS is kicking in where it detects a potential problem coming up and changes it's behavior so it doesn't completely stop. I have another computer on my network, that still has only a 1gigabit adapter, and file copies between it and my unraid server, and it and my primary computer seem completely normal and work fine. So I don't think the networking components are faulty. Ultimately after all of my upgrades are done, I'm going to be using a much faster cpu in my primary unraid server, and a cache drive. But I'm several weeks to a month out from completing everything I want to do. And was planning on moving a lot of files around between now and then, thus why I decided to do the 2.5gigabit networking first, so that the file moves would be faster. Is there any setting I might be able to change in the interim that would make file moves and copies more consistent while still getting benefit from the 2.5gb networking? For example is there any way to manually throttle the speed to where it's faster than 1gigabit, but isn't throwing work at the cpu at 2.5gigabit speeds? I've also looked at the drive tuning settings, but the only one I'm really familiar with is tunable md write method, and changing that didn't do anything of value. I might just change back to 1 gigabit until my upgrades are done. Don't want to do that, but I'd really like for file management behaviors to be more consistent.

Thanks folks. Yeah, I know that just with straight file copies you don't need much processing power. Thus why I'm currently using a celeron.👍 But I guess I was thinking that if using a proper backup application, that's performing intelligent operations on the files like deduplication, compression, encryption,, determining changes for an incremental, that it might be more cpu dependent.

Hello Folks, On Christmas Day last year I narrowly averted a minor tragedy. 2 data drives came up with the dreaded Red X at the same time!!!!! After extensive troubleshooting, and looking through the forums, I think I've resolved the problem and my server is now back stable. I'd been considering setting up a backup server for years and never pulled the trigger, but the experience of having 2 data drives fail at once, pretty much nailed it for me that I need to do something. I'm trying to architect this in my mind now. I've pretty much decided that the duplicacy docker is probably the right way to go with software. Compression, deduplication, encryption look good only saves deltas on changed files, and everything I've read so far, people claim it's easy to use. But I'm wondering how powerful the server it's running on reasonably needs to be. Currently I have roughly 130TB of data on my array. Does all that need to be backed up? Probably not, but I'm going to do it anyway!!! The cpu on my current unraid server is a 2.9ghz dual core celeron. I don't want it to take months to complete the initial backup. I've had difficulty finding hardware requirements for duplicacy. Should I upgrade that cpu? Or should I put the new more powerful processer in the backup server? Should I put a better processor in both? And when considering what processor to put in which server, does it matter which server the actual duplicacy docker is running on? Should it run on the primary or the backup? Or does it make a difference? Thanks in advance for any advice,

OK, I thought that was a problem. So I thought that if you passthrough a core, the intention is for that core to be dedicated to the vm. If that's not the case, then I guess I'm fine. Thanks,

No. Only utilizing the gui. Are there any custom xml edits maybe I should try?

I've tried multiple combinations of settings, but I can't get the emulated cpu setting to stick when I create a vm. When initially creating the vm, it lets me select emulated with no errors, but then later after the vm is created the setting changes itself to Host Passthrough. And if I edit the settings and change back to emulated I get an error, "Execution Error the CPU is incompatible with host CPU: Host CPU does not provide required features: svm". I don't want to do Host Passthrough cause this processor only has 2 cores and I may want to run multiple vm's on it in the future. This is my secondary server, and will ultimately be a backup server, so I don't care that much about cpu performance which is why I chose a 2 core unit. It's a celeron G3900, all virtualization technology is supported and turned on in the bios of my motherboard which is a SUPERMICRO MBD-X11SAE-M-O, running the latest bios revision.

You could replace the 4 in 3 enclosures with 5 in 3 ones.

+1 Sure why not. When I've needed the functionality that file manager of this type would provide in the past, I've used MC with Screen. That is, when doing mass file moves and I didn't want to "involve" my desktop. But something baked into the webui would be nice.

So, I got this to work properly. I don't understand why what I did changed anything. Or what I did wrong in the first place, but perhaps a smarter person can figure that out, and or maybe this post will help someone in the future. When I'd go into the screen to select a boot order, my only 2 options were the OS install DVD ISO, and the EFI shell. I'd manually add what I thought was the drive to the boot options, put it first, and this would then load into Windows. But I guess this was just a file??? With a .efi ext?? And not the drive??? OVMF was not actually "seeing" the drive? Anyway, I removed the Installer ISO from the main vm config screen, so that there was just no ISO specified, I left the virtio drivers ISO setting though, and voila. After doing this and going into the Boot order screen, there were lots of options that weren't there before, including the drive I had Windows installed on. Selected this to be first in boot order, and now things seem to be working properly. OVMF setting changes are being kept, and the vm boots straight to Windows without interruption. I installed Windows on this drive by manually putting that efi file into the boot order, but that doesn't seem to matter.

With several difficulties I've installed a Windows Server 2016 vm, utilizing a passthrough'd sata controller. I don't know if my previous difficulties are important or not, but my current difficulty seems to be the fact that OVMF isn't saving changes that I make. I have an SSD attached to the passthrough card. In order to get it to boot from that SSD, I have to manually add it as a boot option into OVMF every time I reboot it. Seabios doesn't seem to be an option for me, as when I booted with that, the Windows installer would see the drive, but it would say that it couldn't use it? OVMF didn't have this problem. It saw the drive and was able to utilize it immediately. In the xml file line referencing ovmf it uses the term readonly <loader readonly='yes' type='pflash'>/usr/share/qemu/ovmf-x64/OVMF_CODE-pure-efi.fd</loader> I'm guessing this has something to do with not being able to save changes??? If it does, what would you change readonly to?