stomp

I had. But I think I've found the problem and it has nothing to do with unRAID : seems like there's a bug on the player side when using the sorting function. Sort by name = everything's good, sort by time = some movies aren't good. Despite using the sorting option in the past, I never encountered that bug, probably just by luck. I'll try to confirm this tomorrow when I got more time... Sorry for posting about this here

I attached a syslog in my first post... I checked the TeraCopy hypothesis, it's a no, still failing to recognize the structure.

Yeah sorry for the missing information... I'm now running b13. Initially I was running b12. As for the log, I'll post it when I get back home (but I don't think it'll be that useful). In the meantime I checked my "permission theory"... Well it's an epic fail I thought there was some read-only/rw permissions and stuff but actually it's limited to Public/Private/Secure. I was pretty sure my problem had something to do with the drives interacting somewhat differently with the player but it's not the case : movie 1 on disk 3 was recognized as BD, movie 2 on disk 3 was not recognized. Different movies, same disk, but different behaviors. I also check my ".iso vs folder theory" and it's an epic win Converting a failing movie from folder structure to .iso actually allowed the recognition as Blu-ray (but the performance issue with .iso on the player side was confirmed). However I don't know how to interpret this result. Regarding unRAID, I don't have a clue what I could investigate any further... From the computer side, I'm gonna investigate the file creation process. Despite the fact that I'm still using the same softwares for the creation part, I recently started to use TeraCopy to transfer the files from my computer to unRAID. After a brief comparison, it seems reasonable to think that no file corruption occurs during the transfer with TeraCopy but I'll do a real test. Still, I'm wondering about this folder caching hypothesis. Any clue? Thanks a lot!

Hi! I archive Blu-ray folders (BDMV) on my unRAID server and stream them to my Tvix player (6500) via NFS. For a couple of days now, Blu-ray folders are no more recognized as being Blu-ray structures, meaning instead of playing the movie when I click onto the folder, the player just enter this folder (so I'm exposed to the structure but I can still play the movie by hitting the .m2ts file). Now, I observed this from the very beginning of my switch Synology > unRAID but it occurred only on some movies, and in a random fashion. Now it just occurs all the time. I have to precise that I checked that movies that were launching in Blu-ray mode with Synology and unRAID are now no more recognized as BD. The player has then nothing to do with it. Besides, when I first started to make some tests with Blu-ray streaming, I experienced some stuttering problems with movies than ran fine on my Synology. In general, unRAID seems less responsive than my Synology which is pretty surprising considering the very minimalistic hardware of the latter. I have the feeling that unRAID might not be responsive enough and that Blu-ray folders are not recognized as such because of some kind of "timeout". My second thought is the following : do unRAID uses some kind of folder caching in order to navigate faster inside directories? If so, is it possible that the recognition of Blu-ray structures is somewhat biaised by this? Instead of analyzing wether it's a BD or not, the player receives the information that it's just some kind of subdirectories... Now, I'm gonna try one more thing : creating .iso instead of folders. In this case, I'm 99% sure the player will recognize and play the file correctly. However it's not a solution for me due to .iso performance problem over NFS. Moreover it will not solve my occasional problem with NFS stuttering. Any thought? EDIT: I'm now wondering if it's not a permission problem... Initially I had 3 drives and I had modified their permission if I remember correctly. Later on I added more drives but did not modify their permissions. I also remember that movies moved first had no problem. On the contrary, movies moved recently had. Good movies > modified permissions, bad movies > wrong permissions. I'll try to modify the permissions on each drive tonight. Still, any thought on the performance issue? syslog.txt

I received all the parts. Except the NIC being low-profile, everything is fine. For those of you interested, I'll post some pics when all the HDD have been transfered from my Syno.

As I was unable to get my hands on the Intel MB, I had to switch. Final parts as following : Case : ZALMAN MS1000-HS2 HDD case : ZALMAN ZM-HDR1 (not ordered yet) MB : ASUS P8H67-M LE CPU : INTEL Pentium G620 RAM : KINGSTON ValueRAM KVR1333D3E9SK2/2GI (2x1GB) PSU : OCZ ModXStream Pro 500 HDD : WESTERN DIGITAL Caviar Green WD20EARX NIC : INTEL PWLA8391GTLBLK Pro/1000 GT Desktop Adapter

I'm currently running out of space with my Syno (5.4 Tb). I'm planning on filling the Zalman case with up to 9 x 2 Tb. Once filled, I could switch to 3 Tb drives or get 5-in-3 cases... As for the PSU, I have no idea but I should probably get one of those 500W Corsair PSU, which is no big deal. I don't see the Intel NIC as a problem if it is supported by the latest Unraid builds. I think this MB has a great value for its price. Oh and usage, well it's just for streaming Blu-ray's mainly. I'm not planning to run lots of apps in the background

Hello ! I'll order the parts at the end of the week : Case : ZALMAN MS1000-HS2 HDD case : ZALMAN ZM-HDR1 MB : INTEL DH61BE Bear Point CPU : INTEL Pentium G620 RAM : KINGSTON ValueRAM KVR1333D3E9SK2/2GI (2x1GB) PSU : probably my old one HDD : Sammy HD204UI Do you see any major flaws or incompatibilities ? Thanks a lot !

Samsung HD204UI: cheapest 2TB out there. I'm waiting for an upgrade of unRAID that supports these to build my system. Thx!

Oh yes you're right, LE has Atheros whereas the regular one has Realtek. I'll go for the M4A78LT-M then. Thanks a lot. Besides this, I was wondering if it was possible to use 2 GbE ports (one on the motherboard and one through an additional network card), and configure only one to use Jumbo Frames... The reason I ask this is that my NMT doesn't support Jumbo Frames so I need to have this feature deactivated between the server and the NAS. However I still want to have JB enabled between the server and my PC, for transfer purposes. Is it possible? Will it lead to some conflicts? EDIT: Just received a 320GB Samsung F4. I've been doing some tests on it, planning to use it as working drive while waiting for my NAS. It's blazing fast!

Honestly I'm not so sure. As I explained, one of Tom's Hardware tester was able to transfer some files over GbE at +110 MB/s. How? Well, he used RAM disks, disks that can exceed by more than one order of magnitude GbE transfer limitations. Now if you look at one of Synology's NAS, the DS1010+, it is stated that this device can write and read at +100 MB/s. Is it a reasonable claim from Syno? Yes I think it is, as my DS410j exactly performs as stated on their website. And the DS1010+ is not based on RAM disk, of course, it's just 5 or 6 HDD's (can't remember). Anyway I'm not here as a beginner to whine because write speeds are too low, just trying to figure how I can optimize my future build. Things will be more clear for me when everything will be running. Thanks to all for your contribution.

Hello. I have a very simple question regarding GbE network, so I won't open a new topic. I was just wondering if it was possible to enable two GbE ports at the same time (with a dual port MB or a network card) and set one of these two ports to use Jumbo Frames (while the other one remains at default). The thing is that I want to enable Jumbo Frames to speed up transfers but if I do that, I can no more stream media files to my NMT as it doesn't support Jumbo Frames. The configuration will look something like this: NAS (Jumbo Frames enabled on Port 1) <> GbE switch <> PC (Jumbo Frames enabled) : used to transfer files NAS (Jumbo Frames disabled on Port 2) <> GbE switch <> NMT (no support for Jumbo Frames) : used to stream media files Does this configuration makes sense?

I'm aware of the fact that limitation comes from the writing disk (well, in most cases). We should also not remember that HDD write and read speeds are not constant throughout the disk and are generally worse at its peripheral. I just read an article from Tom's Hardware in which the author clearly demonstrates that HDD are the bottleneck. The guy was able to transfer a 1 GB file at 111 MB/s from a RAM disk to another RAM disk. Now if you want to come close to the theoretical limitation of GbE, you really need a drive capable of writing and reading way above 125 MB/s. Part of the reason why I was looking for a F4 as it currently offers the best performance due to its high density. A little note now regarding SSD. Lots of people tend to think that ANY_SSD_1 = ANY_SSD_2, which is not the case. Some SSD are extremely fast but some aren't, and can be even slower than a typical HDD. I appreciate your testing with an SSD as cache drive, however it makes no sense to consider it unless you state what kind of SSD you were using. But it's clear that using such drive as cache drive is not really appealing as it's extremely expensive (especially true for high performance drives) and that writing cycles are quite limited. EDIT: Just remembered that Jumbo Frames might also impact positively transfer speeds (as seen with my previous NAS).

Yes that's right. I'm just backing up discs on my PC and transfer them to the NAS. 70 MB/s is rather correct I think. There is always a gap between theoretical and practical results. However I'm curious to know what explains this rather huge gap between 70 MB/s and 125 MB/s...

Thank you for the tip about F4. Well I'm just looking for a cache drive that can approach Gbit upper limit (theoretically 125 MB/s). I will look for something else then. Regarding CPU, I was just concerned about parity creation speed but if it has no correlation, then the Sempron will be fine. My Syno was fine and had lots of features, unfortunately I was not using any of them. I'm just in need of a NAS to stream files. But transfer speed is important for me and the 30 MB/s of my Syno was not enough. Better NAS exist from Syno and others but cost increases exponentially with writing performance so it's a no-go for me.

Hello everyone! I am currently looking for some parts to build my first unRAID server. Here is the current list: Motherboard: ASUS M4A78LT-M LE (56.30 CHF) CPU: AMD Sempron 145 (39.20 CHF) RAM: KINGSTON ValueRam KVR1333D3N9K2/2G (35.95 CHF) Case: COOLERMASTER Centurion 590 (91.00 CHF) PSU: ANTEC SU-430 (already have it) HDD: 5x SAMSUNG HD103UJ (already have them) Meaning I can start with a cost of 222.45 CHF = 232 $. I will use this server to stream media to my TViX. As I am mostly watching Blu-ray backup's (which are usually around 40 GB), I hope to get decent write speeds. If the Samsung drives are not fast enough, I am also planning to purchase a SAMSUNG Spinpoint F4 (140 MB/s write) as cache drive. Initially, I plan to use onboard SATA (6x) and further extend my system with extra controllers. Ultimately, the goal is to build a 15 drive servers with 5-in-3 docks. Now, what do you think about this configuration? Will a faster CPU significantly improve overall performance? And what about the flexibility (1x PCIe 16x + 1x PCIe 1x + 2x PCI + 6x onboard SATA should be enough)? Thank you in advance! stomp