• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

40 Good

About tr0910

  • Rank
    Advanced Member


  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Likely the top one will perform best if you can get all the cores busy, but I have never used this Dell. What processor does it have? The second machine has higher clock rate so individual core performance will be better. It will really depend on your planned usage, and whether your apps will be able to utilize all the cores. Often, you find that some utilities or apps are single core only, so having massive numbers of cores is useless for that app. I am using Xeon 2670v1 based servers and find that sticking a second cpu in with another 16 cores is not that much of a
  2. Well in your case you want all your storage in the fast zone. I also want to have ZFS continue to work and VM's continue to run even if the unRaid array is stopped and restarted. Then unRaid will be perfectly able to run our firewall's, and pfSense without the (your firewall shuts down if the array is stopped).
  3. I've been running my VM's of a pair of old 2tb spinners using ZFS. I have been amazed that it just works, and I don't notice the slowness of the spinners for running VM's. The reason I switched was for the snapshot backups. I love the ability to just snapshot my windows VM back to a known good state. I look forward to having ZFS baked in more closely to unRaid. I still have one VM on the SSD with BTRFS but I can't see any speed benefit to the SSD compared with the ZFS spinners. I have a Xeon 2670 with 64GB ECC ram. Lesser RAM and/or non ECC RAM may not be such a good option.
  4. So the process for those who have 6.8.3 and some version of your plugin is update ZFS plugin then update unRaid to 6.9rc1 then reboot? My unRaid only finds an update to the ZFS plugin from November, not your December one.
  5. Herrobin-diagnostics-20201130-0353.zipe is new diagnostics file. Disk is WDC - 7804.
  6. @Frank1940 The rebuild completed successfully, but another drive showed 200 errors during the rebuild process. Does this mean that errors were replicated into the newly built drive and it is not fully perfect? I have 2 parity drives, so that other WDC EZRS can go bad without further issue...
  7. Here part of the syslog on the old server just before it locked up. Nov 27 20:06:54 Robin root: Starting Avahi mDNS/DNS-SD Daemon: /usr/sbin/avahi-daemon -D Nov 27 20:06:54 Robin avahi-daemon[9235]: Found user 'avahi' (UID 61) and group 'avahi' (GID 214). Nov 27 20:06:54 Robin avahi-daemon[9235]: Successfully dropped root privileges. Nov 27 20:06:54 Robin avahi-daemon[9235]: avahi-daemon 0.7 starting up. Nov 27 20:06:54 Robin avahi-daemon[9235]: WARNING: No NSS support for mDNS detected, consider installing nss-mdns! Nov 27 20:06:54 Robin avahi-daemon[9235]: Successfully called chro
  8. Disk shows up in unassigned devices but the mount button is greyed out. I am doing a rebuild on a spare drive which should bring everything back again. Likely this will only be an exercise in curiosity. Do you think this XFS disk is salvageable?? This disk was in an old 6.6.7 server and if installed, the server will completely lock up. Removing the disk and installing in a newer server with 6.9b25 gives us this data.
  9. Full diagnostics syslog from the newer server with the bad drive inserted.
  10. Drive is WDC - 6128 Here is the unassigned devices log showing some error from that drive. Is there any hope for this one? ErrorWarningSystemArray Sep 8 04:57:59 Cara kernel: ata1: SATA max UDMA/133 abar m2048@0xd1200000 port 0xd1200100 irq 33 Sep 8 04:57:59 Cara kernel: ata1: SATA link up 6.0 Gbps (SStatus 133 SControl 300) Sep 8 04:57:59 Cara kernel: ata1.00: ATA-8: ST33000651AS, 9XK0NC4Q, CC45, max UDMA/133 Sep 8 04:57:59 Cara kernel: ata1.00: 5860533168 sectors, multi 16: LBA48 NCQ (depth 32) Sep 8 04:57:59 Cara kernel: ata1.00: configured for UDMA/133 Sep 8 04:57:59 Cara kernel
  11. ISP admits to blocking these ports but for an additional fee they can give me a static IP (which I already have) and ports 80 and 443 will be unblocked. The additional fee is not desirable, so now I need to find a different way around this blockage.
  12. Here is the router page: Going to from inside the local lan brings me to the congratulations page for NPM. Does it look ok to you for the normal suggested port forwarding logic for NPM? Googling around led me to believe that ISP blocking of 80 and 443 was quite normal and to be expected. Your response makes me question this. You haven't had to deal with blocked ports? It does seem that others have had to deal with this. There is even a SpaceInvaderOne unRaid video about port 80 blockage with Lets Encrypt setup. And sorry, this
  13. From my cell phone with WiFi shut off, both my external IP address and my domain forwarded to this IP respond with the same thing. Yes IP is fixed. This site cannot be reached. ERR_Connection_Refused Router is forwarding 80 and 443 to unRaid 1880 and 18443 as per a default NPM recommended install.
  14. @Kru-x NPM is installed and available. But when I attempt to request a cert for a private domain already forwarded to my ip address, I get interenal error from NPM. I suspect that I may have port 80 and 443 being blocked by my no name ISP. I have those ports forwarded in my router, and the NPM congratulations page is never displayed. I can torrent (with unRaid Transmission docker) over this ISP, so not everything is blocked. Is this likely my problem?