jubutld

It was a router issue. I found in the log an error about ip/mac binding for this ip address. Disabled that and it was able to ping the gateway.

I can not ping the gateway address. I can ping my PC from the server but I can't ping the gateway nor any external IP address.

My nic card went bad so I reverted for now to the onboard nic. What works I am able to get to the web gui. I am able to telnet to the box. I am able to access the shares. I can ping my pc's IP address from the server. What doesn't work The server is unable to get to the internet via the browser. The server is not able to ping the internet - the ping just hangs and when cntl-c, it says 100% packet loss. Pinging 8.8.4.4 or any other IP address doesn't work. Traceroute returns all * I have tried several different available static IP addresses but with no luck. There is no IP conflict that I can see. Anyone have any ideas? This is very recent update to v6.3.5 from v5. Thanks!

The eth0 is the onboard NIC and the other is the NIC card. I've ordered a new NIC card and will see if that solves the issue - as in the NIC card went bad. If not, then I will need developer assistance from Lime. Note, I do not have any plugins or anything extra since moving to 6.3.5.

Maybe spoke to soon. Started the array remotely and it started and was beginning a parity check. Then after a few minutes, it's no longer available in the browser or windows explorer.

So. After resetting my router/firewall, and all the pain that goes with reconfiguration and then enabled the on-board NIC, unraid came up with both interfaces displaying properly. i configured eth1 then switched the eth0 and 1 so the 0 is now the onboard interface. Rebooted. The mac address for the NIC card is back to all FFs and the interface is labeled 120 -- see screenshot. The good news is I am back online and the tower is accessible via the network. Is the nic card bad? Unraid bug? Something else?

Actually that mac address is different that what it should be. And in the GUI, it shows the mac address as all FFs. The old network.cfg had the line HWADDR=E0:91:F5:1B:4D:B7. The new one doesn't have the HWADDR setting. I did try a different cable. Had it plugged in a port in the router and tried a port in the switch. All network devices have been restarted. Lights are a blinking on the nic card and on the ports I've plugged it into. The network is fine. All other devices on it are functioning normally. In the 7 plus years I have had UNRAID, I've never had a networking issue like this. I wonder if the NIC card could have gone bad?

The onboard nic has long since been disabled. Using a card. Thanks syslog tower-diagnostics-20171026-0847.zip

Hi I was on v5. My system was not shutdown cleanly due to a power outage. It came up but wouldn't connect to the network. I verified the network.cfg was still correct. When I plugged my USB into my laptop it said the drive needed to be fixed. So I did that and rebooted UNRAID, same thing. So figuring I had some corruption, I followed the instructions for upgrading the 6.3.5 including reformatting my USB and copying over only the required files. At first boot, in command mode, I had ETH0 with the correct static ip address but pinging anything returned destination unreachable. Note, I have been running this for years. Nothing on the network has changed. So I rebooted into GUI mode. I goofed around with the static settings to force a save but it still couldn't reach the network. I changed to DHCP. It was not able to obtain an IP address. Upon reboot the mac address in the gui for eth0 is now FF:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF. Changed back to static still cant reach the network and still bad mac address. When I try to restart inet1, I get: /etc/rc.d/rc.inet1 restart not enough information: "type" argument is required Error: argument "up" is wrong: Device does not exist RTNETLINK answers: Cannot assign requested address RTNETLINK answers: Network is unreachable The static ip is displayed correctly in the gui in the upper right hand corner. The information, other than the mac address, is correct on the network page. The syslog doesn't have any errors. No warnings or messages related to eth0. Thanks!

Hello I am on RC5 and was reviewing the syslog and saw the following. What does this mean? (smart report attached). Did something get goof'd up when I went from RC3 to RC5 a few days ago? Short test showed no errors. Aug 26 03:49:09 Tower kernel: mdcmd (24): spindown 1 Aug 26 03:49:10 Tower kernel: mdcmd (25): spindown 2 Aug 26 03:49:10 Tower kernel: mdcmd (26): spindown 4 Aug 26 04:09:27 Tower kernel: ata1.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x0 Aug 26 04:09:27 Tower kernel: ata1.00: BMDMA stat 0x64 Aug 26 04:09:27 Tower kernel: ata1.00: failed command: READ DMA EXT Aug 26 04:09:27 Tower kernel: ata1.00: cmd 25/00:f8:38:27:c5/00:03:b1:00:00/e0 tag 0 dma 520192 in Aug 26 04:09:27 Tower kernel: res 51/40:00:e0:29:c5/40:00:b1:00:00/00 Emask 0x9 (media error) Aug 26 04:09:27 Tower kernel: ata1.00: status: { DRDY ERR } Aug 26 04:09:27 Tower kernel: ata1.00: error: { UNC } Aug 26 04:09:28 Tower kernel: ata1.00: configured for UDMA/133 Aug 26 04:09:28 Tower kernel: ata1.01: configured for UDMA/133 Aug 26 04:09:28 Tower kernel: ata1: EH complete Aug 26 04:09:42 Tower kernel: mdcmd (27): spindown 2 smartreport.txt

Joe, as your note said, that drive wasn't bad. The WD DLGDIAG v5.19 tool said it repaired the drive after 6 hours of the extended test. Now, with this drive and my others, after the RMAs come back, I will have to setup a 2nd server. Thanks

Joe, you are probably correct on this one. The extended test from WD is still running but the short test showed no error. The drives I am RMAing this week are a dead 2TB WD black and the two 2tb seagates that issue the error code required to RMA them. Maybe it's just par of the course.

Actually I created a DOS boot flash drive with all of the tools so I don't have to mess with windows. I personally am getting sick of the lack of quality in these hard drives. I have 3 that I am RMAing this week alone. They seem to last less than a year and my system is only used occasionally. I guess the only thing positive is the RMA process is rather easy to do.

Hi What is the collective experience with trying to fix HDDs issues like: Num Test_Description Status Remaining LifeTime(hours) LBA_of_first_error # 1 Short offline Completed: read failure 90% 3136 2916616800 My experience is the tools from the HDD manufactures can't fix this stuff - the drive it toast. Am I correct? If not, any tools recommended for this kind of thing - HDD manufacture's tools, spinrite, etc? Thanks for the info disk4_smartctl_report.txt

I found in the wiki how to run it. It found 1 issue and was fixed. Below is the process. I rebooted again. Disk 5 is still red -- what is causing this - the error on the smartctl report? Syslog from the latest boot is attached. root@Tower:~# samba stop root@Tower:~# umount /dev/md5 root@Tower:~# reiserfsck --check /dev/md5 reiserfsck 3.6.21 (2009 www.namesys.com) Will read-only check consistency of the filesystem on /dev/md5 Will put log info to 'stdout' Do you want to run this program?[N/Yes] (note need to type Yes if you do):Yes ########### reiserfsck --check started at Tue May 15 21:14:40 2012 ########### Replaying journal: Done. Reiserfs journal '/dev/md5' in blocks [18..8211]: 0 transactions replayed Checking internal tree.. finished Comparing bitmaps..vpf-10640: The on-disk and the correct bitmaps differs. Checking Semantic tree: finished 1 found corruptions can be fixed when running with --fix-fixable ########### reiserfsck finished at Tue May 15 21:18:53 2012 ########### root@Tower:~# reiserfsck --fix-fixable /dev/md5 reiserfsck 3.6.21 (2009 www.namesys.com) Will check consistency of the filesystem on /dev/md5 and will fix what can be fixed without --rebuild-tree Will put log info to 'stdout' Do you want to run this program?[N/Yes] (note need to type Yes if you do):Yes ########### reiserfsck --fix-fixable started at Tue May 15 21:19:06 2012 ########### Replaying journal: Done. Reiserfs journal '/dev/md5' in blocks [18..8211]: 0 transactions replayed Checking internal tree.. finished Comparing bitmaps..vpf-10630: The on-disk and the correct bitmaps differs. Will be fixed later. Checking Semantic tree: finished No corruptions found There are on the filesystem: Leaves 146225 Internal nodes 891 Directories 374 Other files 1121 Data block pointers 147812974 (343136 of them are zero) Safe links 0 ########### reiserfsck finished at Tue May 15 21:28:41 2012 syslog.txt