JonathanM

disable Threat Prevention

I don't have that system, but see if you can disable the secure boot altogether.

I think I saw someone complaining about immich filling their image, might want to read through the support thread for that container. To enlarge the image, stop the docker service, go to settings, docker, and change the size.

What was the full command that you ran? diagnostics might reveal something. (btw, you really should create your own thread, with the info particular to your situation, like what this thread's creator did.)

You will need to wait for the replacement disk, the "missing" slot must be occupied when you start the array with the "parity is already valid" option, then you stop the array and remove the missing disk again so the content will be emulated.

Have you tried restarting the VM? If you get it running, I recommend using nomachine as a remote instead of using the Unraid managed VNC connection. Much better performance and you get audio.

The file on the first disk will be shown and editable in the share, the later disks files will be invisible in the share. If you delete the visible file on the share, the next file in line will appear, making it look like the file wasn't deleted. I believe the share view disk priority is pools in alphabetical order followed by the array disks in numeric order. You can really make some weird stuff happen that way.

Click the link that was auto generated when you typed the word.

In the apps section of the GUI

That means parity is no longer valid, as there were writes to the array committed to the parity drive that were destined for the emulated drive. Since that emulated drive doesn't match the physical drive, parity isn't accurate for the 4TB. Yes, but it's not unchanged, as a write to it failed. Unraid only fails and emulates drives when a write fails, that write is then only able to be sent to parity. You certainly can try what you are proposing, but the chances of getting everything back is pretty low. At the very least I'd expect unmountable drives that would need file system repair, probably also corrupt files. To do what you are saying you need a temporary drive to assign to the 4TB slot after doing a new config and putting all the drives back in the correct slot. Start the array in maintenance mode, being SURE to check the box stating parity is already valid during this process. Stop the array, remove the temporary 4TB drive, then start the array to allow the 4TB slot to be emulated from parity.

Yes, each customization of the raw XML must be explicitly supported by the GUI or changes will be lost when you toggle back.

Better get familiar with database backup and restore using PGadmin. If one of your containers that shares your database gets messed up, you will need to dig in to database repair instead of taking the easy way out and blowing away the database and starting over. Not that it's extremely difficult, just more work to keep multiple databases in a single container maintained vs. the ability to work on one at a time where there is no chance of interaction between the database you are having problems with and the ones that are running fine. As I said before, there is almost no benefit to running a single container with multiple databases vs. using multiple identical containers each with their own database, and plenty of downsides.

Since Unraid runs from RAM and the boot device is only used to save settings, I see no reason to use a hard drive. How exactly did you set that up? It's not meant to be done that way.

That's because Unraid runs from RAM, the flash drive is there to store some persistent configuration changes, the license, and the OS archives that are extracted into RAM every boot. The flash is FAT32, so no permissions, so no good running executables from there, it's mounted at /boot. You can copy to another location and change permissions then run the executable with a script. With those limitations in mind, sounds like you have a valid plan. The biggest issue for things running at startup is timing, array and pool locations are only available after the array is started.

Check if your router has a feature that tries to hack into devices on the network to expose weaknesses.

Since you formatted it, the table of contents for the drive is erased, so there is nothing to rebuild. You may be able to get some data back using recovery software like https://www.ufsexplorer.com/ on the drive in another machine.

Why not just replace the two disks one at a time and let them rebuild from parity?

Before you start digging in I recommend you collect diagnostics and attach them to your next post in this thread. It's entirely possible that the situation is actually different than what you are assuming right now. That implies the system is still running currently, try to collect diagnostics BEFORE you restart.

Yeah, well. I looked at the last post and saw a quote from 2020, so the thread had to be at least 4+. I wasn't really doing comprehensive research at that point.

Wow, something REALLY weird happened when you did that. All the posts in that thread are dated two hours ago, I got notifications and stuff about it, and my posts said I had posted two hours ago. Since I wasn't logged on two hours ago, and just woke up, I freaked out a little bit thinking my account got hacked. I quickly realized ALL the posts were from 2 hours ago, but there weren't any actual new posts. All the quotes embedded in the posts are from around 5 years ago, and have the original account names. No harm, no foul, but if any more threads get the same treatment it would be nice to figure out what happened and attempt to keep the original dates, as outdated advice with current dates could cause issues.

Semantics aside, this is not a solvable issue. I wouldn't call it a defect, it's a byproduct of how the user share system works at a very low level. Unless you thoroughly understand what is going on under the hood, don't mix user share and disk locations when moving data. Use either one or the other.

What exactly were you planning on doing that you suspect may cause a problem?

Doing the entire process locally on unraid means you don't need another PC running while the copy is in progress, but keep in mind that it may actually go quicker over the network. I'm not sure if the USB speeds have improved on the latest builds, but in the past a locally attached USB drive was way slower than going over the network to a client PC with a good USB3 connection. I'll be interested to see if your experience is different.

If you like the forum design, it's from https://invisioncommunity.com/ It probably could be hosted on an Unraid server, but the forum software is definitely not free.