Cessquill

Thanks for that. The completist in me would like the option of an array of 24 drives plus cache pool/docker/VM of 2. The realist will never fill that up though, so it's no big deal.

Just as a really stupid OT and basic question, is it currently that if you have 24 drives in your array, you can only have one cache drive? And if you wanted more (or a cache plus VM/docker drive), you'd need to lower the array drives? I hadn't thought about it, since my case couldn't hold that many anyhow, but I'm switching to a 24 front and 2 internal case soon (guessing it'll never be at capacity either, but you never know).

Thank you - I've not used Plugins before (and have been on unRAID for about 6 years). Now looks like the time to start

Hi - I appreciate that I'm may in the minority here, but I use the FTP part of unRAID a fair bit. Primarily, if I purchase something away from home (mainly at work), I'll rip and drop it onto my server. I can then rescan Plex and it's in my system. However, I'd like to restrict what folders are available to FTP if possible. Ultimately I'd like to have just one "transfer" share available, and hide everything else. That keeps my server a bit more secure, and I can log in remotely and shuffle things around afterwards. I'm assuming this isn't possible at the moment, but is there a chance it might be in the future?

Hi - my unRaid box is about 6 years old and starting to show it. It's currently got 14 SATA drives in plugged into a motherboard and 8-port SATA card. With unRaid 6 nearing release, I'd like to make use of the docker and VM features, enabling me to shut down an app server. Basically a rebuild. I'm looking at this case http://www.xcase.co.uk/4u-rackmount-server-cases/x-case-rm-424-ex-gen-ii-24-hotswap-bays-usb3-120mm-fans-rails-port-expander-backplane-sgpio-389-00-x-case.html which, to me, looks like an ideal unRaid case. USB on the front, space for 2 internal SSD drives and 24 bays. It has a SAS expander built in meaning you can access all drives from 1 or 2 SAS ports (2 preferable for better speed). Question - what would I need to plug into that? A motherboard with SAS on? A 4/8 port HBA card? A regular SAS card (like the Supermicro AOC-SAS2LP-MV8)? And I guess, is it likely to be OK with unRaid? Note that they also do a cheaper version of this case without the SAS Expander which just has 6 SAS ports on a backplane - I'm guessing three Supermicro cards could sort that. If I'm moving my apps over to this, I'll need some expansion ports free for TV tuners, so I'd prefer not using too many ports for the drives, if possible. I'm not too worried about speed implications if I'm running all drives through a couple of ports - I can live with a hit on parity checking and rebuilding if need be. Apologies, but I'm a bit rusty on this - I'm quite keen though to get rid of a nest of SATA cables if I can.

But if I didn't create top level folders, how did they get there? If I understand you, if a top level folder called - say - "stuff" existed on all drives, then a share called "stuff" would happily write to any disk, regardless of inclusion/exclusion. That's fair enough. But when I create a share with one include disk, I *think* a top level folder would only ever be automatically created on that disk. Unless there are exceptions further down the line that I'm not familiar with (entirely likely). Or have I misunderstood?

Not to get too far off topic, but I have a share that's set to only include Disk 4. I have only written to it via SMB. I have periodically found folders for this share on other disks and had to tidy. I've assumed that this is because disk 4 was full, but didn't really delve into it. The share has no exclude disks. It's not a particular issue for me though.

Apologies, but I've had a busy week and haven't been able to reinstall my unRaid v6b15 box and start a new topic logging everything. However, my unRaid system had crashed twice in the last week, so it's been mainly running parity checks. One of the crashes I took a photo of (couldn't get to any system logs - nothing on the network, but hopefully it might provide some insight). I woke up this morning to find the above quoted error message on the screen again. UnRaid is still running on my network, I can putty into it but the web interface doesn't seem to be up. A brief outline of my system - I should have some time this weekend to strip it down and log everything properly: 2GB RAM, 12 x WD Green drives (mixture of 1 & 2 Tb) Gigabyte G33-DS3R motherboard with Supermicro 8 port SATA PCI card, Corsair PSU (can't recall which one without opening up - decent one though).

Thank you. I'll let the parity check finish, then get the server out so it's accessible with screen/keyboard and take it from there. I'll likely start by going back and setting the flash drive up again and log everything from there.

The "No sensors found" must come from something else installed besides unRAID itself. Check if you have any remains on your flash (folders: /extra, /plugins, /config/plugins, /custom, /packages). Also check the content of your go file Sorry for not getting back sooner, busy weekend. It's a clean install, and to my memory I've not run any plugins at any time. The go script is the stock install. This was the upgrade document I followed, and I only copied over the config and config/shares folders (minus the go file) I've got a few updates (things I forgot to post earlier), that *might* point to why the double-linked list error detailed above... - When going onto the dashboard tab I noticed that one of my drives had a red down-thumb icon. Clicking on that and "disk-attributes" highlighted a Reallocated Sector Ct of 1. I ran a SMART short self test and that returned no errors. - After that I ran an extended self test. I *may* have gone back to this page later and accidentally clicked the extended self test button again whilst it was still running Anyway, I rebooted, let it run a full parity check and tried to run an extended self test again. Being new to these tests my question here might seem odd - should it keep the drive from spinning down? When returning to the self-test screen, it was saying the drive has spun down, and I had to go back to the main screen to spin it up to resume the test (if I've understood it right). I left this running overnight last night. I got back to the machine this morning and unRaid was no longer on my network. I couldn't ping it on its IP, and couldn't get a system log. I'm guessing something catastrophic happened. I therefore had to reboot it again, and it is running another parity check. Going back to the self test page of the questionable drive and it returns a "test interrupted" message. It takes about 15 hours for the parity to complete, so I won't really be able to do much for another 14 (unless I stop it).

Upgraded from v5 to b15 thanks to the guide linked from page 1. The only slight hitch I had was that I needed to set the boot priority in my BIOS again (assume it's because I reformatted the flash drive) - since the machine's headless I had to do a bit of lifting (and find an old monitor and keyboard), but all up and running fine. I do have a couple of problems though. Left the machine running with the monitor on, started a parity check and came back to it an hour later... 1. "No sensors found" message many times on the screen. I'm assuming this is nothing to worry about, but thought I'd check 2. More worryingly, the last message on the monitor is "*** Error in '/usr/bin/php': Corrupted double-linked list: 0x00002b3b9d7ade58 *** The machine is still running on the network, and I can access the files. However the web GUI is nowhere to be found (just a "waiting for unraid1" message in Chrome). Seems as though the parity check is still running. My machine is running pretty much stock unRaid - I don't have any plugins, just a number of shares. I've used Putty to telnet onto the machine and capture a log (see attached). Hope that's the right thing to do. Any help gratefully received. syslog.txt

My non-unRaid app server is running Plex, Logitech Media Server, DVB Logic (TV pooling and streaming) and client backups, so I might get used to a basic unRaid 6, and work out the best way to migrate everything later. There's a lot more low power chips out now than when I first built my unRaid box, plus SAS connectivity and stuff, so it's about time for a refresh. Plus most of my system is on 1TB drives, so I could probably shrink that down to just a few 4TB drives over a couple of months. It's probably been in action for 8 years, so it could do with a refresh. Thanks for the advice & reassurance.

Yes, I was thinking that. It was built as a bare minimum system that uses as little power as possible, with an app server doing all the heavy stuff. Now it looks like a single box is a possibility, albeit by probably replacing everything but the drives. Thank you.

Thanks very much for that - I'm itching to make the jump, but was anxious about a couple of things. My V5 box is lean, with only 2Gb of RAM as it was built purely as a NAS drive. I was worried V6 might not support this. After reading up about dockers and virtual machines, it looks like I can ditch my app server and have one machine serving everything. Exciting times. And probably expensive

Presumably the parity drive will have plenty more read/writes. Would reliability on one of these be a concern, or is that moot also? (I have no idea)

Thanks, and d'oh! Did a search, but must've been within this section only.

I noticed this morning that Seagate have started shipping and 8TB SMR drive for $260 (http://www.engadget.com/2014/12/12/seagate-ships-8tb-shingled-hard-drive/). I could potentially fit my entire current unRaid system onto 2 discs (plus parity), and it's a very attractive price. I'm guessing these wouldn't be great for everyday server systems (traditional raid or lots of data throughput), but what about the write once media servers that a lot of unRaid systems are purposed for? Also, and I guess this could be a stumbling block, would one be advisable for parity?

As frustrated as we all are, bear in mind this is for a mass storage device (where to me, reliability of data is much more important than looks or speed to market), and not Duke Nukem. I appreciate that expediency is an important factor for sales, but colour me selfish when I don't want to lose a lot of data because something isn't absolutely completed before release (I learned the hard way).

It's a mild form of autism. As much as I think that my words are nice, someone always interprets them as overly aggressive. It's not your problem. It's always like that. The doc actually encourages me to participate in forums. I've never made it past 100 posts before my accounts gets deleted. Fair play, knock yourself out

Is there any reason you seem to be overly aggressive here tashak? My personal opinions are... - The time it takes for a parity check doesn't really matter, as long as it does not impinge on regular use - I see this primarily as a WORM system - the write speeds are something I can deal with because they happen once - I queue up and walk away from. The read speeds are fine, since I have no streaming issues. Sure, 60mb write is fine, but for a Blu-ray I'll still drag, drop and do something else in reality I'm making the assumption that a majority of users have unRaid for media storage. I appreciate that might not suit all, but it does seem to be the case. I use SMB and it's not uselessly slow (with my spec). It's been quicker, but it's still very usable. That is, I've never had the occasion to need a DVD backup on the server faster than it will copy, rendering it useless. I love my unRaid server, but I'd wager that it sits idle a large proportion of the time. To get angry over such a system seems a bit of a waste.

Very good point.

I agree. Whilst unRaid may need to keep up to date with Kernels for hardware drivers, one has to retain the focus that this is primarily a NAS solution, and as such requires stability and data integrity over the latest of its foundation platform. I get that SMB might be an issue - and I don't experience great speeds personally - but it's not a showstopper, and as a consequence - if it ain't broke... Just my opinion though, and Tom is free to take the course of action he feels best.

Thank you very much. I had it as a cache, since it was sitting there, but if it's unreliable then fair enough. I'll perhaps look into how to do a preclear/badblocks, but in the meantime Mods feel free to remove this as it's evidently not unRAID related. Thank you again.

I've suddenly started having a few problems with my cache not moving things over properly. A few notes... - I don't use AFP - I'm not sure whether it's a drive/cable issue - it's a Green Power drive that I had lying around from a portable disc - It's plugged into a SuperMicro 8 port SATA card - Running the mover is taking a very long time, and when complete there are still files on the cache I've attached a SMART report, since the current pending sector is not zero (and according to the wiki it should be), and a portion of the Syslog which appears to have a lot of errors/failures (I have no idea). If the drive's on it's way out, fine - I'll chuck it - I was looking to put a SDD drive in there at some point. However, I'm hoping it's not related to RC16C, since that's when it started happening. If it turns out to be a hardware-related issue, feel free to remove this. syslog.txt smart.txt

To be fair, the section I was looking to clarify had those instructions in (replace three files), but there seemed to be a typo in the heading that made it ambiguous as to whether it applied to my scenario.