Jump to content

S80_UK

Members
  • Content Count

    921
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

22 Good

About S80_UK

  • Rank
    Skadoosh...

Converted

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Huntingdon, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. S80_UK

    Meet ZEUS

    Wow! Amazing write up! Thank you. 👍 That was way more than I expected, and I understood quite a bit at the first attempt. I shall definitely read a few times and have a think whether to tackle something similar. Right now, it's academic (no Kindle available) but I am sure I could solve that pretty quicky. The threads that you linked to are also very valuable as an insight into how this kind of approach can evolve. Thanks again.
  2. S80_UK

    Meet ZEUS

    Just what I was thinking. While it's definitely a bit of a hack, as far as I understand your description, the end result is highly effective and a credit to your capabilities. If you ever consider writing that up in more detail for those of us with smaller brains, it would certainly be of interest.
  3. S80_UK

    Anyone else using a low-watt PSU in their build?

    I monitor my power quite closely when making hardware changes - I run 12 hard drives in each server using 430 and 450W power supplies with no issues. With a variety of power meters I only see just of 200W at the start of the drives spinning up. Even if I miss the absolute peak measurement because it's quite short, I am pretty sure that I am below 300W peak. I should point out that the rest of the hardware is pretty basic - no graphics cards, for example. The 450W was replaced (from a 430) about 18 month ago. Power supplies do age, and I would not reuse an old power supply in a new server build.
  4. S80_UK

    Supermicro Servers Hacked?

    Indeed. The story didn't make sense to me when the Bloomberg article first appeared. The detailed analysis in the STH article only supports my own conclusions.
  5. S80_UK

    Supermicro Servers Hacked?

    My take is that this could be a bit of politically driven protectionist China bashing, with Supermicro being a (probably) innocent victim, although the suggestions about expected movements in stock prices also add an interesting dimenison. This seems pretty well aligned with some of the current US administration's rhetoric against China. As for the motherboards - there were plenty of motherboards from some vendors when the E5-2670 Xeons hit the market., but I am not sure that the availability of those devices is connected - they were already far from new at that time. And there were (still are) threads on this forum with people buying up motherboards and CPUs to build some pretty decent servers. What I struggle with is the lack of credible detailed evidence. To me, it's all hearsay. I'd want to see some pictures - a good and bad motherboard for example; a high magnification image or two of the alleged offending devices; and so on.
  6. S80_UK

    Pre-emptive drive replacement?

    I agree with @Frank1940. If you are running monthly parity checks, then your sytem is already known to be capable of reading from all of the drives at once. The only difference when recovering from a failed drive is that one of those drives being read becomes a drive being written to. The loading on the sytem is the same. If I was to replace any part pre-emptively I would go for the power supply. They do reduce their ability to provide maximum power as the capacitors within get older. A decent power supply run conservatively would most likely give no trouble when in use continually for, say, eight to ten years, but a failing power supply will potentially give rise to strange problems some of which may be hard to detect and which might be more challenging to recover from.
  7. S80_UK

    Unraid OS version 6.6.0 available

    Minor question - I was on 6.6.0-RC4 with the Next branch selected in the update options. This stable relase is NOT flagged as an available update in the UI in this case - I learned about it from the forum. Should it have been flagged in the UI as available and then the Next/Stable switch reset to Stable after updating? Or even just flagged as available (leaving the switch where it was)? Edit - I just realised the notification was set to "Once per day" - probably the window to the next notification had not yet elapsed. Therefore this is probaby a non-issue. The update went OK, BTW. Thanks for all the hard work. Unraid continues to deliver.
  8. S80_UK

    [SOLD] Cooler Master 4-in-3 Drive Cage

    Sorry - all of them are in use as per my sig. (I thought I replied already, but maybe that got lost in the transition to the new forum.)
  9. S80_UK

    Sad to see ...

    Agree - this would be a big help.
  10. S80_UK

    Welcome to Unraid.net

    I quite like the new forum pages and look, although I am setting the browser zoom to less than 100% (actually using 80%) for just about the first time ever. And my avatar looks to be in keeping with the new colour scheme. 😉
  11. S80_UK

    Server key transfer

    This is not the case. It used to be the case that trial installations were only allowed three devices, but trial installs have not had this restriction for quite some time. So it should be possible to build the second server and then transfer the key, using the original USB device with the new server. It is true that the .key file is tied to the USB drive, and that it what forces you to take this step. You would need to take advice on the steps to use the old USB drive and key with the new disk configuration, but I believe that is perfectly doable. As @Squid mentions, trial installs have a time limit, although you are able to apply for an extension. https://lime-technology.com/pricing/
  12. S80_UK

    unRAID OS version 6.5.3-rc2 available

    Update for me also painless. Congrats on the move(s), too.
  13. S80_UK

    Question about existing feature or plugin?

    Basically, yes. I put them in pairs so I do 1 and 2, 3 and 4, etc. Buy you can do more. Note that this is very simplistic - there is no logging or error checking, so if it goes wrong somewhere you won't know if you don't watch it. So I run each script twice. The first time through it does the sync with the files being deleted / copied / updated as needed. The second time it should complete quickly because there's nothing more to do.
  14. S80_UK

    Question about existing feature or plugin?

    It may be possible to do what you suggest. But you already mention that you will have a backup server. So this is what I do... On the main server I have the user shares, and I put them on different disks as needed. Some shares are on one disk only; some big shares are on more than one disk. On my backup server I have a different share structure. I have one share for each disk on the main server. So I created some shares called "disk1backup", "disk2backup", and so on. These can be on single disks or multiple disks. There is no requirement to match the disk layout of the main server on the backup server. Then I have some simple rsync scripts to backup from each disk on the main server to each disk backup share on the backup server. I can run that one a week, once a month or whenever I need. If I lose a disk in the main server due to a hardware failure, and if parity is not enough to recover for some reason, then the disk backup share on the backup server will allow me to get back all the data on the lost disk(s) on the main server, on a disk by disk basis. Here is an example of the script command that I use to create disk copies on the backup server. In this example my backup server is named "BackupServer", and the share for the backup from disk 1 on the main serviver is called "Disk1-backup". rsync -av -W --xattrs --delete --timeout=3600 --progress /mnt/disk1/* BackupServer::mnt/user/Disk1-backup Note the the rsync daemon must be set up on the backup server for this to work in this way. Some users run a script on the backup to pull the files from the main server. It is probably safer that way around, but I haven't set mine up that way.
  15. S80_UK

    [Plug-In] unBALANCE

    Obviously if there was no parity drive then parallel operations would be faster provided there was no overlap inthe drives being used by each of the move operations. Risk could be reduced by using something like the File Integrity Plugin and checking everything afterwards. Another considerationis backups - I wouldn't even attempt this without a backup of all files being moved. Parity or File Integrity can help you identify whether there have been problems with the move, but neither can fix the data if a file was lost or became corrupted for some reason.