Joseph

Members
  • Content Count

    398
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

41 Good

About Joseph

  • Rank
    Member

Converted

  • Gender
    Undisclosed

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. It would be cool if unRaid actually kicks a drive off line should the file system hiccup -- before the condition is written to parity -- so parity can be used as a recovery option in that scenario.
  2. ok, I will do that as soon as I have ample time... ...might not happen until Monday. Also, according to the link provided, it suggests leaving the disk in question available to the array and start in maintenance mode to do the check/repair. Any idea why moving the disk out of the array to run the check/repair and then copying the recovered data back into the array via copy isn't mentioned?
  3. I haven't tried it yet; trying to get an understanding of next steps and weighing my options for the most convenient way for a non linux guy like me to recover as much data in tact as possible. I've lost an entire disk a while back and any attempts of recovery from corruption at the file system level was marginal. A quick scan from this link indicates it's hit and miss https://wiki.unraid.net/Check_Disk_Filesystems#After_running_xfs_repair "If the xfs_repair command fails, and we're hearing numerous reports of this(!), then you will have no recourse but to redo the driv
  4. So, I should be able to physically remove or replace the drive that hiccuped and once the array starts, then parity would emulate the contents of the old disk and the data should be in tact... is this correct?
  5. Thanks but if a drive isn’t mountable and the array starts (or it gets knocked offline) shouldn’t party emulation kick in? (Note: haven’t read the link yet, maybe the question is addressed there)
  6. Hi unRaiders, I'm hoping someone with more knowledge can help me with an issue that happened this morning. As you can see in the screen shot, a disk was kicked out of the array as unmountable (see attached disk log). What's concerning is that it appears parity did not emulate the contents of the drive. I opened a few folders and found them to be empty to confirm this. So I did a safe shutdown and have the machine off for now. In hind sight I should have grabbed the logs; I hope they're not needed at this time. Can someone please advise me on next step
  7. Based on a recent unCast I suspect they’re keeping 6.10 betas under tight raps for now
  8. agreed. I'll give that a shot next time I can and let you know how it goes Agreed, but it wasn't like that until I prevented the disks from sleeping; but like you said, it could be a combo of things. TM backups are typically 7G+ and I don't have a clue why... wasn't like that on my old Mac when I had TM as a local drive. I haven't used TM in awhile stuff was moved around which could perhaps explain this 40G session, but the large backups in general are a mystery. I'll dig around and see what I can find. But it may, along with the other issues, requi
  9. So, the backup box is back up. The 10Gbe cards I just installed don't seem to be making much of a difference, but perhaps it's just my perception. fwiw, I'm not using the cache drive or SSD for TM it's the only thing using the backup unit for now. (Results from the command are attached) 8.21 MB/s is terrible!! I have no idea what's going on. I stand by my original observation: SMB transfers are much faster after unchecking "Put hard disks to sleep when possible" in the Energy Saver settings than it used to be; but it seems I should be getting faster R/W speeds with the new 10GBe NI
  10. So far so good for several months now. I like the idea of establishing a baseline so we all know. Unfortunately, that command doesn't seem to be working. Could it be because the backup box turned off in order to do a HW upgrade? If that is the case, I'll let you know after I get it up and running and try the command again. fwiw, Production Box: A DnD transfer of a 9.6GB file from the Mac to the cache pool now takes about 2mins when it used to take hours (I should note, I've just upgraded to 10GBe, but haven't seen any noticeable imp
  11. Hi. Unfortunately, it's a bit overkill for what I need. I run the backup box headless; so it's just for getting past POST/Bootup, and the occasional use of the localhost gui. Thanks for your suggestion though.
  12. Hi unRaiders, does anyone have an ancient VGA PCI or PCI-e x1 graphics card they no longer need? My backup unit's x4/8/16 slots are in use and the only port options I have left so I can add a monitor are either PCI or PCI-E x1. Many thanks!! Ps. I'm in the US.
  13. Interesting... I had the same problem.. seems the culprit was the NVIDA driver plugin that I had installed awhile back. Deleted that and now it's back.... hope this helps someone else.