MadDiplomat
-
Posts
30 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Store
Gallery
Bug Reports
Documentation
Landing
Posts posted by MadDiplomat
-
-
Hello,
I have an array of 7 drives with a single parity and XFS - encrypted FS. Does it make sense to break everything and use ZFS in the following situation? I've never used ZFS before, but I've heard endless of praise for it, so it must be the latest trend.
Here's the situation: I want to upgrade to dual parity and replace about half of the drives with larger models. I could do this step by step, but it seems like it would take a really long time. So, I'm considering speedrunning it by backing up my entire array to another NAS, then destroying the array, installing the new drives all at once, creating a fresh configuration, and finally copying all the data back from the other NAS.
Simultaneously, I'm thinking that I may as well format the "new" array's drives into ZFS with encryption (array drives can be encrypted if using ZFS, right?). I understand that since I will not use a ZFS pool, I won't get the best perks like bitrot healing, but supposedly, using ZFS for UnRAID's array drives still has certain benefits vs. XFS.
If anything above is a bad idea, please stop me :).
-
On 11/17/2022 at 6:57 PM, MadDiplomat said:
This plugin is broken now. Ever since I updated to UnRAID v. 6.11.1, it will go to sleep after the "delay" time, no matter what. I have increased the delay to 99 minutes and it just goes to sleep after 99 minutes. It even went to sleep while I was streaming a video from my server, ignoring all rules about array inactivity and traffic.
It worked perfectly until I updated. I will now update to 6.11.3 and report if anything changes.
No change with the latest UnRAID version. This plugin will put my system to sleep after the specified "extra delay" (in my case 99 minutes) and ignore other rules (array inactivity & network traffic), which were working as intended a few UnRAID versions ago.
Is there any way to increase the delay beyond 99 minutes? It would make a useful workaround until this plugin is fixed. For some reason, the plugin will not let me input more than 99 minutes in the GUI (I'm not sure if this limit is intentional).
Edit: I changed the "timeout" from 99 to 180 in /boot/config/plugins/dynamix.s3.sleep/dynamix.s3.sleep.cfg. This change is now reflected in the GUI, which previously did not allow me to enter a value greater than 99. I just hope it works and that I didn't break anything further.
Edit 2: Well that did nothing. It says 180 minutes but it is still 99. Why is this even programmed like that is beyond me.
-
On 11/2/2022 at 12:45 PM, Jammy B said:
Dynamix S3 Sleep
running latest stable unraid.
Can someone help me please?
i've setup S3 Sleep and so far was working fine.
but now it seems to ignore its own rules and turns itself off.
by that, i have it set to switch off from midnight onwards. typically it might stay on till around 1am then switch off due to activity on the server.
now it switches off bang on 12:10am every night [as the 10 minutes is the "extra delay" set on the plugin]
it aborted my parity check to switch itself off last night.
if people are watching Plex, it switches itself off.
it didn't do this before.
i attach a screenshot of my settings in hope that someone tells me i've ticked something!
This plugin is broken now. Ever since I updated to UnRAID v. 6.11.1, it will go to sleep after the "delay" time, no matter what. I have increased the delay to 99 minutes and it just goes to sleep after 99 minutes. It even went to sleep while I was streaming a video from my server, ignoring all rules about array inactivity and traffic.
It worked perfectly until I updated. I will now update to 6.11.3 and report if anything changes.
-
I'm happy to report that the effect of using encryption (xfs) on all array data disks and all cache pools has been negligible in my situation. Not only are the read/write speeds unchanged, the CPU utilization remains comparable to before. Note that I am not running any VMs, only a couple of dockers (Plex, downloaders ...).
I only noticed one peculiarity, but I'm unsure if encryption had anything to do with it. To avoid shuffling the data and encrypting the drives one by one, I copied the entire array to another NAS, deleted all partitions and set a new configuration (essentially building the array anew) and then copied everything back. When I initiated the formatting of the 5 data drives to xfs-encrypted, the CPU usage spiked to 100% on all cores for about 3-5 minutes. Within this timeframe, the UnRAID web interface was completely unresponsive for about 2 minutes. However, this may simply be considered normal operation? The previous time I built an array from scratch and formatted all the drives was in 2011, so I really can't make a comparison
-
I just wasted 30 minutes on this. Today, 32GB flash drives are actually harder to find in stores than one would imagine. But even when I found one, the utility did not like it, even if I put it in a USB 2.0. port. I had to do the manual approach, but luckily the stick boots just fine now with UnRAID. If the app can't be updated, the legacy approach should be the default one presented on the web page.
-
Thanks for the info. I’m preparing to build my second unraid machine and once that’s done, I will encrypt the 2600K one. I’ll report back whether there was any impact on the speed, but it will probably take me a few weeks :)
-
I've been reading about the encryption feature but did not find much information about the expected performance hit.
I'm worried that my aging 4-core system would be far too weak for it and that I should not even bother trying turning it on: B75 Pro3-M, i7-2600K, 4x4GB DDR3.
I use 1 parity + 5 data disks without a cache drive. By using turbo writes, my write speed to the array is limited by the gigabit ethernet. I can already hit 50% CPU utilization if I, for example, use mc to copy lots of data and run some background docker apps. I'm thinking I don't have much headroom and seeing my speed drop to something like 50 MB/s with encryption would not be great at all.
Thank you for sharing any experience or feedback.
-
Dear all,
I would like to make a change: keep saving in-progress torrents to the cache-only user share, but move completed torrents to a user share in the array for seeding.
My dilemma: can the mover be used for this purpose?
Edit: Yes, it works.
Any reason not to reset my config and use ZFS in the array drives?
in General Support
Posted
Thanks for the advice, I really appreciate it! I will stick to XFS, as it seems there is no point in rushing into early adoption of ZFS of array drives. Especially if speeds still need ironing out, as I will be getting rid of the last few 5400 RPM drives in my array.