Sono

So you suggest to just keep an eye on it for now to see if the numbers get worse? No HDD change necessary? Can I "accept" the state as is; like "ok UnRAID these 168 read errors are "fine" for now, but warn me again when the number rises? Thanks!

Here you go. Please note, that I removed log entries older than March (oldest where back from October 2020) from syslog and also removed most of the mover logs, as they basically just listed “moving file ABC” and nothing else. I left those in which are in proximity to the errors. You can see the error starting at line 127 in syslog. Hope this helps. mod-unraidtower-diagnostics-20210309-2038.zip

Thanks. I would like to understand this better and how unraid recognizes these errors or rather why they show up. Is there something I can read up on to get more knowledge about this?

Attached are the results of the extended smart test and also a screenshot of the view under the main tab where errors are reported for drive2. WDC_WD40EFRX-68WT0N0_WD-WCC4E1892616-20210309-0540.txt

Hello everyone, this morning I woke up to a read error message. It occurred during the parity check, but the check finished with 0 errors. SMART Report attached. I just ran a short self test again and it says it completed w/o error. The attached report was before the self test I just ran. 1) So some questions: Should I replace the drive right away? 2) I have a situation I'm unsure what is the best approach. My drives are oldish. The drive affected is a 4 TB one (disk 2 in the array) and this is also the size of my parity. I also have no slots left currently (Basic with 4 data drives, one parity and one cache). The thing is, a 4 TB drive is between 70-100 Euro (the 100 Euro being a WD RED). A WD My book with 8 TB (to shuck) is 130 Euro (4 TB USB drives are also 100 Euro, as they are just too old). So not a lot more for double the storage. But, I can't just replace the disk 2 with an 8 TB, as I would need to first replace the parity drive. I'm kinda unsure how to go forward, If I should replace the parity drive and then disk 2, as I'm afraid that the drive might break during the parity rebuilding process that I need to do when I replace parity. Or that the read errors would come in as an issue here. Is it safer to just replace the faulty drive 2 and then after everything is back to normal go forward with upgrading? I also read about parity swap in the documentation, but it sounds "big" (it is some time since I fiddled around with the array) and I'm not sure if that it the correct route either. Thanks for suggestions. I'm currently on unraid 6.8.3. WDC_WD40EFRX-68WT0N0_WD-WCC4E1892616-20210307-1955.txt

Hey, I tried asking this on Reddit as well, but got no replies, so I thought maybe here is the better place. This is referring to unRAID 6.8.3 I've played around and read about the NFS share settings in unRAID (SMB and AFS as well). I know the difference between secure and private setting for a share. What I wonder: When I set the share to private, I can define an export rule for NFS, which then also is being added to /cat/exports (or is it /etc/exports ?). This allows e.g. to give a certain machine rw access and others ro only. Fine so far. However, if I set the share to secure I can't define a rule. So it will be ro to every machine and I can't make it rw for certain machines. This bugs me, as for SMB and AFP shares, when you set the shares to secure, you can then select which unraid users have rw or ro access for that share. I know NFS does not work on user base, but rather machine base (identified by e.g. an IP or being part of a certain group). However, I wonder about the use case for secure NFS shares in unRAID if no machine can write to them. If you are wondering about my use case: I was in the past using certain users to allow certain machines, to only write to certain shares. So a machine running e.g. youtube-dl could only write to a certain share (by mounting the share using SMB with a certain user name), while my main account would also be able to write to other shares. I now wanted to move to NFS, but then stumbled across this. I guess the solution would be to continue using SMB or set all NFS shares to private and then define the wanted settings via NFS rule?

Ok. I quickly tried it and so far it looks good. Thank you very much for the quick and good help

Ah thanks! I did not notice that and am still running a 7.9.0 LMS using from here. I will try the alternate repository.

Hi, I've gotten to this, because of the LMS (Logitech Media Server) I'm running on my unRAID 6.3.5 Box. To be specific, because Spotify has discontinued the use of the official App for LMS. Now I wanted to try out the "Spotty" Plugin for LMS. Installation on LMS so far was no problem. Now when I try to access the app via the LMS it informs me that it needs the IO::Socket::SSL perl module in order to run. I do have Perl 5.24 installed via the Nerd Tool Plugins (for System Temp Sensing), but now I'm wondering how to best install the Perl module in question, as it seems (at least to me) that there is no package manager available on CLI in order to install these (e.g. apt-get or similar). The other way that comes to my mind would be to use CPAN directly to install this module, but I wonder if this is the best idea. Thanks for any feedback you can give me!