jumperalex

This ^^^ and I know I said months ago, or longer, that there should be a link on the app and in the header of every page of this forum pointing directly at the WIKI

please please please make this happen. There is just no good reason to have external hash files that are incompatible between all the various tools. Or put another way, please don't create yet another "standard"

Yes it does and is more in-line with what I had originally believed. Based on what you said then, is this true? So there can be any number of rotted bits in a virtual block, all that matters is that I only have as many bad blocks as I have par2 blocks. Also, checking my understanding or your math ... 50 par2 blocks and 32762 virtual blocks is 0.153% is it not?

Ahh good. I had the same problem last weekend but didn't get around to reporting it.

I'm not sure how to take that ... Did you "DOH" so hard you can't even? or Did you "WTF" so hard you can't even?

Yup. That's what I meant, just to spend tiny amount of time finding proper tools to automate things. Oh come on, you've got to be kidding me. I know you guys are smarter than this. Sure, it may take 10 seconds to google search "Media Wiki Automated PDF Conversion" or something like that, but do either of you really think it's just "click install and done"? There are countless things to consider: 1 - Is this add-on official or 3rd party? 2 - Is it compatible with our version of Media Wiki? 3 - Will it break our integration with SMF? 4 - How cleanly does it output the content? 5 - If we use this add-on, will this limit our upgradeability in the future? 6 - How much downtime will it take to apply and test this add-on? 7 - Why are we even doing this when the wiki is fine for 99% of people? And do you want us spending gobs of time figuring something like this out or adding features / fixing bugs in unRAID? We have plans to reinvest in our website, wiki, and forums at some point in the not-too-distant future, but for now, these types of distractions are just not important enough for us to worry about. 10 years of selling the product without maintaining documentation in downloadable/printable form says so. I appreciate what Frank did here, but beyond stickying the thread (which I will do), don't expect us to do anything else with this. It's just a distraction from getting you guys better features and more frequent releases. Sorry man i wasn't trying to be that guy. But yeah, its official and compatible. No answers on the rest of your question I did point out the "printable version" link that people can use For the record, my preference is for development with well written inline help even above the wiki. But I know there are procedures best handled in a wiki.

Wow very excited as well. Subbed

I can't guess who's older but let me just say ... BAH YOU YOUNG WHIPPER SNAPPERS!!! I remember when I had nothing but the green glow of a moving turtle to keep me warm at night!!! You with your fancy shmancy color monitors!!! Get off my lawn you fancy sshmancy CRT-using whipper snappers... oops my job is done, need to collect my punch cards. There's always at least one neck beard in the group

I can't guess who's older but let me just say ... BAH YOU YOUNG WHIPPER SNAPPERS!!! I remember when I had nothing but the green glow of a moving turtle to keep me warm at night!!! You with your fancy shmancy color monitors!!!

That is an Option in Word when you Save As PDF vice printing to PDF. I just tested it to be sure in Office 2013. I don't know about earlier versions.

In fact iirc, the disks not being on the same controller is a good thing for throughput since it helps avoid channel saturation. unRAID isn't doing straight device to device xfers over the controller. It has to read it off the controller, calculate parity, and then send the data back and it is doing that on two devices (data and parity). By having parity on a different controller you should be avoiding bottlenecking. Im' also pretty sure that on-board ports are always best especially for the parity drive. Or my memory is off from when I made the decisions I did with my own system.

In fact, I see that you are using mediawiki. A quick search for "mediawiki + pdf" yielded the top result: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Pdf_Export EDIT: I also see from the 4.7 link above that there is a "printable version" link http://lime-technology.com/wiki/index.php?title=UnRAID_Manual&printable=yes ... this won't give a ToC with clickable links, but if you're actually physically printing, I don't think that works with paper ;-) It is limited however, in practical functionality, for pages that are "complete" otherwise you'd have to select each page you're interested, open the printable version, and then print it.

Does the wiki software allow for easy export to other file types. Man that would be a clutch feature especially if it were just a button to click for the user to "download wiki in format XXX"

I think that is the point of running regular par2 validation scans and perhaps even just before a parity check. But I'd agree that a rebuild based on parity is not the best way to attempt to fix file corruption since that is not the actual purpose of parity. And that is at least part of the point, better than none at all ... the open question is if its actually useful. You mention "multiple error in different blocks" to which I ask; What event will cause that level of corruption that isn't likely to require an actual drive rebuild if not also replacement? Given how rare bitrot really is, how many blocks with multiple errors (multiple means > % par in this case?) do you expect to happen before we do our next validation scan? Really I'm trying to better understand this here. Wouldn't a 1% par2 allow for 1% corruption per block? I believe I mentioned I'm aware of the uselessness of par2 in those situations and that it isn't a backup solution. By that logic you can say the same thing about dual parity, "Provided of course that ONLY two disks ..." As to power surge I was mainly trying to invoke a scenery which is typically handled by parity protection. System loss is of course only rectified by backups. I am personally willing to lose my discretionary entertainment media to a power surge the level of which gets past my UPS and power supply to the point that it fries multiple drives or the system. Critical files are being treated differently as already mentioned. Your point is spot on, but for me it is a non sequitur. The scenarios from which I feel I need to protect myself beyond parity and par2, require off-site backups. I'm not doing that for 5TB of data with either cloud (cost), another system (cost and effort), or even mailed hard drives (cost and effort). I will however do it with a few GB of data that can fit on a thumbdrive that is cheap and easy to mail, and/or which will fit in a free cloud setup. Deleted media is a grayer area since one simple mistyped command can easily wipe out a share, disk, or even array for that matter. I just don't consider that very likely enough for me to bother with a local backup. Sure it could happen, but I just don't care. My next level of "care" is system loss and protection for that requires off-site backups. But you know, if I end up with a spare drive sitting around, I just might [shrug] HA! My acquisition of physical media (movies and music) stopped almost a decade ago. Sheesh my last music acquisition, physical or digital, I can't even remember; I'm not even getting stuff from questionable sources either. If I can't stream it or hear it on the radio I don't care. I probably just made some serious music fans die a little inside [sorry] but music has really just become bubblegum for my ears in the last decade. As for disconnected viewing, for us that happens via a quick copy of desired media to a thumb drive + roku3 or a plex sync to the tablet. But I suspect we also do that less often than you might with a motorhome. Seems like you need an all SSD micro-array with autosync to your main array whenever you have connection >;-) Yup risk tolerance is exactly it with Risk = likelihood of occurrence * consequences of occurrence. We just differ in the level of effort we're willing to put in for the level of risk. And that is of course a completely fair place to disagree but probably not worth debating much further For the record, I not only have renters insurance where I live, homeowners insurance on my rental property, and collision coverage on my 14yo car (because it is very inexpensive), but I also have umbrella coverage which I have actually had to use and was worth every single penny (and I mean pennies) when I was taken to court. The insurance co's lawyer ate them alive!!! But I also don't buy insurance for electronics or extended warranties because I know they are not worth the cost and I can afford to self-insure. It helps that I like to work on cars too

"... if I can recover them with par2 ..." ==> The simple fact is you can NOT "recover them with par2." The error recovery capabilities of Par2 are good ... but just how much you can recover depends on the number of parity blocks you've used and the degree of corruption. It's certainly better than just using checksums ... but nothing close to an actual backup. Nevertheless, I understand that many are willing to simply take the risk of losing their large media files and re-ripping all of them if they were to lose them. I could do that as well ... I've got boxes full of DVDs I've acquired over the past 15 years or so (over 3000). But the time I've spent ripping them; re-compressing them; cataloging them; etc. FAR exceeds what I'd ever be willing to do again. I consider maintaining complete backups cheap insurance. Most of my backup drives are actually older drives that I've replaced with larger ones and/or have more reallocated sectors than I wanted for actively used drives -- I doubt I've averaged more than $100/year extra to actually buy new backup drives. I guess the point for me, and maybe a few others too, is that right now a corrupt file means the choice of rebuilding an entire disk (which might not even fix the file), re-ripping / downloading, or restoration from a full backup (which I would rather not maintain in the first place). Unless I misunderstand how par2 works, it adds an option to recover a file that has suffered some level of corruption; for a 1% corruption tolerance it'll only cost of 1% of my array which I believe we've established is probably more than we need for basic bitrot recovery. Anything more than that (head crash, janky cable, power surge during write, etc) is likely to be taken care of by a parity rebuild. Is that not correct? Again, I understand par2 is of no help if the file is deleted or I suffer a catastrophic system loss (fire/flood/theft/etc). But my media files just are NOT important enough for me to setup a geographically distinct backup (because that is the only backup that protects against those) and I'm pretty sure I'll have something more important to worry about at that moment in my life. My critical files are both another story and much smaller in size. For those there are thumbdrives in fire boxes, cloud storage, and if I get paranoid enough, another thumbdrive mailed to another state. I know there are anecdotes here of people who thought they didn't need to backup their media, lost it, and then lamented their decision. Perhaps that will be me someday. But even if it is, I will know in the back of my mind that the option wasn't really within my desired level of effort and that the most important irreplaceable stuff has been backed up. I'll say finally that you have to consider the difference of scale we may be talking about. I don't have movies in the thousands that I would find myself re-ripping. More like under 200 and frankly I don't know that I'd even both now with Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc. also you say 100% complete backup of your media is "worth it" to you as cheap insurance. I guess I would say that 1% is worth it to me as cheap insurance [shrug]

I have no desire to keep backups of terabites of media files if I can recover them with par2. My personal files, yeah those have multiple copies spread far and wide.

Seems like a good reason to see if we can get something like 0.1% par2 no?

Interesting idea.

Looking at it only from a "wasteful" point of view, my intent would be to only use par2 for my "critical" files. Critical = personally created / unique and thus damn near impossible to re-create if not actually impossible. That means all photos, personal videos, archived emails, most if not all Office documents, tax records, and the like. The nice thing is those file do not take up that much space so 1% par2 is hardly a hardship. But I also know that par2 is just another layer of parity-like protection in so much as it does nothing to protect me from system destruction or file deletion. For that reason, those files are also backed up to my PC, backed up to a thumb drive stored in a firebox, and eventually I plan on adding crashplan to the mix. But I see par2 as a small price to pay, for those files, for yet another layer of protection. As to my media files ... meh ... I can always reacquire them. Parity saves me the time and bandwidth if i have a drive crash. Par2 would save me a little more if I were to experience bitrot (for the record I have very old jpgs that likely suffered from bitrot but I can't prove it of course) but I'm still not sure if I'd enable that for media isn't "critical". Perhaps if we could reliably get par2 for those down to 0.1%. [shrug]

I need a clarification on this... Are you imagining RobJ having teary eyes, or are you having teary eyes while you're imagining him? You post isn't quite specific on this point. Instructions unclear, throw Chile powder in eyes to force tears.

Yes I know about the plugin dlandon is developing. His approach is based on the functionality as is present in unmenu, and I suppose it suites more for people who like to continue on the unmenu way. The coloring within Dynamix follows a more minimalistic approach and tries to keep the highlighting as low as possible. Ahh fair enough. FWIW his lets you toggle the various highlights so that it can be as complex or minimalist as a person would like. I just figured there might be utility to a single merged effort, but its no skin off my back either way. I'll choose whichever works best for me as things develop.

@bonienl ... am I to understand from the above that you're doing log file coloring? Because if so, are you aware of this, http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=44813.0

Subbed and will install when I get home.

I'm going to hazard a guess that while jon might be discussing it on the listserv, and shit who knows maybe even playing a little on a test box, LT's entire effort is being put towards finalizing 6.2 and what we all believe is dual parity support. So I wouldn't expect much movement on this front for a while. In the mean time, if you want data rebuild capability you might look into the Checksum Suite plug-in which includes PAR2 functionality that can both identify corrupt files but also repair them. Being a community plug-in vice built-into-unRAID it wuold be understandable if you weren't willing to "deploy" this as a solution if "deploy" means as a VAR vice in your home usage. http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=43396.0 EDIT: bwahaha I see you are already well versed in checksum suite. please excuse my ignorance

Maybe this can be used to auto select the text color? or is it not something that can be chosen on a per line basis? http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140916/G18