bkastner

I agree. Any media solution is going to expect a similar structure for the data. It's worth the time to get yourself inline with the accepted norms as it will open up a world of possible solutions for you. Maintaining a unique naming/organization structure is only going to complicate things in the long run. Chances are that if you've done this because you believe you have a unique scenario, there is likely an accepted solution that will achieve the same (or similar) results, while still keeping you in the expected structure.

Great idea. +1

Let me rephrase that then, a NON-REVERSIBLE operation. Default to NOT doing the correction write, then an extra step/question when you kick it off"you know this will only check not fix? this is not reversible".. IAEF, a configuration option under Settings > Disk Settings "Default Parity Check Operation:" ---- "Check only, no corrections" ----- "Check and correct errors" .. if the latter the extra "you sure you want to spend 14 hours doing this and not actually fix anything?" When taken in the context of the masses this logic doesn't really work, and is not what people are paying for. The majority of people who buy/use UnRAID are expecting it to just work, and to protect their environments. In the event of a disk failure users don't want to hear that even though they've been running UnRAID for 2 years, and sync errors have been reported they were never fixed because users didn't know they had to change a default setting. Educated customer can choose to change default behavior because they either understand the risk, or are willing to take on the risk. The general public.... not so much. UnRAID needs to be configured to protect users against themselves by default and given that the vast majority of parity sync issues appear to be incorrect writes to the parity disk, and not the data disk, it only makes sense to correct parity by default to give it the best chance of being valid and able to assist in the event of a disk failure.

This seems like recent changed behavior though. I know my containers used to notify if there was an update, it hasn't for the last month or two. I had been wondering about this as well. I can presumably stop, edit, and restart each docker, but this seems far less useful than you would expect (especially for plex or other apps that update somewhat frequently).

Historical content can be challenging, but usually should be findable (if you have a good provider who provides several years of content). I just tried searching for Cougar Town on OZNZB and see all of Season 4 listed. Whether the links work or not will again likely depend on your provider (Giganews, SuperNews, AstraWeb, etc). As a last resort I tend to use torrents for stuff I can't find on newsgroups, but I would say it's likely 5% give or take, but newsgroups cover the vast majority of my needs without issue.

Further to mr-hexen's explanation. When looking at any cpu you want to determine it's passmark score, which can be done via the following website: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/ You can look up any cpu commercially available (including historical cpus) and determine it's passmark score. When looking at Plex you need around 2000 passmark per stream. So, if you want to run 3 streams you need to ensure the passmark is 6000 or higher. This is a fantastic site to reference any time you are looking at buying a new cpu. It can help you understand if you are getting a good value for the price, and whether adding an extra $10-15 can give you a good jump in performance, or if it's a waste of money. Any time I am looking at buying a new cpu I will usually pick a price point, then compare 3-5 cpus around that price and pick the one that gives me the best bang for the buck.

I agree, though having to leave my parity drive spun up is not that big a deal... it's just a minor annoyance knowing this shouldn't be the case. That said, it would be great to find the solution to this niggling issue.

Actually, I thought I should clarify my issue. I don't actually get errors on the parity check... I get them on the parity drive. If I set spindown to never I get a perfect parity check. If I set the spindown to default I get 128 errors on the parity drive almost immediately. In hindsight this is very different than the issue opentoe and JustinChase are getting - though it's interesting that my suggestion on the spindown of the parity drive helped their issue as well - in fact, it helped them more than it does me. Doh...

I tried setting my parity drive back to default spindown and started a parity check and I almost immediately got my 128 errors again, so JustinChase's option obviously doesn't work for my situation. I am including my diagnostics report... just in case it shows something useful. cydstorage-diagnostics-20150703-2204.zip

No, the thought never occurred to me, but I just changed it to never, and started a new parity check. I'll know more in about 15 hours. I can't explain why it has fixed my issue as I don't really understand, but figured it was worth a suggestion. Hopefully it helps. After turning spindown to never on parity drive, then running a new parity check, it completed without any errors; progress! I don't know why it should matter, but it seems to have helped. Now, I'll turn it back to default spindown, and run another parity check and see if the errors return. I'll report back in about 15 hours Interesting. I had assumed it was something unique to the 6TB WD Red drives as that was the first time I had encountered it. I've tried spinning down my parity drive between various builds and it's always thrown errors. I expect you will report that in 15 hours or so. Hopefully this helps diagnose the issue. It would be great to not have to keep the parity drive up all the time, but it beats parity errors.

No, the thought never occurred to me, but I just changed it to never, and started a new parity check. I'll know more in about 15 hours. I can't explain why it has fixed my issue as I don't really understand, but figured it was worth a suggestion. Hopefully it helps.

Have you tried setting your parity disk to not spin down? I have a 6TB WD Red Parity drive and every parity check I would get 128 errors. Changing the spin down time on the parity disk to never eliminates these errors (I get 0 errors in this situation). What is strange for me is I have another 6TB WD Red data drive and I don't need to set it to never spin down. It's only the parity drive. I know you have a completely different parity drive, but thought it was worth suggesting to see if it made a difference.

I don't necessarily agree with this. I have all my disks attached to 2 SAS2LP cards. I have a total of 15 disks, so have almost fully utilized both cards. My monthly parity check just finished a half hour ago: Last checked on Wed 01 Jul 2015 06:46:51 PM EDT (today), finding 0 errors. ? Duration: 17 hours, 46 minutes, 50 seconds. Average speed: 93.8 MB/sec

It would be helpful to know what speed the parity check is completing at. Someone had posted about these cards a few days ago and I had mentioned I get around 95MB/sec I think average (I am part way through my monthly check right now so can't confirm). There is also a tunables script you can run to help optimize things. Not saying this is your issue, but something to be aware of.

The case is really nice. I love the monster fan on the top but in reality I think I've out grown the conventional computer case. Here I am almost spending a small fortune on hard drive cages and a new case when I can get that Norco 4224 for just as much or cheaper. I just have to see if that Norco is deep enough for a tall CPU fan. Server cases usually aren't real deep for CPU fans. The case is really deep, so it shouldn't be an issue: Dimensions ( W x D x H ) 19" x 25.5" x 7.0" (483mm x 650mm x 176mm) However, you really shouldn't need anything beyond the stock Intel fan. I used to have a couple of after-market fans, but they are ridiculously large and really not necessary. I've scrapped them all and just gone back to stock fans. I would rather invest in better case fans to move airflow better and quieter which will likely have a more significant impact on the overall heat in the system than a crazy CPU fan.

I would definitely get the updated version if possible as well. Maybe you can order from Norco directly? Or make sure you buy from someone with a really good return policy.

Here are a couple of pictures: I opted for the larger fan wall in my case, so these look a little different than stock. As you can see, the microATX has a ton of space around it. I have 2 SAS2LP cards that feed the bottom 4 backplanes (with cables running through the middle of the case, and the molux connectors run along the one side by the power supply.

Too much information... Now whenever I look at my cases I'm going to have an image stuck in my mind It got the point across though, didn't it? Yes but all my computers have female names. So the contrast isn't a good thing So... umm... think of it as going from granny panties to a thong? (Or I guess it could still be commando). Better?

Too much information... Now whenever I look at my cases I'm going to have an image stuck in my mind It got the point across though, didn't it?

I had a Norco box a long time ago and didn't like it. All I wanted was a standard computer case. What size if you main board that is in your Norco? Have any pictures of the inside? You didn't have to hook up power line to every single hard drive, did you? I don't have any pictures of my setup, but I have a microATX anyways so it wouldn't likely help. Here is a link to the case though: http://www.norcotek.com/item_detail.php?categoryid=1&modelno=RPC-4224 As for power... no, you only need one molex per backplane as well. Since you manage 4 drives per backplanes you would only need 3 molex and 3 SFF-8087 connectors for all your drives (or 4 of each to give you up to 16 drives). Having moved from a traditional case to this was awesome... it's like going from tighty whiteys to going commando.

Since you are already at 12 drives with the potential to grow, maybe look at the Norco cases. There is the 20 bay 4220 and the 24 bay 4224. I have the 4224 and love it. Lots of room, all the drives have their own chassis and they front mount (hot swappable too), the case uses backplanes so you only need to worry about a single cable per backplane (4 drives per backplane). It means you can get rid of the drive cages and once the server is setup you never need to go back in - you just work with the drives in the front. It's a way easier solution that trying to fit into a traditional case - the only downside is it's big. You definitely need some space for it, but if that's not an issue I would highly recommend it. You will never want to go back.

If you haven't done this already, I would run the tunables script on your environment to get optimal settings prior to testing. http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=29009.0 Wow, didn't even knew this existed. Will check it out. I always left those settings alone since I never knew what they were. Thanks, I'll try it. I know it can make a big difference (i.e. 20-30MB/sec) depending on how far off you are by default. Just a warning - it can take several hours to run it's course so it may be something you want to kick off before you go to bed one night.

If you haven't done this already, I would run the tunables script on your environment to get optimal settings prior to testing. http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=29009.0

I have 2 SAS2LP controllers which manage all my drives. Works fine. I have a Norco 4224 with backplanes to have each SAS2LP controlling 2 backplanes and I don't use my on-board SATA ports for anything. I've never noticed any performance issue either. My last parity check was reasonable: ? Duration: 17 hours, 31 minutes, 29 seconds. Average speed: 95.1 MB/sec I have not re-run the tunables script in quite a while, so I may be able to get a bit better if I played with it, but I am okay with the current speed.

I agree and am wondering the same thing. I tried emailing SuperMicro but never got a response.