c3

Durp... blindly updating the docker from time to time, never knew to do the upgrade from the GUI... Now I get This version of Nextcloud is not compatible with PHP 7.2. You are currently running 7.2.14. My docker containers (mariadb-nextcloud and nextcloud) are up-to-date, but I guess that does not help. Without a gui, how can I proceed?

Most controllers can raid 1 across n number of drives, n>1. The odd blocks go to drive+1, even to drive-1. They do this because the rebuild and performance is better. Any non adjacent drives can fail. Mirroring stripes is also a performance advantage. Striping mirrors is the lowest performance config. Optimized striping for rebuild and performance

You need to decide which factor is your primary concern, data durability (data loss), or data availability. As mentioned backups dramatically improve data durability. But if you are after data availability, you'll need to handle all the hardware factors power supplies (as mentioned), memory (ECC and DIMM fail/sparing), cooling, and probably networking (lacp, etc). The sparing process can be scripted. As a subject matter expert, and your vast experience, this will be straight forward. Perl and python are available in the Nerd Tools. This may allow you to worry less while working. However, I am not sure it would be "hot" as the array must shutdown to reassign the drive. You could implement NetApp's maintenance garage function, to test, and then resume or fail the drive.

That is a great idea! It would be a simple plugin to gather, anonymize, and ship the data. I already have a system which tracks millions of drives, so a baby clone of that could be used. It could be frontended with a page showing population statistics. I wonder how many would opt-in to share drive information from unRAID servers?

Naw, I am still thinking the config needs to be changed to remove the old directory names, and include the new if you want them.

Wow, the same thing as you reported in March 1, 2017, might want to try the same thing this year and see if it works.

Thanks for the XFS, as dev I can not really come here and promote it. 1% of 8TB is 80GB, your 120Gb is 1.5% which you probably did to avoid the warning at 99%. I :+1: your request for getting the setting to allow decimals as I am constantly dealing with people who claim out of space 100%, yet have 100s of GB available. When you have room for thousands/millions more of your average filesize, you're not out of space, just because you see a 100% from df.

It depends... If the data is written, not deleted, changed, or grown, you can fill a filesystem very full. However once you begin making changes, called making holes, or fragmenting, things can become very ugly. Depending on the filesystem, you may notice as soon as 80% full, but certainly in the 90+% range the filesystem begin doing a lot of extra work if files are being changed. Also, almost all filesystems keep working on this to improve. That said, you want to put 8TB of cold storage, (what about atime, etc?), you can go very full 99%, just be sure it is truly cold. I would even single thread the copy to avoid fragments, but that is really just a read speed thing.

It should be noted that hot adding and hot swapping are very different. Hot swapping requires much more than AHCI. unRAID does not support hot swapping, or even hot adding drives to the array. On the Intel chipsets, under AHCI, the hot swap feature must be enabled via BIOS and software. That being said, I recently hot plugged a drive into a linux machine (which I have done thousands of times ala echo "- - -"), and had it crash. The machine crashed at the time of insertion, not detection. I suspect a physical interaction. Power cycled and never looked back. Given the lack of support by unRAID, and the potential for mishap, best practice would be to avoid hot plugging. At the very least, be aware there is risk, and with unRAID limited upside. unRAID will not know about the drive until you config it. But linux will likely detect the drive after insertion, if not you can use the echo "- - -" and have the hba scan.

I have not seen that article, but it is not so much that the head is larger, the required track on media is larger. The track needed to write is wider than needed to read, so smr (shingled) overlap the writes, removing some the "extra" area written, since it is not needed to read. This relationship between write and read requirements is unlikely to change in future generations. This article covers in depth many of the characteristics of the SMR drives. https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/fast15/fast15-paper-aghayev.pdf In summary, sustained random writes will not perform well. Random writes up within the capacity of the persistent cache, followed by lengthy (hours) idle time (no reads or writes) will achieve good performance.

I think he meant to say hdparm -N /dev/sdX

I had the same 1.5tb drive they used and it used to run very hot, over 60C.. That could be the problem.. The motor was having trouble dealing with the 5 platters and after a few years it turned grey around the motor housing.. The drive was very fast though. I also had the 1TB model with 3 platters and that was a very good drive and ran cool and the very same fast transfer speeds.. So I wonder if they just could not get a motor rated for the load.. DC motors can work but you just pump more current through it and the result is higher heat. Both 1TB and the 1.5TB were identical drives except the number of platters.. Same circuit board and housing as well.. The 3TB drives had problems with dust and water damage and I seen pictures of platters which showed dried water on them and a lot of other things so this is most likely a production problem.. Firmware and such were only added burdens. Anyone dealt with the 2TB drives where those without the deeper notch were 20% faster? Those used 3 platters and it depended on which country they were produced in. The drives with 2 platters were the fastest drives at the time and they ran very cool as well. The 3TB were supposedly based on it as well by adding an extra platter to get 3TB. But we know both 2 and 3tb's also had variants which performed very poorly. And those who got the proper 2 and 3TB of those drives are still very happy since they were very fast drives and ran cool as well. It is only people who run raid setups where 1 drive fails and they have to replace it that have problems if they cant find an identical drive. Using the model and part numbers dont matter as identical model/part numbers can perform differently.. I dont think enterprise drives have this problem. So even if backblaze had problems with a particular drive, I loved that same drive since at the time it was a very fast drive and 50% extra storage was worth the extra heat and I did not have to get a very expensive small capacity SSD. Considering more than a decade ago, the faster the drive the more heat it generated. When we used maxtor 512MB drives you could not touch them. And they failed under 2 years but after the 1 year warranty. We pretty much guessed that due to the short warranty period compared to the 3 and 5 years for the other drives and yet we bought a ton of those drives because of the speeds.. I suppose the difference is people buying premium SSD's now compared to standard SSD's.. If the drive is fast enough then even if reliability is lower it is still worth it for a lot of occasions. Sounds like you had cooling problems. Regardless of manufacturer, drives need cooling. Running drives at 60C will cause short life. Improved airflow will help. The failures experienced by BackBlaze are NOT temperature related, but the well documented firmware bugs. http://www.computerworld.com/article/2530543/data-center/complaints-flood-seagate-over-hard-drive-problems.html http://www.tomshardware.com/news/seagate-hard-drive-firmware-bricked,6889.html

Reading this thread, it would have been useful if people had mentioned the model of the drive they were discussing because some people were talking about a conventional drive while some were discussing an SMR drive. There are several 5 TB Seagate drives available at the moment, each designed for a particular application. The only one that uses SMR technology has "AS" in its model number, such as ST5000AS001. They work very well in external USB cases and it isn't Seagate's fault if people break open the cases and use the drives as they were never intended to be used. The ST5000DM000, in contrast, is a conventional non-shingled drive. If the ST5000DM000 is not SMR, I wonder why people are having odd performance issues with them which seem to be related to the SMR tech? Unless the performance issues are nothing to do with SMR in the first place, because these drives are PMR? To confuse things further, here is "legit" reviews with their review of the ST5000DM0000, stating it's SMR. Ahhh, gotta love the total confusion. I have no idea either way what type of drive it is. http://www.legitreviews.com/seagate-barracuda-st5000dm000-5tb-desktop-hard-drive-review_161241 I know years ago facebook tried out SMR drives and only 2TB drives were released at the time, Seagate only came out 2 years later and said they had shipped many millions of SMR drives.. Yet SMR drives were not available until they released the archive 8TB drives.. So I am sure they tested SMR with all capacities since 2TB onwards but did not generally sell them to the public. I think you can find the seagate PR release from years ago saying they had shipped millions of SMR drives.. I am sure they have not sold millions of 8TB drives even now.. So these millions are from all the data centers testing these drives out. Some even put put some reports on write once and read many data for large number of pictures and stuff.. The model number ST5000DM000 is given for these.. But I bet the firmware would be like SC49.. But in the picture it says CC46 which is a normal PMR firmware.. So either they are now even using similar firmware on both or the picture is from a different drive.. so there is no way to actually tell the different drives.. as the model/serial were similar and only firmware was different before.. But the crystal diskinfo also shows NCQ enabled and matches the firmware.. so I really am confused.. This to my knowledge is not an SMR drive. This makes everything even more confusing.. I had forgotten to mention some of these drives used ADVANCED format sectors which means they emulate 512byte sectors but use 4096byte sectors internally.. Some of the problems could also be because of this.. I specifically partitioned the drives on 16MB boundaries even though microsoft says they automatically use 4K boundary settings.. It did fix some of the read speed problems I had experienced.. Using 1mb boundary did not fix it and I gt tired of just playing with it. http://www.legitreviews.com/seagate-barracuda-st5000dm000-5tb-desktop-hard-drive-review_161241# ...This public service announcement by Legit Reviews could be over right now, but we went a step further and got our hands on a Seagate ST5000DM000 5TB drive and took a look at the performance of it. The Seagate SR5000DM000 features Seagate Shingled Magnetic Recording, or SMR, to maximize the number of tracks per inch on a single disk. This particular model has four platters (disks) and eight heads. Each platter is able to hold 1.25TB of data..... There are no 2TB or 3TB SMR disk drives. The Seagate's first million SMR drives were 5TB Kenetic. Like Hitachi's first (and still only) SMR, these are not drop in replacements for SATA disk drives. PS: Shingled (or overlapping) Magnetic Recording (SMR) has been used in tape drives for a long time.

Very likely it will. The CPU is 64 bit, and the BIOS can be fixed too. http://lowendmac.com/2006/mac-pro-mid-2006/

Too much, by a lot. In the platinum class, this wont be a problem. If you already own it, it will be fine. But if purchasing, a 500W-650W you might save a bit.

That's FAR more power than you need. 650 watts would be plenty. Newegg specs for that drive says +12V Rails: 4 4 rails is not a problem in larger power supplies. In this case, it is (4) rails of 40A each. But 1000W is too much for this application.

A very excellent question. The concern is actually for "data in flight". The data being sent to the drives, but not yet written to the media. It is only data being written, not read traffic. Partially written data can be difficult to unwind, or back out. There are a few things you can be to reduce this risk. 1) use a UPS, power outages are far more common than PSU failures. 2) use unRAID, each drive is a complete filesystem and writes are to a single drive, not all drives. 3) use a journaling filesystem (XFS/BTRFS), partial transactions are usually rolled back automatically. 4) disable drive cache (not cache drive), that 32/64/128MB of memory where the loss occurs. Performance impact can be dramatic. 5) use a drive with supercap (or add one). This very small energy source keeps the drive running to complete the transaction after PSU fails, more common on SSDs. Again I would point out the use of a redundant PSU without separate sources leaves you exposed to the most common cause, power outages. #1 use a UPS Standard installation/usage of unRAID includes 2,3. Hardware raid controllers with cache, typically require/strongly recommend cache batteries and disabling drive cache. The raid is under the filesystem, thus a in-flight corruption can be a corrupt journal. With unRAID, any drive not being written to is out of danger. The drive or drives being written to have filesystems which can roll back transactions, or in extreme cases, undergo filesystem repair with standard tools.

1) getting power from case to case is not easy or good. Plan the PSU for the case, and get an additional for any additional case. 10A is very small. 2) it is possible to get redundant power supplies. I do NOT recommend them unless you have separate power sources for each power supply. Redundant power supplies are expensive. It is more cost effective to keep a high quality replacement PSU on the shelf. 3) Yes, hence the expense, and noise. The fans are smaller and thus noisy. 4) Yes, the redundant PSU draws power, and the fans too. But less than 100W. 5) It means a redundant PSU in an ATX form factor. 6) "Server" can mean many things, duty cycle, form factor, capacity, etc. ATX is spec and you need ATX. Still not recommending redundant PSU of any kind.

I'm looking to buy a power supply for my new rack mounted server case and I'm interested in the idea of redundant power supplies. However every review I read on them, people complain about how loud the fans are on them which turns me off because my server is not in a dedicated server room. You can get ATX form factor redundant power supplies. They're not cheap. Redundant power supplies are noisy because they typically can not fit even 80mm fans in them. Smaller fans are noisy. To me, they are not worth it, if you do not have redundant power to separately feed them, and a UPS. You're better off with a quality spare PSU on the shelf.

The hpsa supported controllers are fully supported by smartctl by using -d cciss.

slackware uses pkgtool or installpkg, etc. This is not likely to end well, as unRAID is a limited distribution, and I doubt you'll find support for the p420. So, if you can't support the controller yourself, you're better off just switching to a supported controller now.

missing the hpsa driver

In the case of the Backup Plus/Expansion, we know what drive it is. There just seems to be some disagreement about whether it's a PMR or SMR drive there. Actually, you don't know. As seen previously, there may not be one drive used for all of the Backup Plus/Expansion. Seagate has been know to ship multiple drives under the same labeling, including this case Seagate could easily have shipped PMR and SMR drives under the Backup Plus/Expansion label.

Identifying a drive inside an external enclosure can be extremely difficult. When Seagate EOL'd the Makara 5TB, a huge number became available at very nice pricing, "forcing" me to get a truckload of 5TB drives instead of larger drives. At least one reporter in this thread states they got the 7200rpm drive, which would be the Makara. Many will remember the Costco Seagate 4TB Backup Plus drives, on which the packaging gave a clue as to which drive might be inside by looking at which version of Windows it was compatible! of all things

Achieving higher platter density with PMR is unlikely. Seagate has already delivered 826 Gbit per sq in on PMR. This exceeds the helium drives which are under 650. This is also well into the range were SNR becomes a problem (see the EOL 5 platter Makara). Trying to push closer to the 1Tb per sq in limit of PMR is a steep engineering effort. Alternate technologies (SMR, TDMR, HAMR, etc) provide easier ways to get more on each platter.