garycase

Definitely better

Yes. I couldn't help myself. Will sell my Lian Li Q08b to help offset the cost. I will never have to unscrew those tiny six screws again to open the side. Should be here in a few days with prime. I never understood why Lian-Li put those 6 screws on the Q08B instead of using the simple screw-less side panels like they used in the Q25B. The Q08 is a very nice case ... but it's a real PITA to access because of those screws !!

Getting picky on me! Hopefully people will understand. Not so "picky" as "precise". While I agree I should really have an off-site backup, I DO feel fairly well protected. It's unlikely I'd lose all of my backups in a fire, or to theft - or even to an earthquake. A flood would be more troublesome (not sure just how long my "waterproof safe" remains that way), although we live well above any local flood plains, so that's a reasonably unlikely event. But I certainly agree off-site backups would be better.

Nice chart -- although the final entry ["Only if off-site"] should probably read ["Only if off-site or backup still okay"]. Not all acts of God (fires, floods, etc.) will destroy local backup drives -- they may be at the opposite end of a home; stored in a fireproof/waterproof safe; or perhaps on a higher floor in a flood that destroys lower floors. [in my case, I have BOTH a backup server on the far side of the house AND a 2nd set of backup drives stored in a waterproof/fireproof safe.]

I had the same thought. Solved it by (a) clicking on "Add to Cart"; (b) clicking on Checkout; and © entering a bit of CC data and a few more mouseclicks I suspect you could do the same 8)

Very strange. Have you plugged/unplugged your disks a lot? Hot-swap backplanes are generally designed for ~ 50 cycles (plug/unplug). If you've done a lot more than that, then it's understandable why they'd start breaking.

I actually just ordered the duplicator you asked about NOT to use as a duplicator ... but I wanted a dual-bay USBv3 docking unit anyway, so I figured this would give me a nice dual-bay dock that had a very nice extra feature

As I noted earlier, this would work just fine -- I just don't see any reason to do it unless you simply want the duplicator (not a bad idea, as it is a neat piece of equipment). My comment was really that you wouldn't want to buy a bunch of 3TB drives when you can use newer, higher-capacity 4TB drives. And it certainly seems simpler to just build the 2nd server, then start ONE copy across the network to get all the data copied, than to remove all of your current server's drives one-at-a-time and duplicate them.

I wouldn't. I'd just build your 2nd server, then copy all the data across your network. Using a duplicator would require using the same size drives ... and you're better off using newer 4TB drives for the new server. If you want the copies to be quick, just set up the 2nd server without a parity drive assigned; then do the copies; and then assign a parity drive. The writes will be about 2 1/2 to 3 times as fast like that (although they won't, of course, be fault-tolerant).

People have also died because a plane crashed through their roof -- but neither Rob nor I have any plans to armor-proof our roofs How's the integrity of your roof?

UnRAID will not start a parity check -- automatic or manual -- if there's a red-balled disk. So that's not an issue. The reason it starts an automatic check if it detects an unclean shutdown is that an unclean shutdown is a very likely cause of the parity disk not completing any pending updates -- so it's likely that parity errors were induced by the system. Note that since Reiser is a journaling file system it's VERY unlikely that any issues would be induced on the data disks themselves, but the parity disk updates are not journaled transactions. I understand the conceptual reasons folks want non-correcting checks ... but the question is what are you able to do with the data? A non-correcting check lets you know there are sync errors, but doesn't fix them. So unless you know (a) what location every identified error was at; (b) which set of files those locations could impact (one on every disk that had data at that location); and © whether or not each of those files is currently good (requiring either checksum data or a backup to compare with) ... then the knowledge that there are errors isn't of much use. Note also that if you DID replace a file that had been corrupted (and was therefore causing the sync error), you'd STILL have sync errors (actually a LOT more of them) after you replaced the corrupted file ... so you'd need to run a correcting check afterwards. I haven't kept a record of it, so I don't know for sure how many times I've had sync errors ... but I'd guess it's in the range of 6-8 times over 6 years (most in the first couple years when my hardware wasn't as reliable) -- and as I noted earlier, EVERY sync error that was corrected was a legitimate sync error on the parity disk => NONE were on any of the data disks. There are, of course, potential circumstances that could result in an error being on the data disk ... but the likelihood of this is VERY low. For the typical UnRAID user, it's far better to just run correcting checks. IMHO this forum has got too many folks running non-correcting checks and then wondering what to do about the errors (which are almost certainly on the parity disk) -- often to the point where they're paranoid about correcting them. I agree, by the way, that if there were good tools that would allow bjp999's idea to be implemented ["... runs the parity check in non-correcting mode and then lets the user review the corruptions (if there are any) before allowing them to be applied "] it would allow a more-knowledgeable user to at least "click" on each correction before it was applied. But unless the tool that allowed this was displaying the potentially involved files (and, again, there was a way to validate whether or not each file was good), then accepting these changes would become about as automatic as accepting software licensing agreements when you install software ... which is effectively just a correcting check with a bunch of extra "clicks" by the user 8)

As I've noted before, I've never run a non-correcting check ... and likely never will. On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't start a parity check if the disk errors column wasn't all zeroes. If a disk is having read errors, then I'd replace the disk, whether or not it's been red-balled (which UnRAID only does on failed writes ... not on failed reads). In fact, I've done that once. In ~ 6 years of using UnRAID I've only had a few sync errors during parity checks -- and in EVERY case the errors were in fact on the parity drive, so it was just fine that it corrected them I might run a non-correcting check if there was a convenient tool that would show the possible list of corrupted files for each error ... but since there's not, I don't bother. Barring a disk failure ... which would show either in the errors column or by the disk being red-balled ... there's a very high probability of sync errors simply being errors on the parity disk for one of the many reasons Tom has outlined in other posts on this topic. He did, in v5, add the option of non-correcting checks for those who want them ... but I just don't see the need. If I had any doubts about data integrity after a check (i.e. a lot of sync errors with corresponding read errors on one of the drives) ... I'd just do an integrity check on the drive with the errors and replace any corrupted files.

36 hours isn't bad for a pre-clear cycle on a 4TB drive. If you're just doing a clear through UnRAID then it's JUST a clear -- the pre-clear script does a pre-read cycle; then a clear; and then a detailed post-read test. Takes ~ 4 times as long as just a clear would (in fact, there's a command-line option to just do the clear) ... but you can be confident the disk is okay if you run it through a couple pre-read passes before using it. I gather either you're (a) just clearing the drive in UnRAID; or (b) are still in the first phase of the pre-clear script and didn't realize that there are two more phases after it that will nearly quadruple your overall time

With the 4 drives and SSD you listed in your initial config you'll be fine. The potential issue will come later, when you add more drives. Unless you split the power distribution to the drives from the 2 rails, you could overload one of the 12v rails. [The Be Quiet 14a and a 16a 12v rails.] It's definitely got enough power for what you want to do ... it simply requires careful distribution of that power -- something a single-rail unit doesn't need, since the single 12v rail supports the total output.

By the way, although the 300w Silverstone is almost certainly enough power; with an i7, 16GB of RAM, an add-in controller card, 2 SSDs, and (I assume) 8 3.5" drives, I'd be inclined to use the also-excellent Silverstone 450w unit -- the extra headroom would be nice for that very-well-equipped system: http://www.silverstonetek.com/product.php?pid=253&area=en

Nice catch trurl ... The Be Quiet unit is indeed dual-rail: http://www.bequiet.com/en/powersupply/48 (click on Technical Data and then expand the Output section) The Silverstone 300w SFX unit is single rail: http://www.silverstonetek.com/product.php?pid=458&area=en ... and is "semi-fanless" => meaning its fan doesn't run unless the demand gets fairly high and requires it (in most cases it would never run in an UnRAID environment)

There is NO reason to re-orient the PSU. It keeps the PSU intake "fresh" (plenty of space for intake air through the bottom -- FAR more than the 1/4" suggested above ), and exhausts the air out the back, so no warm air from the PSU is added to the case's heat. And there's plenty of airflow in the case from the front and top fans.

As anyone who's read my posts knows, I also love the Q25B. I consider it a virtually perfect case for an UnRAID Plus system. But I must admit the DS380 seems likely to supplant that distinction, as it's almost identical in size; has virtually the same cooling (fans blowing across the drives from the side); and has 8 hot-swap bays accessible from the front of the case vs. 5 that require removing the side panel. I have NO need for another UnRAID server anytime soon ... but that's not likely to stop me from buying one of these cases and a couple of 5TB drives when they're available

Same dilemma ... although I really like the new Asrock C2750D4I Avoton boards with 12 SATA ports -- that's certainly the way I'm learning right now.

I'm waiting for 2 things to happen, then I'll almost certainly spring for a new UnRAID server: (1) Newegg to get the DS380's in stock and (2) WD to finally release the 5TB Reds Then I can build a 35TB server in an amazingly small form-factor !!

If you're still getting machine check errors there are a couple things I'd look into ... (1) Just unbundling your SATA cables may help. It's definitely not a good idea to have them all tied together. This could be causing signal issues that are causing your occasional errors. (2) Run MemTest for several cycles -- overnight for 6-8 hours is a good test (3) You may have not got an entirely good flash, since you were doing it with an unsupported CPU. Try reflashing the BIOS.

You got lucky !! Your problem was you had a CPU that wasn't supported by the version of the BIOS you had. I gather you actually flashed the update using the unsupported CPU -- right? The "safe" way to do this is to install a supported CPU; flash the new BIOS; and then put in the CPU you actually want to use. Asus hasn't implemented it on any mini-ITX boards yet, but many of their newer uATX and ATX boards now have the ability to update the BIOS WITHOUT a CPU installed !! A really neat feature that eliminates this old "Catch-22" of a BIOS that doesn't support the CPU you have.

Nice -- FrozenCPU has them in stock ... and the shipping is less than Amazon charges (at least for me -- I'm sure it depends on your zip code). Although using the shipping to offset an Amazon Prime account isn't a bad idea -- you'll then free and faster shipping on everything you buy there, plus a year's worth of free movie streaming. Good suggestion -- if I buy one of these, I'll do exactly that. [i've been tempted several times, but resisted ... but if I'm saving over 1/3rd of the cost in one purchase it's a no-brainer ]

Amazon has it listed now for $150 ... with "2 to 5 weeks" delivery. http://www.amazon.com/Silverstone-Tek-Mini-ITX-Computer-DS380B/dp/B00IAELTAI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1392491962&sr=8-1&keywords=DS380

As I noted in my comments in the PC-Q25B thread, as long as the build quality is high, it's almost certain the DS380 will indeed be the "go to" case for mini-ITX builds. Only marginally larger than a Q25B, with 8 hot-swap bays instead of the Lian-Li's 5 ... AND the 380's bays are directly accessible from the front -- and it has virtually identical cooling to the Q25B (large fan blowing sideways across the drives). A DS380 build thread is a good idea -- but probably not until the case is generally available. Hopefully that won't be too much longer. In the US it's fairly easy to evaluate "generally available" by simply looking to see if Newegg has them