Deano309

Members
  • Posts

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Deano309's Achievements

Noob

Noob (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. Well since it works as expected in Unraid I am inclined to think otherwise. UD sees/manages the controller differently - so has the limitations I have encountered. It is an easy enough workaround - I can only have 1 drive mounted with UD so I can manage it and then add to the array prior to mounting another. Not ideal but it is managable.
  2. OK, so it's a limitation of UD. That's not a problem, now that I know that I can try to work around it. Thanks for clarifying it for me
  3. But the ID shown within UD is a shortened version. If I mount a drive into the array then it shows the full ID as shown on disk 1. Is there a way to get UD to recognise the full ID?
  4. As you can see, once 1 is mounted, the second shows 0. If I remove the first then the second drive works fine. If accessing shares then it corresponds to whichever is first in the list.
  5. Yes, but spread over 5 external drives. my current data was on 3 networked PCs which is why i'm trying to consolidate it.
  6. When I try to set/change the mount point name, it adjusts all mount points for every drive connected to the card. It doesn't let me only adjust the one drives mount point.
  7. So to follow up on my query, checking lsblk -f it shows me that the UUID of each drive is different but the mount points are the same leaving additional drives unable to be accessed. So is it possible for UD to mount devices by the long name that Unraid shows or preferably UUID? Is it possible for me to change this? For my purpose, this would be a better implementation rather then trunctuated naming.
  8. Yes, I noticed I was missing my SMART data and wondered how hard it would be to recover in the event of a failure! I do intend to replace my card but at the moment I am unsure of connection names & compatibility with drive backplate so I only need it to last a couple of months until I can afford to swap out. However, at the moment all my drives are fine (I already checked prior to removal from previous systems) and I need to try to configure UD to allow multiple devices so I can reorganise files.
  9. Unraid works fine and I have no problems with the drives within the array at all, since each drive is in it's own RAID0, I beleive it is referered to as JBOD?! But everything points to UD which seems to have the problem of multiple devices on the same card being mounted at the same time. The P400 doesn't have a HBA mode and I do agree that a HBA is better but my budget means I have to use what I have already got at the moment.
  10. Hi to all! I'm a new member and user of Unraid and UD and am so far impressed with the capabilities they offer! It's great to see such a helpful community and hope that someone can help. To be honest, i'm a bit overwhelmed and am struggling with possibly a simple configuration. I have a HP P400 Smart Array Card and am running each drive in a seperate RAID 0 so that it is managed by Unraid. However, UD only shows the first part of the device name eg. some of the devices full names are: LOGICAL_VOLUME_PAFGL0P9SWY149_3600508b1001050395357593134390009 LOGICAL_VOLUME_PAFGL0P9SWY149_3600508b1001050395357593134390008 (Only the last digit is different) But UD only shows them as: LOGICAL_VOLUME_PAFGL0P9SWY149 When mounting more than 1 device with UD, only the first is mounted and all drives with the name LOGICAL_VOLUME_PAFGL0P9SWY149 are fixed to a single mountpoint and others show 0 size. If I try to change mount point on any drive then it effects all drives connected to the card which haven't been added to the Unraid array. Since I have an 8 port card, this is obviously going to cause some problems. This does not effect the data and cache drives (Which are on the same controller) that I have already added to the array and these show the full name (Not the short one) which is why I beleive it to be a UD setting. It seems that the short name is what is causing the issue that it wont differentiate between them when mounted. Is there a way to force full name recognition or another work around?! I have tried searching for my problem but haven't found any similar problem. Thanks to all of you in advance!