PlayLoud

They added more information, but it's all Greek to me.

For anybody who has been following this, I downloaded Deluge for Windows and set it up as a thin client that connects to my unRAID DelugeVPN docker. While not a "fix" for Deluge's docker issue, it is definitely a workaround.

Somebody from Deluge replied to that post...

Thank you for replying! The post you linked wasn't me, but I'm glad to see somebody has already reported it to Deluge. I'm still learning about Dockers and how they work. I'll follow the thread you linked on the Deluge board and check out their bug board. Thank you again!

I reported this back in May in this very thread. Others have noticed it also. Is there any way this can get some traction? It's frustrating when you're trying to add 10+ torrents, but you can only click the add button if there is only one torrent selected. It was working fine until about mid-late May. Since then, you can't click the add button if multiple torrents are selected.

Recently (probably since the last time I updated), I've noticed I can no longer add multiple torrent files at a time. If I select more than one torrent file, the final "add" button doesn't do anything. Anybody else noticing this?

Does this mean you could have multiple 28+2 unRAID arrays under the same license/installation? Or would it still be the same maximum device limitation for all unRAID arrays combined within the single system?

Yup, we would all welcome an official response. Like, TODAY... and BEFORE they make any changes. The worst thing they could do would be to not respond in a timely manner.

Since your times seem normal, I don't think you'll get any meaningful speed increase with a faster HBA. The one your looking at isn't cheap either. Your current limit appears to be the speed of your drives. It's really the nature of the beast. If your want fast parity rebuilds, you'll have to use all lower capacity drives that can get through the entire drive faster (not worth the storage tradeoff), or you can get at least some speed increase by getting rid of your smallest drives to keep the first half of your parity check faster. The most efficient route is using all the same drive size, so that you're not getting that slow down as the smaller drives finish on the slow part of the platter. If 8TB is your parity, you could replace all your 4TB with 8TB, thought it always hurts to spend money on a drive and only gain 4TB. In addition, getting higher performance drives (maybe WD Ultrastars instead of Reds) for all your drives would speed up the process. But even then, you're only talking about shaving a few hours at most. Unless you're planning on expanding beyond 16 drives, I think your current HBA is fine.

That sounds normal to me. When I had only 10TB Red drives (1 Party, 4 Data), I think it took me ~19 hours. This was on an LSI 9207-8i, so no bottleneck on the HBA. Your 4TB drives are probably slowing you down a bit as they'll be reaching the inner part of the platter (slower) while the 8TB drives are still on the outside (faster). You probably notice after you pass up the 4TB mark, your speed goes back up a bit as the 8TB drives are no longer being bottlenecked by the slower 4TB drives.

Thank you!

Mostly. As I said, I have two different cache pools now. I was mostly wondering if there is any kind of limitation on setting up multiple RAID configurations (one RAID 1, and one RAID 0), whether that be a limitation of Unraid itself, or something inherently in the SATA controllers on motherboards. Stuff like that.

So, I'm in the middle of planning an upgrade of my server, and my main cache pool will be going from 2x 1TB SATA SSDs (RAID 1) to 2x 2TB NVMe SSDs (RAID 1). However, I'm also planning on moving my secondary cache pool (currently a 14TB spinny) to 2-3x 4TB (8-12TB total) SATA SSDs in RAID 0. This would just be for torrents and my own blu-ray rips before moving them over to the array, so it's only an inconvenience if a drive fails. Anything important would be on the array. I know it's a bit of overkill for such tasks, but I sometimes want to transfer stuff while those Linux ISOs are downloading at high speed, and I'd like to see bigger numbers on the transfer. Also, it's fun to see what I can do. I'm just curious if there's any limitation in having both a RAID 1 cache pool and a RAID 0 cache pool at the same time?

UnRAID will put them in the correct slot based on their serial numbers. That said, take a pic of their locations anyway.

Thank you for all the info. I changed the split level back and deleted the folders that brought the total over 5TB (this also deleted those small .xml files that were on Disk 2). Then I started transferring again, and the remaining folders started going to Disk 2. It looks like all will be good once this last couple TB transfers, but I will keep your suggestions in mind if this ever comes up again. That's one area where I have no bottleneck. 10g