civic95man

I've been seeing these crash dumps in my syslog recently and its gotten me a little worried. I just recently upgraded my CPU and I'm worried it is hardware (CPU) related. If that's the case, then I would need to confirm so that I can return it (the CPU) within the warranty window. Previously, I had not seen any hardware issues with my prior CPU/system combination. Also, to complicate matters more, I'm running the nvidia version of unraid. Now, before I get yelled at, I realize the its not officially supported; however, if this issue is truly software only, then I can ask for help in the appropriate channels. At this point, I'm only asking if its hardware related. The system had been working fine for the past few days - besides some networking related crash dumps(which I was going to ask about) - until this morning when I checked on the system and the web GUI was unresponsive and would only partially load pages. I pulled the diagnostics and rebooted and it seems fine now, but I'm still worried about the crash dumps appearing in the logs. I really appreciate any advise I can get on this matter. datanode2-diagnostics-20191229-2111.zip

I love how easy it is to add drives as funds allow. For 2020, I'd like to see separate pools

Thats funny because I swear 6.7.2 had Thunderbolt support in some way. At that time, I was trying to use a 7th gen intel NUC with an external Thunderbolt to PCIe enclosure (for an HBA card). With the stock unraid kernel/build it sorta worked (initially worked) but it proved to be too unstable in the long run. I've since gone in the opposite direction and built a full server. I assumed the thunderbolt to PCIe function required a driver of some sort to manage/enable but maybe it was transparent to the OS. I never truly found an answer to that on google. At the time, I never saw any thunderbolt modules loading and just assumed it was part of the kernel.

my linux-fu is lacking but I *believe* you could add an "&" to the end of your command in the go file which should send the wget to the background and allow the rest of the system to come up. wget --user=user--password='pw' ftp://adr:port/file -O /root/keyfile &

This release seems to have fixed my issue with: added my 2 disks without issue! Thanks for the quick fix as always! Also, thanks for explaining the reason/cause of the failure. I always find it interesting.

@limetech, all seems good now. Much appreciated! I take it that reflink=1 is the new default for xfs?

Interesting... Is this an option to enable as default at compile time? Its my understanding that reflink is similar to cow on btrfs? Is this accurate? Thanks for testing the previous versions. I guess that helps put my mind at ease. Correct, the xfs free space doesn't directly affect this bug report. I was thinking of @je82's original post mentioning this issue along side the preclear/format issue.

I don't. I was questioning if it was set. I already removed the 2 drives I had formatted otherwise I would have checked for myself. This was merely a suggested cause of the increased "used" space after formatting, and a quick google search pulled up this: https://serverfault.com/questions/983907/newly-created-xfs-filesystem-shows-78-gb-used I guess I'm nervous about formatting and beginning to fill up a drive that *possibly* would become invalid in the future.

Regarding the additional used space after the format (in my case, after rebooting the server after the initial format resulted in a freeze): I found mention of reflink=1 during mkfs.xfs time resulting in the extra metadata creation/reservation (such as 78G for a 12TB drive), whereas reflink=0 resulted in the standard 1GB per TB we were used to. @johnnie.black, do you still have your cleared xfs drive and if so, could you format it and see what if reflink=1 was used? Just an idea as to solve the mystery of the increase in initial "used" space after format. Edit: Would this mean that any disks formatted with this option (i.e. in 6.8 series) would be incompatible with older versions of unraid (6.7.2 and older)?

As stated, formatting on an already pre-cleared drive works (I tried formatting after my server came back up after the crash).

Correct, array is not encrypted. Original array was created with 6.7 series. I used the exact process when this happened, only I have 1 parity and I was adding 2 drives to the array at the same time. And I had the exact same result

I can enable logging to flash and *try* adding the drive to the pool again this evening (preclearing and formatting) to see what happens but I'm hesitant since I just got my parity rebuilt. I'm actually leaning towards finding an old 1TB drive to test with so I'm not waiting to preclear an entire 4TB drive just for testing. Any thoughts?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the assumption that the onbaord video on the supermicro boards are very limited (64mb 2d only) and are really there for console diagnostics or such. I was too scared to try to boot mine into gui fearing it would cause issues. But glad to see it's possible if needed

@Djoss, Is there a way to get the autoripper to set the output directory based on the disc type? i.e. DVD -> /output/DVD/ BR -> /output/BR/ UHD -> /output/UHD/ I'm trying to use your handbrake docker as well to automate the process but I don't really want to apply a blanket preset for all content but rather have one for DVDs, one for BR, and one for UHD. I figure I can use the multiple watch folder option with handbrake but I still need a way to sort the incoming files by origin type. Thanks and really appreciate the work!

Sorry forgot to mention that - without encryption. I'm not hurting for storage space right now so I can remove those 2 drives and start the process over with logging to get some diagnostics. I'm at work now so it'll have to wait until this evening

Its funny that you noticed this behavior as I had the same issue happen to me last night. I had just received 2 new drives and threw them into the server and started a preclear on both. After the preclear finished, I went to format the two drives and all hell broke loose. I first noticed that the format operation was taking too long, but walked away and came back maybe 15 minutes later and saw it was still formatting (according the the GUI via web). tried refreshing the page and the server wasn't responding. I then noticed that some open shares on another computer disconnected. Check the console (it runs semi-headless) and saw a massive amount of text flying through the screen - too much/fast to read any of it. I rebooted the server, and has since formatted the drives and they are part of the pool.... but I remember the "used" capacity after formatting being more than usual as well (~4gb for a 4TB drive if i remember right, dont remember what these 2 show now). I'm running RC5 right now but have no diagnostics [yet] as i thought it was possibly a hardware failure (lost some sleep over this) so didn't think to grab anything. I just wanted to throw my hat in and say its not just you

128GB ECC DDR4 - probably overkill but I got it for cheap. 2 VMs with 16GB assigned to each Rip to ram and transcode from there to a user share

I had a similar issue last week with drives being marked bad/disabled while I was tracking down some hardware gremlins. The drives were actually fine so this is what I did (going from memory)..... Tools->new config. from the drop down, select preserve [ALL] drive assignments and apply. Go back to drive assignments and they should all be correctly assigned but marked as new. At the bottom, select "parity is valid" and start array. After it starts, all of the drives should be happy. In my case, I would also start the array in maintenance mode and turn around and do a non-correcting parity check to ensure everything is working correctly (hardware and drive wise). btw, I'm running 6.7.2 but it would still be the same for you.

This is a strange one here and unfortunately I need help. To sum it up, one of my data drives is reporting as disabled after the system became unresponsive during a parity check. Now, the long story: I finally had my unraid server all put together how I wanted it and decided to stress test the hardware to find any issues - well I guess I did. I started the array (7 data, 1 parity) in maintenance mode and ran a non-corrective parity check (I figured no sense in hosing things if an error killed my parity). That was last night, parity check ran for about an hour with 11 more hours until completion so I went to sleep figuring I would wake up in the morning and check things out before work. I was logged in remotely last night on my laptop to monitor the temperature, any errors, etc during the parity check and left it on. In the morning, the unraid web interface was unresponsive and the server couldn't be reached. Unfortunately, I had booted the server up into no GUI with the framebuffer disabled for VM reasons so I could not see what had happened and was forced to do an unclean shutdown (power button had now effect). When it booted up (this time with the GUI and framebuffer enabled), the array showed disk 1 as disabled and I am at a loss as what to do. The drive is present in the array, just disabled. I'm nervous to do anything until I know what to do first. Also, I would really like to have any suggestions as to what could have caused this. I can imagine the logs are lacking as they were pulled after I was forced to power down the server so all of the details are missing from the time of the incident. Any help would really be nice. Thank you datanode2-diagnostics-20191004-1305.zip

I would really like to see if Thunderbolt support could be included in unraid. I'm assuming it would be just a matter of enabling that option for the kernel and building the required modules. With a Thunderbolt device attached, I can see the thunderbolt controller but the attached device is not present. I also don't see any modules loaded for thunderbolt which leads me to believe that it was left out of the kernel. With that said, I loaded up an ubuntu live usb (18.04.3) and the thunderbolt device was present and the relevant modules loaded. Security could be handled at the command line level, no additional tools necessary. This would be the final missing link for me to get my system finalized and running. Thanks!

I have an intel nuc7i5 as my Unraid server. It has a Thunderbolt 3 port which I'm trying to use with a Rocketstor 6661A Thunderbolt 3 to PCIe 3.0 x4 enclosure for my LSI HBA. I've already disabled security in my BIOS for the Thunderbolt port. My issue is that the LSI card is not detected in Unraid and I see no evidence that any Thunderbolt modules are being loaded. Does this mean that Unraid doesn't have support for Thunderbolt? Is this just an issue of a feature request or a deeper problem? I would really like to avoid having to compile my own custom kernel/modules for this to work. And before anyone says to get a different computer, this is all I have at the moment and I like the size/quiet factor of the nuc. Thanks for any help I can get.

Yes, that is what I figured the problem was. I was just really wishing to find a fix to allow me to use 2 enclosures. The box's ID/serial number is appended to the end of the hdd (wd red) so all four look the same in the enclosure with the exception of the port and bay (maybe) identifier after that. Anyway, thanks

You are correct. I have been hopping around between different posts trying to figure out my problem and must have confused it with another similar one where they were using USB for the interface. With all of that said, I have a very similar issue as the OP and getting nearly identical results as they had - just with different drive names and identifiers. When it was mentioned that there might be a bug in the way /dev/disk/by-id was being populated by udev, i wondered if there was confirmation of this or any other news. As for not using USB to connect drives - I understand the issues and concern; however I have no other means to add drives at this time. So it boils down to USB or nothing.

Is this issue/bug going to be fixed? I'm experiencing the same issue with 2 identical USB 4-bay enclosures. Both enclosures/drives are identified and seen by the system but one enclosure does not appear in the drop-down. Just seeing if this will be fixed in the future or not.