sota

Did not know that. already changed. thanks!

hijack: so you're telling me i should have my monthly scheduled parity check be a "NO" for Write Corrections? Is that suggestion listed in a Best Practices someplace? I can understand the logic though, based on your response.

Heck i'm pretty sure VMWare used to (maybe still does?) sell product on USB sticks, since they do the same thing as unRAID does.

try running this: grep "[0-9]" /sys/devices/system/edac/mc/mc*/csrow*/ch*_ce_count and posting the results, AFTER you confirm you're still having errors. It'll basically list exactly which memory chips are bad, in the order they're installed on the board, per physical processor.

I've had similar experiences but in pure windows environments. In general, having large numbers of files in a given folder will cause major speed issues when it comes to dealing with folder display. I'm kind of surprised 6.7.2 worked faster, though. You should see the performance impact when you have 10,000+ files in a folder (hint... don't do that.) Mind you, i'm digging through memories that are 15+ years old here, but it has something to do with SMB and it's presentation methods. Local disk browsing or even direct file access had no speed issues, just folder browsing of very large folders. If you have that many files, there's got to be a logical way to organize them into subfolders.

PNY Attache USB 2.0 Flash Drive, 32GB / BLACK / 5 PACK (P-FD32GX5ATT03-MP) That's what i'm using. Only been 2 months but, they should be good to go.

@Frank1940 There are grains of truth in what you wrote. An article/interview I recently read from backblaze https://www.backblaze.com/blog/how-backblaze-buys-hard-drives/ lays out a lot of your points. For the TL;DR crowd... We haven't had a WD Caviar or Seagate Click-Of-Death fiasco in a long time; those were in the 2000s. (although to this day I still can't forgive Seagate for that, or the 90% failure rate (not a joke!) I had on one of their enterprise differential SCSI drive lines. That was a dark time persoanally.)

Understood. However, your "obligations" are of your own making, and of your own choosing, as is your methods of dealing with them. How you choose to run your business is your choice, just as we all make choices for our own occupations. The terms for the software in question were laid out before you purchased. I'm assuming you read them and understood them. Any risks involving them are then yours to accept or to deny. You chose to purchase the product. Ergo you have accepted the terms. I think that will be my final word on this.

I figured/hoped. It's on the list of things to investigate.

It would seem to me that, if the operation is critically dependent on the functionality of your server, that you would have materials in place to ensure that functionality in the case of failure. If that means having duplicate hardware or software (licenses) then that's what's required. I mean, I'm just a lowly little computer guy with a small hosting operation, and I have a cold spare of my main server sitting here, ready to have everything dropped on it at a moments notice. (reminds me... i'm due for an a-periodic bare metal restore test... thanks for that.) I do that because I've made a promise to my clients, and that requires me to do everything in my power to keep it, including keeping $20k+ (original purchase price) of gear sitting idle. If the necessity of maintaining 2 licenses of unRAID is needed to satisfy your uptime requirements due to the fact of you being in the, as you put it, ass end of the world, then that's just the cost of doing business. I would also suggest that you consider looking at your hardware in terms of, can this REALLY satisfy my requirements? I think an honest evaluation might find it wanting.

Good question. I'm going to guess no, given the low price i'm looking at. Since my goal is to keep costs at $10/TB or lower, as long as more than 8 of 10 disks I buy has no major issues, I'd call it a win. eta: one of my intentions is to somehow do a checksum setup for the data on the backup disks, to a-periodically test their contents for validity. still working on that aspect of this project. these are going to be load and forget storage for the most part. backup to the mega movie and TV collection I have here, and possibly other archival needs. I would easily expect to not touch these disks for >2 years, or even ever if i'm being truly lazy.

@Michael_P aye... been working with a vendor to try and supply me 4TB (minimum) sized used disks at $8/TB. Just waiting to see how many disks they want me to buy at that price.

I'd recommend your operation be a copy, not a move, that way if anything goes south you haven't corrupted your original data set.

If you truly need something temporary, then the 30+15+15 time frame hopefully should work for you. You could, as you say, burn through a USB stick every 60 days, and deal with reconfiguring your setup each time. One would have to question, how many sticks do you need to burn through and how much time is wasted in the hassle, before just buying another license isn't worth it to be done with the dance? As for the other aspects of your posts, if you're not getting paid for something you feel you should (not-so-subtle poke in the ribs btw), perhaps you should deal head-on with that issue instead?

Been down this road recently. OS would catch faults in 2 of the 12 sticks in the server, but memtest86 didn't. Got replacement sticks, and no errors since. also looks like you have a pair of 'em bad.

Guess it could be the expander in the drive cage; H240 is a 2x4 12Gb/s lane controller, but the cage is 12+2. Trying to dig up some info on the cage/expander and see if there's a possible bottleneck there. Not that it's a big screaming deal; throughput is well above my normal needs as it is

There's a product out there called Syncrify that does what you talk about. It leaves a "canary" file in the root of the shared data folders, and if it sees that it's changed it cancels the backup/sync immediately. This is one of the reasons why *nix based systems probably won't be my choice for a future project, even though unRAID would be a great storage target; the inability to do native snapshot backups (ala Windows Server Backup in 2008 and up) is a critical function for my work. It's already proven its merit at least once.

I don't know what you can find locally for disk shelves (as you call them) but when you consider the cost of them, plus the cables and controllers, have you considered just replacing the R530 with a different machine entirely, with more drive bays? More info on your current setup would help.

Any chance the H310 is on its way out? You keep moving it, it works for a while, then goes dark.

Curious why the cache disks performed so poorly during simultaneous vs. individual. Only thing notable is they're in the 2 rear chassis bays instead of in the 12 up front.

The difference between new WD Red (shucked White WD100EMAZ) and an older WD Green WD10EACS is hysterical. I uploaded my drive stats to add to the collective.

<John "Hannibal" Smith> I love it when a plan comes together. </John "Hannibal" Smith>

since you said you're using a fan splitter, can you rewire it to run fans in series instead of parallel? your bigger issue will be, getting enough air flow to maintain cooling though.

So, where can I find out what mechanisms are used to populate the display fields. I mean, the attribute (194) is there and populated... So shouldn't it just be a matter of telling whatever is reading it to stick it in the proper place for the dashboard's page to pick it up?

So I recently had the no activity when planning problem pop up too. I tried uninstalling all the extra plugins I have, one by one: File Activity CA Mover Tuning Open Files Fix Common Problems Dynamix SSD Trim Dynamix System Temperature Nerd Tools ... to no effect. I then uninstalled an reinstalled unBALANCE, and it started working again. Finally, I reinstalled all my other plugins, one by one, and tested after each. unBALANCE worked fine after all of them.