jkp1187
-
Posts
19 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Store
Gallery
Bug Reports
Documentation
Landing
Posts posted by jkp1187
-
-
30 minutes ago, trurl said:
yes and yes. You have to rebuild parity of course.
Wonderful - thanks for your help.
2 hours ago, Jojomatik said:So, do i need to move data to the HDD beforehand and back to the SSD afterwards or can I just assign it as a cache drive and keep the data on it
You're thinking of using this as a cache drive, right? Why would you store stuff "permanently" on it? You've got two beautiful new 4TB HDDs which would do that, after all....
See generally: https://wiki.unraid.net/Cache_disk
Edited - got rid of section where I was probably wrong about something. Per above it looks like it IS okay to use cache drive for other purposes.
-
4 hours ago, JorgeB said:
You just need to assigned as a single cache device.
...which I'm assuming I'd do with NewConfig, right?
Also, as part of the re-assigment, is it bad if I have a gap in disk numbering?
Right now I have this setup:
Disk 1 = HDD (which will receive the data)
Disk 2 = SSD (with data to be transferred to #1)
Disks 3-5 = HDDs not part of this change up
Can I leave Disk 2 "empty" after I transfer the data off to Disk 1 and reassign as cache drive, or do I have to close up the gap?
-
I have a somewhat similar situation, and I suspect the answer will be the same so am posting here as well...
I have two 1TB SSDs currently in the array as Data disks - one SATA and one NVME - and a brand-new 4TB HDD waiting to be installed.
For the SATA SSD, the change will be straightforward - unplug it, plug the new HDD in and UNRAID will simply rebuild it. The SATA SSD then gets installed in a different system.
But I want to keep the NVME SSD in there as a cache drive. And obviously, I can't just 'unplug it' and replace it because I only have one new HDD.
I've seen info on copying stuff between drives in the array - and I did find this which describes consolidating two drives into one (which may be the answer to @jojomatik's question, although it was last updated in 2016, so I do not know if it's still 100% accurate: https://wiki.unraid.net/Replacing_Multiple_Data_Drives_with_a_Single_Larger_Drive)
..but I haven't found anything on how to convert the SSD data drive to a cache drive. (Would this be a newconfig procedure as well?)
Thanks!
-
4 hours ago, trurl said:
What version Unraid? I'm not sure AFP is still supported. I think even Apple has moved away from it.
Unraid 6.8.3.
As for AFP - I hadn't realized it was so out of date. I saw it as an option and figured it might be worthwhile to use that (Hey, it's Apple, right?) but if SMB is preferred, that's an easy fix for me. I just figured I'd give it a try and see if it was any better / faster.... (I'm also not saying I got it confused with APFS, but I may have gotten it confused with APFS.)
https://eclecticlight.co/2019/12/09/can-you-still-use-afp-sharing/
^^ According to this article, it hasn't been updated in about 7 years now...
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT200160
^^ Apple support article hasn't been updated in 4 years, called it a legacy.
Fine. I'll stick to SMB and see if there's any further connectivity issues here.
-
Read only for guests. I believe it was AFP.
-
Bumping this thread - I am encountering the same issue, but in my case it's all Macs using the same version of Mojave. If one of them creates a folder, the other cannot save to it. Read, yes, save, no. Like the Macs are, independent of UNRAID, setting some sort of user-only permissioning on the folders they create.
At this time, each Mac has its own UNRAID login, but I was encountering the issue when I was logged in with the SAME ID, too.
Any suggestions as to where to start?
-
Bumping this - I'm in a similar situation, would like to have the full 50GB library hosted on UNRAID to free up space on the 250GB SSD on my Mac Mini.
Are the issues just transfer speeds? Would a cache drive help in that regard, for instance? -
On 8/29/2020 at 2:52 AM, JorgeB said:
Correct.
Could invalidslot be used to rebuild more than one drive? (I'm assuming not, but I tend to learn more when I ask dumb questions...)
-
1 hour ago, trurl said:
Rebuilding a failed drive uses the parity data with the data from all the other drives to calculate the data to rebuild the failed drive.
New Config enables all disks again and rebuilds parity based on all the disks in the array. If a disk is missing, the parity rebuild will not include that disk. And if the disk is not missing but is returning bad data, that bad data will be part of the parity rebuild.
So, after New Config rebuilds parity, anything that parity had before that would have allowed a failed or missing disk to be rebuilt is no longer there.
Invalidslot makes New Config rebuild a specified data disk instead of rebuilding parity.
Got it. And the "3 29" appended to the end means disk 3 and disk 29 are 'invalid' -- where disk 29 == parity 2 (which I don't have). I assume if I had a valid Parity 2, the command would've been 'invalidslot 3' only?
-
On 8/27/2020 at 10:27 AM, johnnie.black said:
I would guess a standard replace and rebuild should do it, but it's something I never tried.
Yes, it worked exactly as expected - powered down to replace the drive, powered back up. Parity was renamed, re-did the NewConfig/Invalidslot process as outlined above, let it build, ran file check, all is good. Parts being ordered for a proper system unit now as opposed to this USB-frankenstein setup...
Out of curiosity, why did that work? What exactly was 'invalidslot' doing such that it overrode the dark "DO NOT USE THIS UTILITY THINKING IT WILL REBUILD A FAILED DRIVE" warning UNRAID provides on the NewConfig page?
-
Well, I'll follow up once I try it. In the meantime, i can access my data and back it up properly, and either way this is data that would've made things ugly (but not fatal) if it was lost, so it could've been worse.
Thanks again.
-
22 minutes ago, johnnie.black said:
Looks like you used a slightly smaller disk to replace disk3:
Aug 26 18:00:39 ZOE-X1 kernel: attempt to access beyond end of device Aug 26 18:00:39 ZOE-X1 kernel: md3: rw=4096, want=4000797296, limit=3907029104
Disk needs to be same size or larger.
Darn. Got it.
I happen to have a second drive on hand, definitely larger (it is 4TB). I am going to get it connected up and rebuild that as Disk 3. Hopefully that will get this under control long enough for me to get a far more sensible system in the next month.
Are there any nuances to that approach, or should the drive swap be relatively straightforward at this point?
I cannot thank you enough for all of your help, by the way!
-
4 hours ago, johnnie.black said:
Please post the diagnostics: Tools -> Diagnostics
See attached.
-
20 hours ago, johnnie.black said:
disk should mount immediately but if it's unmountable don't format, wait for the rebuild to finish and then run a filesystem check
Okay, so followed directions as above, and it looks like it completed, but it's still showing as unmountable.
After stopping array and turning on maintenance mode, I do N O T see "Check Filesystem Status" available for Disk 3 under MAIN --> DISK 3. The section is just missing. It is available for other data disks, just not this one.
This is what I am seeing in maintenance mode at the moment:
Am running 6.8.3. Not sure how to proceed here.
EDITED TO ADD: second screenshot shows that it still wants to format the drive.... Also, I have not rebooted since beginning this process, if that makes a difference.
-
Single Parity. HDD is housed in an OWC Mercury Elite Pro external architecture with an HDD in it connected via USB to an Intel NUC.
Using 6.8.3, dated 2020-03-05.
[Yes, in retrospect, this may not have been the wisest configuration....]
-
9 hours ago, johnnie.black said:
There is but parity needs to be valid, why is parity "wrong"?
Parity should be valid, but the name randomly changed upon reboot:
-
I am in a situation similar to Doc Brown's....except in my case the drive really IS toast.
So I'm getting the "wrong" message with the Parity drive...and I need to replace disk 3 while I'm at it.
When I go to the New Config screen, I see a scary message that says
"DO NOT USE THIS UTILITY THINKING IT WILL REBUILD A FAILED DRIVE - it will have the opposite effect of making it impossible to rebuild an existing failed drive - you have been warned!"
Is there a way to simply rename (or force UNRAID to acknowledge) the existing parity drive other than New Config?
If I go through with New Config with Preserve Current Assignments == ALL, will I lose the data on the replaced Disk 3?
-
On 8/6/2018 at 6:08 PM, SpaceInvaderOne said:
Are you running the latest unRAID. You will only see it in the dropdown from 6.5.1 onwards. For older unRAID builds you will have to goto advance settings then manually enter into the extra parameters like this.
--network=[networkname]I would upgrade to the latest stable unRAID unless there is any reason that you must stay on the older one.
I am encountering this problem at setup - I create the network in terminal, but I get this error message when I go to install LetsEncrypt....
/usr/bin/docker: Error response from daemon: network tpgproxy not found.
The command failed.
I am on 6.7.2.Any suggestions on where to start here? I've done this repeatedly
file browser in webui
in Feature Requests
Posted
Another +1 here. As an optional feature, this could be very handy.