Opawesome

Dear @JorgeB and @jonathanm, Many thanks for your insights. The data on the disk ,o which the errors occurred is a backup from another location. I guess I could run an rsync command with the "checksum option" to double check integrity of that backed-up data. I understand however that because: (i) I had a parity2 drive and (ii) the parity check finished with 0 error, it is likely that my data is not corrupted. FYI, I also run another parity check today, which resulted in 0 read error and 0 parity check error. Thank you again. Best regards, OP

I also feel that, if you have the time, it may be best to invest that time in learning yourself how to do it. I have been doing it for years and I always managed to get things setup the way I wanted eventually. There is not reason you could not do it as well.

Hi @JorgeB, Many thanks for your reply. So given the context and outcome, I understand that my disk encountered a read error and not a write error. Attached is the S.M.A.R.T. report after an extended test of the drive. It says the drive passed the test (although the Raw_Read_Error_Rate is 792 !?!) so I may not have to hurry too much replacing it. Best, OP

Hi @jonathanm, Thank you very much for taking the time to reply and share your thoughts. I did not mention that I indeed have 2 parity drives. I would indeed be glad if @limetech could indeed what happens when a read error occurs during a parity check. Meanwhile, I am running an extended S.M.A.R.T. test as you suggested. I will report back with the result when available. Best, OP.

Hi all, I am probably too concerned but I hope you guys can give me advice. After a "non-clean" shutdown, Unraid started a parity check. During the process, one of the data drives returned 92 errors. Yet, the parity check finished with 0 errors (see image attached). I am thinking of replacing the incriminated drive (which is rather old) but should I do something else? I am correct to assume that none of my data is corrupted because of the 92 errors ? Many thanks OP

Hi, I am not an expert but this looks good to me, assuming all drives are of the same RPM/cache specifications (I believe it is best to assign "faster"/more robust hard drives to parity). And also maybe you can consider using your 2 5.5TB drives to have dual parity. That would of course reduce your usable array size but in your current configuration, that spare 4.5TB drive would only be useful if you need to replace your other 4.5TB anyway. Edit: I realise that you may intend to use one of the enclosure's trays for the 2.5" SSD cache drive, so the above may be irrelevant. Best OP

Dear jonathanm, itimpi and DougCube, Thank you very much for taking the time to explain and give advice. I think I will let it rest for a day or two and we will see then who wins between my OCD (desire to have the drives well sorted out) and my fear of having to rebuild parity2 Best regards, OP

Hi itimpi, Thank you very much. I am indeed well aware of this. This is why I asked if party2 will become invalid, although all drives would remain in the same order. Is moving disks 5-8 to slots 9-12 (both physically and in the array configuration) considered a "change in the order of the drives" ? Many thanks. Best, OP

Hi trurl, Many thanks for your answer. I appreciate it. So I understand that: parity1 will remain valid party2 will become invalid, although all drives would remain in the same order. Can you please confirm whether my understanding is correct? Many thanks. Best regards, OP

Hi all, This question may have been answered already and If so I apologise. If I move disks 5-8 to slots 9-12 (both physically and in the array configuration), will it invalidate my parity (I have 2 parity drives) ? A picture of my array configuration is attached. I could not find the answer in https://wiki.unraid.net/UnRAID_6/Storage_Management or in the forums. Ultimately, I would like to insert 4 additional drives in slots 5-8. Many thanks for your help. Best OP

Thank you @jbartlett. This plugin looks amazing. I uploaded a picture of, and info relating to, my 1TB Intel 660p NVME SSD to the database. For some reason, my 16GB thumb drive stick shows as a 15GB thumb drive: 100 Series/C230 Series Chipset Family USB 3.0 xHCI Controller Super Micro Computer Inc (Intel Corporation) USB controller Drive ID: sda (flash) Vendor: SanDisk' Model: Cruzer Fit Serial Number: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Revision: 0 Capacity: 15GB Logical/Physical Sector Size: 512/512 Any idea why ? Not that this is an issue, I am just curious. Best, OP

This is indeed very relevant. As far as I am concerned, I have a use case where my Plex Docker container has read-only access to my media share because I am afraid what Plex or users using Plex could do to my files. But because I also want Plex to grab subtitles files and and them in the same folder as the corresponding media file (there is a plugin for that), I need to switch the Plex Docker container settings to read-write every time before I update the Plex library, and then switch it back to read-only afterwards. To ease the process, I have duplicated my Plex Docker container, with both sharing the same appdata and different access permissions to my media folder but still, this is not convenient and when the read-write permissions are on, my media is vulnerable. The chattr +i function just seems a much more suitable solution.

Hi @binhex Many thanks. I am also very concerned about ransomware. For now I have my media shares set as read-only in Unraid. Could you please clarify to ignorant people like me how setting all files individually as read-only is different/preferable to what Unraid does ? Many thanks. Best, OP EDIT: OK, I realise now that the script does not set files as read-only but sets them "immutable" via chattr : So I imagine this is indeed much more difficult for a ransomware to first remove the "i" chattr attribute.

And here is update no. 3 of servethehome.com's article by Patrick Kennedy, dated June 14, 2020: https://www.servethehome.com/wd-red-dm-smr-update-3-vendors-bail-and-wd-knew-of-zfs-issues/ ...together with the accompanying YouTube video:

For those who like Linus Tech Tips, they also published a video on the subject :

Hi @jonathanm, Thank you for your reply. I'll follow your advice then. Should I maybe setup a VM with a trial version of Unraid to make my tests ? Best, OP

Hi all, I would like to add a small capacity drive (like a USB key) to my array in order to make some tests using LUKS encryption (with the view of replacing the USB key with a "normal" hard drive if my tests are conclusive). Anyway... I would like to know how will parity be rebuilt once I remove the USB drive from the array. Will the whole parity need to be rebuild or just a portion equalling the size of the USB key ? I know there is a possibility to zero a drive before removing it from the array in order to preserve parity but I admit I do not trust it. Many thanks in advance for your help. Best, OP

I had the same issue. I removed the image and pull it back. Now the "not available icon" is gone and replaces by the regular "force update / up to date" button / message.

Thank you very much. I feel much obliged. Best, OP

The docker has indeed managed to connect to https://notabug.org/RemixDev/deemix-pyweb.git now and starts. I have one question though regarding permissions. It seems that the Deemix docker creates files with permissions set as 644. Is there any way to change the settings so that the docker creates files with permissions set to 666 instead ? I tried adding a UMASK variable set to 0000 in the docker config but it did not fix the issue. Many thanks, OP

I do not know if this is related to this: but i am getting that in the log when starting Deemix docker: [s6-init] making user provided files available at /var/run/s6/etc...exited 0. [s6-init] ensuring user provided files have correct perms...exited 0. [fix-attrs.d] applying ownership & permissions fixes... [fix-attrs.d] done. [cont-init.d] executing container initialization scripts... [cont-init.d] 10-adduser: executing... usermod: no changes ------------------------------------- _ () | | ___ _ __ | | / __| | | / \ | | \__ \ | | | () | |_| |___/ |_| \__/ Brought to you by linuxserver.io We gratefully accept donations at: https://www.linuxserver.io/donate/ ------------------------------------- GID/UID ------------------------------------- User uid: 99 User gid: 100 ------------------------------------- [cont-init.d] 10-adduser: exited 0. [cont-init.d] 20-download: executing... [cont-init.d] Downloading and unpacking [cont-init.d] First start, cloning repo Cloning into 'deemix'... fatal: unable to access 'https://notabug.org/RemixDev/deemix-pyweb.git/': The requested URL returned error: 502 touch: cannot touch '/deemix/updated': No such file or directory [cont-init.d] 20-download: exited 1. [cont-init.d] 30-config: executing... usermod: no changes [cont-init.d] Setting permissions this may take some time [cont-init.d] 30-config: exited 0. [cont-init.d] 40-install: executing... [cont-init.d] Using ARL token from environment variable [cont-init.d] 40-install: exited 0. [cont-init.d] done. [services.d] starting services ./run: line 3: cd: /deemix: No such file or directory [services.d] Starting with ARL [services.d] done. python3: can't open file '/deemix/server.py': [Errno 2] No such file or directory ./run: line 3: cd: /deemix: No such file or directory [services.d] Starting with ARL python3: can't open file '/deemix/server.py': [Errno 2] No such file or directory ./run: line 3: cd: /deemix: No such file or directory

The flexibility offered regarding the addition of new drives to the pool. A file browser/manager in the webUI (see this feature request for example : https://forums.unraid.net/topic/61985-file-browser-in-webui/)

Update : So: (i) I switched back the "NVME Firmware Source" setting in the BIOS from "AMI Native Support" to "Vendor firmware" (thus putting the system back to its original status) and; (ii) I filled the supposedly defective NVME SSD with data and performed a scrub (several times) ; but I still could not detect/produce any error on the cache drive. This is good news but, in a way, I could not perform a diagnosis of my issue and now I have this sword of Damocles hanging over my head Conclusion: It may just have been the connections which had become lose or something, and intalling a new drive followed by putting the old one back in place may have actually solved the problem. Also, I did notice a drop of viscous liquid on the back side of the supposedly defective NVME SSD, which seemed to come from the thermal pad of the SSD's heatsink. I cleaned this liquid before reinstalling the NVME SSD so it may have been the cause as well.

Update : I reinstalled the supposedly defective NVME SSD but changed the "NVME Firmware Source" setting in the BIOS from "Vendor firmware" to "AMI Native Support". Then, I completly filled and emptied the drive (twice), I could not reproduce the errors. Perfoming a scrub dod not return any error either. The errors may have been caused by this BIOS setting or a bad connection on the M.2 slot after all. Filling up the drive for the 3rd time now. We'll see...

Hi @johnnie.black, Thank you very much for your answer. I feel stupid but indeed, my new "NVME SSD WD blue 1TB" was in fact a "SATA SSD "WD blue 1TB"... I did type "NVME 1TB" in the amazon search bar but I was obviously not careful enough. Lesson learnt. Now buying a new "actual NVME" SSD to see if the issue can be fixed that way. G