Donovan

Members
  • Posts

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Donovan

  • Birthday 08/23/1972

Converted

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Halifax, Nova Scotia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Donovan's Achievements

Noob

Noob (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. Very interesting. I actually always access unRAID using the IP, so I tried http://crushinator instead and it worked. Additionally, I checked cookies and there were 38 for 192.168.1.100 so I (accidentially) removed all cookies and now unRAID responds on 192.168.1.100 as well. Thank you, wise one! ...Donovan
  2. No, sir, hadn't thought of that. Cleared the browser cache in Chrome and FF but the error remains. Still working in IE.
  3. I had an issue where one of my unRAID USB drives would no longer boot. The drive was actually a SD/microSD enclosure that kept mounting and unmounting when I tried it on Windows. I ended up taking the microSD card out and putting it into a USB reader and copied the files from that drive to my other unRAID USB drive and restarted the system from that. I think it was at that point that I found I could no longer open the unRAID GUI in Chrome: 413 Request Entity Too Large I ended up opening it fine in Firefox instead. A week later, I now get the same error, so I've had to go to Internet Explorer to access the GUI. I think I was on b15 when this started, I just upgraded to RC2 and it's still doing it. The log mentions an issue: May 23 11:11:24 Crushinator emhttp: read_line: read_line: input line too long May 23 11:11:24 Crushinator emhttp: read_line: client closed the connection May 23 11:11:25 Crushinator emhttp: read_line: read_line: input line too long May 23 11:12:19 Crushinator emhttp: read_line: read_line: input line too long May 23 11:12:19 Crushinator emhttp: read_line: read_line: input line too long May 23 11:12:19 Crushinator emhttp: read_line: client closed the connection May 23 11:12:58 Crushinator emhttp: read_line: read_line: input line too long May 23 11:12:58 Crushinator emhttp: read_line: client closed the connection May 23 11:12:59 Crushinator emhttp: read_line: read_line: input line too long I removed nerdpack and emby server plugins, which I didn't currently use anyway, leaving no other plugins. I tried disabling all of the plugins in Firefox and restarting it, still happens. I suspect I have to try recreating the server from scratch or some other sort of corruption due to the failing SD/microSD enclosure? Ironically, the whole point of that enclosure was to avoid losing an unRAID key due to USB drive failure... ...Donovan
  4. Hey, I gave up on any responses, so after posting a defect report (with syslog) to the best of my ability (http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=39288), I continued onward: From there, I wanted to copy the files from the failing drive, since it seemed fully intact except for read errors in presumably unused areas of the drive: cp -Rfv /mnt/baddrive/* /mnt/disk9/ I had my terminal (Xshell 5 Free) set to buffer 10,240 lines, so I right-clicked on the console and had it sent to Notepad, where a search for "error" didn't bring up any errors from the copy process. I realize this doesn't rule out any corrupted files that the drive might not be aware of, but hey, I could have lost the entire drive! I had considered running rsync -c to checksum all of the files and see if they are the same on both drives but washn't sure this was worth the effort, since the files could be corrupted on the original drive and that not seeing a difference would not confirm they were perfect, only point out that the copy from the other day isn't matching the source this time around. I also considered finding a utility run through all of the video files, to do a basic confirmation that they are not corrupt. A brief search shows there is no simple tool for this, video files being what they are, so after checking that a few files play back are perfectly fine, I'm going to assume they all fine until I eventually find out that a particular file is corrupt when I try to play it. I'm fairly confident they are perfectly fine, though. I really think unRAID needs to evolve to support dual parity and address bit rot. For now, I'll keep running it, because I've been running it for a few years but the GUI is the only thing currently keeping me from leaving for SnapRAID/MHDDFS. If I find something equivalent (nothing will be as great as the current GUI in unRAID), I will be severely tempted to give it a shot. I hope the detail in these posts helps anyone else in a similar situation. ...Donovan
  5. I've run into an interesting bug in beta14b: I tried adding the new 3TB drive in place of the 2TB drive that failed and was marked unmountable with read errors by unRAID previously. The parity has been lost because another drive died the day before this. The first time I tried this, it simply started the array and said it was unmountable, just the same as before. I had to call it a night at the time. Now, when I stop the array, set the drive to none, start the array, stop the array and add the 3TB in, it indicates I'm doing a drive swap, and I need to check a box to confirm this and bring the array online. When I do this, it still says it is unmountable but it says the drive is unformatted down below. When I check to confirm I want to format and click to do it, the screen refreshes and nothing has changed. No formatting progress or anything else; the drive is still unmountable and I'm told the drive is unformatted. I wanted to add the drive to the array so that when I copy files from the failing drive to it, they won't have to be wiped out in order to add the drive to the array later. ...Donovan
  6. Should have realized it would be something this trivial: mkdir /mnt/baddrive mount /dev/sdd1 /mnt/baddrive The replacement drive is still going through preclear_bjp but presumably the next steps are to add the drive to the array and use the copy (cp) command to copy everything to the new drive. After that, I'll build parity, unless I'm required to do that as part of adding the new drive. I'll continue updating this post in case it is helpful to someone in the future. ...Donovan
  7. Thanks. Good catch. I forgot to mention I had run a self-test, which did confirm the drive failure: Disk 9 attached to port: sdd Num Test Description Status Remaining LifeTime(hours) LBA of first error 1 Extended offline Completed: read failure 30% 32353 290878036 And running against the correct partition didn't appear to indicate anything wrong? root@Crushinator:/home# reiserfsck --check /dev/sdd1 reiserfsck 3.6.24 Will read-only check consistency of the filesystem on /dev/sdd1 Will put log info to 'stdout' Do you want to run this program?[N/Yes] (note need to type Yes if you do):Yes ########### reiserfsck --check started at Sat Apr 11 07:48:10 2015 ########### Replaying journal: Trans replayed: mountid 213, transid 21044, desc 4723, len 1, commit 4725, next trans offset 4708 Trans replayed: mountid 213, transid 21045, desc 4726, len 1, commit 4728, next trans offset 4711 Trans replayed: mountid 213, transid 21046, desc 4729, len 1, commit 4731, next trans offset 4714 Trans replayed: mountid 213, transid 21047, desc 4732, len 1, commit 4734, next trans offset 4717 Trans replayed: mountid 213, transid 21048, desc 4735, len 1, commit 4737, next trans offset 4720 Trans replayed: mountid 213, transid 21049, desc 4738, len 1, commit 4740, next trans offset 4723 Replaying journal: Done. Reiserfs journal '/dev/sdd1' in blocks [18..8211]: 6 transactions replayed Checking internal tree.. finished Comparing bitmaps..finished Checking Semantic tree: finished No corruptions found There are on the filesystem: Leaves 401619 Internal nodes 2412 Directories 109 Other files 9217 Data block pointers 404063516 (0 of them are zero) Safe links 0 ########### reiserfsck finished at Sat Apr 11 07:59:08 2015 ########### Edit: I powered the server down and brought it back up but unRAID still doesn't like the drive. Unmountable disk present: Disk 9 • WDC_WD20EARS-00MVWB0_WD-WMAZ20195097 (sdd) Format will create a file system in all Unmountable disks, discarding all data currently on those disks. Edit 2: In checking the reiserfschk options, I see that it doesn't scan all sectors of the drive (duh, that would take an extremely long time), so perhaps the sectors that can't be read are not currently occupied by any files... Presumably unRAID is checking every bit on the partition and not just the files themselves when it does the parity check, and that's when it encountered the read error. --scan-whole-partition, -S This option causes --rebuild-tree to scan the whole partition, not only used space on the partition. Edit 3: I tried removing the drive from the array, starting the array, then stopping it, adding the drive back and restarting; still unmountable. I picked up a WD Red 3TB in the hopes of being able to transfer what I can off of the drive so I can rebuild parity. I just don't know how to access the drive in order to copy them over from the console. I'm running a pre-clear on the new drive in the meantime. Thanks for any suggestions. ...Donovan
  8. As the subject suggests, I've not had the best of luck and think this illustrates the need, although perhaps rare, for at least two parity drives when you have a large number of drives. Background: I was going to change the hardware out on my system, as the hardware was overkill and I'd given up having given up on using unRAID/Xen on the system as a dual purpose file server/Windows desktop machine Prior to swapping out the mainboard/CPU/RAM to use in a dedicated desktop, I had started a parity check. When I checked it the next day, it appeared the relatively new 3TB drive that was still empty started giving read errors at the very end of the parity check and went offline. The drive had been run through pre-clear about two months earlier without any signs of trouble. I had added it to the array but had not actually moved or added any files to it. I tried checking cables and moving the drive to another 5-in-3 drive bay but the drive would only making head clicking noises as it tried to come online. I decided to go ahead with the mainboard swap, since the drives weren't being moved. I decided, since the failed drive had nothing on it, to do a New Config and simply rebuild the parity. Only 5 minutes into the rebuild, one of the drives also started giving read errors. This is the same drive that had just gone through a 10 hour parity check the night before without any errors. I checked cables and unRAID kept indicating the drive was Unmountable. I moved the drive to another bay and yet unRAID kept saying the drive was Unmountable and the popup said the drive was in an error state. Moved the drive to another drive bay and the same error. This time there is no clicking from the drive, it seems to spin up but unRAID believes it's basically unformatted. Edit: I've been advised in a reply that I should be using /dev/sdd1 root@Crushinator:/home# reiserfsck --check /dev/sdd reiserfsck 3.6.24 Will read-only check consistency of the filesystem on /dev/sdd Will put log info to 'stdout' Do you want to run this program?[N/Yes] (note need to type Yes if you do):Yes reiserfs_open: the reiserfs superblock cannot be found on /dev/sdd. Failed to open the filesystem. If the partition table has not been changed, and the partition is valid and it really contains a reiserfs partition, then the superblock is corrupted and you need to run this utility with --rebuild-sb. It would appear I should be reading through the second page of http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=39149.0 as he seems to have the same issue. (Edit: No, different issue). Just wanted to pass along my experience and I welcome any suggestions. I find it really unlucky for both drives to go like this but now this has me thinking that, in large (14 drive) arrays like this, I may have to abandon unRAID and move on to something with dual parity like SnapRAID, even though the beauty of unRAID is the web GUI. ...Donovan Edited to tweak formatting and clarify slightly.
  9. I'm not sure what to make of these notifications after rebooting: unRAID Disk 2 SMART health [188]: 2015-02-26 06:31 PM Warning [CRUSHINATOR] - command timeout is 90195689498 ST31500341AS_6VS03J6M (sdo) × unRAID Disk 1 SMART health [188]: 2015-02-26 06:31 PM Warning [CRUSHINATOR] - command timeout is 8590065670 ST31000528AS_9VP97NMW (sdp) × unRAID Disk 3 SMART health [188]: 2015-02-26 06:31 PM Warning [CRUSHINATOR] - command timeout is 47245361217 ST31500341AS_9VS1MA5Q (sdq) × unRAID Disk 4 SMART health [188]: 2015-02-26 06:31 PM Warning [CRUSHINATOR] - command timeout is 47245361166 ST31500541AS_6XW0M4TZ (sdh) × unRAID Disk 12 SMART health [188]: 2015-02-26 06:31 PM Warning [CRUSHINATOR] - command timeout is 1 ST32000641AS_9WM45ZH4 (sdl) Anything to be concerned about? I note they reference just some of the Seagates and none of the WD's. ...Donovan
  10. Edit: We all posted a reply in a fairly short period of time Found this via Google, 32-bit only. ReiserFS and XFS: http://www.crossmeta.org/crossmeta.html ReiserFS: http://yareg.akucom.de/ http://www.diskinternals.com/linux-reader/ probably others. I wouldn't use any of these tools except in a recovery situation, personally.
  11. I had meant to quote one of the comments that was mocking the design and saying it was 2008ish when Office and many programs are or have moved to the tab format now. It was not very constructive and that was the one that prompted my reply, especially after countless times this has already been brought up in this thread and the author has already stated his views on the subject. I totally agree with you about constructive criticism and the other points you made. ...Donovan
  12. You are free to spend the better part of a year, in your spare time, re-inventing the wheel to make this work nicely as a webGUI plugin. ...Dono
  13. Guys, you should be appreciate that the author is spending their time making this and providing it freely. They thought the tabs were a nice way to keep everything visible on their particular screen size and thus coded it that way. I personally prefer it that way. When people complained that they couldn't see all of the settings options on one page, he made that configurable. In the end, be thankful that it's being provided at all, authors deserve our respect. If we don't like the way a piece of software is designed, we are free to create our own version the way we want it, just like he is doing with Dynamix. It's his baby, after all. ...Donovan
  14. What does the Limetech GUI do differently on mobile? ...Dono
  15. 64-bit unraid wasn't available when this webGui was released. Page 2 of the unRAID 6.0 announcement thread: