I've tried to follow the initial setup guide.  I am running 4.7 with a 2TB parity, 1TB cache and 2 2TB data drives.  When I started moving files I exceeded my cache drive and the copy process stopped.  I had already copied the movie file over to the Video drive (sdd).  When I started copy the Music to sde it filled up the video drive first.  How can I keep my audio and video separate?  Here is my configuration.   

 

Share name: Music

Comments:

Allocation method: Fill up

Min. free space: 4000000

Split level:

Included disk(s): sde

Excluded disk(s): sdd

Use cache disk: Yes

Export (SMB): Export Read/Write

Export (NFS):

 

________________________________________

Share name: Video

Comments:

Allocation method: Fill up

Min. free space: 4000000

Split level:

Included disk(s): sdd

Excluded disk(s): sde

Use cache disk: Yes

Export (SMB): Export Read/Write

Export (NFS):

 

Thanks.

 

Tunetyme

 

I've tried to follow the initial setup guide.  I am running 4.7 with a 2TB parity, 1TB cache and 2 2TB data drives.  When I started moving files I exceeded my cache drive and the copy process stopped.  I had already copied the movie file over to the Video drive (sdd).  When I started copy the Music to sde it filled up the video drive first.  How can I keep my audio and video separate?  Here is my configuration.   

 

Share name: Music

Comments:

Allocation method: Fill up

Min. free space: 4000000

Split level:

Included disk(s): sde

Excluded disk(s): sdd

Use cache disk: Yes

Export (SMB): Export Read/Write

Export (NFS):

 

________________________________________

Share name: Video

Comments:

Allocation method: Fill up

Min. free space: 4000000

Split level:

Included disk(s): sdd

Excluded disk(s): sde

Use cache disk: Yes

Export (SMB): Export Read/Write

Export (NFS):

 

Thanks.

 

Tunetyme

 

 

The above in red should not be sde, sdd it  should be disk1, disk2, etc

I will make the changes.  Should I set the split level to 0?

I will make the changes.  Should I set the split level to 0?

no, split level 0 indicates you will create the directories on the disks.  If split level = 0, the system will not create a directory unless the parent directory already exists.

I have some space for expansion on my current drives.  The parent directory already exists so split level zero would be OK for now?  if not, what should I set the split level too?  As I add drives, I assume, if the split level is zero then I will need to create the parent directory for each new drive to match the drive I am expanding.

 

Tunetyme

Yes, by using split level 0, when you install a new disk you'd have to create the top level share directories.

 

FYI, you should not be using the devices (ie sda, sdb etc) for any function on the array. If you actually did copy directly to sda then you would bypass the parity updating making it invalid. In unRAID you assign them as disk1, disk2 etc and that's the easy way to refer to them when asking questions or accessing them.

 

Peter

 

I must admit it is a little confusing on how to reference disks.  Sometimes it needs to be Disk1 and sometimes it needs to be sdc.  It seems that it would be helpful to consolidate the disk naming convention to a single name for each disk.

I must admit it is a little confusing on how to reference disks.  Sometimes it needs to be Disk1 and sometimes it needs to be sdc.  It seems that it would be helpful to consolidate the disk naming convention to a single name for each disk.

 

Um... I disagree.  disk1 is how unRAID sees the drive; while sdc, sdd, etc is what the OS assigns the drive.  unRAID has NO way of knowing if/when that drive assignment will change so it can not base anything off of it.

 

Plus disk1, disk2, etc has a meaning to someone but I would argue that sda, sdb,sdc, has little to no meaning, especially since those values change.

Like the confusion as stated above, it seems to me that by simplifying disk configuration will take some of the intimidation of adopting a Linux system.  I have some Unix background so that allows me to be willing to adopt this software.  For many people, it is too low level for them.  I am a big believer in the KISS principal.

 

I am sure if I choose a windows based server I could have had it up and operating in a couple of days.  It has been 2 weeks since I received my system (that was partially setup) and I am still not fully functioning.  I had days of pre-clearing drives and days of just copying files over to the server.  Now I am trying to get my software to work with it.

 

Don't misinterpret what I am saying, this isn't a complaint just an observation from a new user.  I'll invest the time to get away from Microsoft.  I think there is a lot of people who feel the same way about Microsoft but find Linux to be a daunting learning curve.  Refining the GUI would be helpful.  I have to have several packages (like Putty and MC) to work with it.  I've also tried to download packages and there isn't a simple method to install.  These kind of improvements will make it more marketable.

 

With all its' faults, windows allows computer illiterate people to sit down at a PC and start becoming productive with it.  Why not Linux?

You only need to worry about the disk1, disk2 etc when normally using unRAID.

 

It's possible you could use md1, md2 etc when troubleshooting and if you get down to using sda, sdb etc then you are doing some serious troubleshooting or are doing something outside of the normal unRAID (ie a user contributed thing) which LimeTech and unRAID has no control of.

 

Peter