I'm using unRaid 5b14.

 

I have set the split level on a share to 2, and the cache min-free-space to 42GB.

 

Suppose I have only 2GB free space on cache drive. If I write to the file

/mnt/user/share/dir1/dir2/dir3/myfile.txt

and dir3 is a newish directory which is only on the cache drive, then the file will be written to the cache drive, despite the min-free space limitation being violated (regardless of whether I write from telnet-shell or through samba share).

 

If I then create the new directory

/mnt/user/share/dir1/dir2/dir3a

then the new directory dir3a and files in it will be written to array directly (as it should).

 

If I then through telnet create the directory

/mnt/disk1/share/dir1/dir2/dir3/

and write myfile2.txt in it through user-share, then the file will STILL be written on cache drive.

 

Also if I pick any old directory at level 3, and manually create that directory on the cache drive, then files written to the directory through the user-share will be written to cache disk (same as above, except order of creation on array/cache disk).

 

Any new file written below split level (1) will be written on the array, when min-free-space is violated (as it should).

 

Now I wonder if writting a file above split level (3,4,5 or higher), will be written to cache drive at all, if cache is not filled. But I'm guessing it will.

 

Is this a known issue/feature with the cache disk + split level, or is it a bug?

 

Cheers,

Alex

 

PS: The consequence is that by SABnzbd temporary folder fills my cache drive to the bursting point, and downloads fail, despite being configured to write to /mnt/user/share.

It sounds like a bug. Basically, it seems to be using the split level to not allow the contents of the cache to split off to an array disk. The split level should not be used to lock any files to the cache drive. It may be a tough one to fix depending on how the split level code is written.

 

You should post this in the 5.0b14 release thread.

 

Peter

Thx. Now I posted a mention of this problem+post to this thread: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=16840.msg167577#msg167577.