January 13, 20251 yr 52 minutes ago, beatmurph said: You still think a resync is the is the best path forward in this case given the original disk 6 seems to be mountable with all the original data? Yes, do a new config with old disk6 and the remaining data dissk and resync parity. 52 minutes ago, beatmurph said: I have tried looking for a guide on parity resync. Is there one I should follow? It will start automatically after the new config.
January 13, 20251 yr Author I did some looking for a new parity sync and haven't seen anything. Would you be able to point me to the instruction page, or help me through it? I'm assuming it's not just replacing the assigned drive.
January 13, 20251 yr If you do a new config, a parity sync will start automatically after array start, nothing else you need to do.
January 13, 20251 yr Author Forgive me, but I want to make sure I'm precise as I'm nervous I might loose what is in the array as it stands and/or what is on the disk that isn't in the array but still has the data from before the failure. I'm not familiar with how to do a "new config" is there a specific set of instructions?
January 14, 20251 yr 17 hours ago, JorgeB said: If the emulated disk5 can't be fixed, don't see any other options for that one, you can recover disk6 from the old one. 9 hours ago, JorgeB said: do a new config with old disk6 and the remaining data disks and resync parity https://docs.unraid.net/unraid-os/manual/storage-management/#reset-the-array-configuration Don't check the Parity Valid box because it needs to be rebuilt. Note that we are giving up on disk5.
January 15, 20251 yr Author OK, so I'm starting this today and as I reread your comment I realize I may have misunderstood it. When you say "we're giving up on Disk 5" Are you saying that the data on that disk is lost and there is no hope of recovery? If I'm understanding what I'm reading in the link you set me, this will completely reset parity using the all the data disks I have with the exception of disk 5?
January 15, 20251 yr 33 minutes ago, beatmurph said: Are you saying that the data on that disk is lost and there is no hope of recovery? Correct. 33 minutes ago, beatmurph said: If I'm understanding what I'm reading in the link you set me, this will completely reset parity using the all the data disks I have with the exception of disk 5? Yep.
January 22, 20251 yr Author Hello, I want to thank you all again for your time and help. Even though I wound up where I started with the data, I did learn and feel better about some of the process now. The parity rebuild is almost done and I'll be moving forward with rebuilding the data for Drive 5 after. I do have another question, but please let me know if I should create a new post. I have 2 drives from early on when I was super new to all this that had previously developed red X's. I removed them from the server at that time, but I decided to go ahead and do a full SMART test on both of them the other day. SMART tests are challenging to understand for a novice and I was hoping you might be able to help me determine if they seem reliable to return to the array or not? From what I can tell it seems one of them is fine and the other is not. I have attached the SMART reports. calculon-smart-20250106-1959.zip calculon-smart-20250117-1359.zip
January 22, 20251 yr The seagate serial WCT025GQ is definitely bad # 1 Extended offline Completed: read failure 90% 61545 2943807688 Try an extended test on the other
January 22, 20251 yr Author I swore I ran extended on both, but I'll do so for the one you said. Thank you again.
January 22, 20251 yr Author While I wait for the results of the extended SMART test, one other issue I'm seeing now that the rebuild is complete is that 2 of my shares have a warning (orange triangle: "some or all files unprotected"). These are the appdata and system shares. I'm not sure what to post for troubleshooting, but they do both have the same warning in the SMB Security Settings: Security is set to Public with the accompanying warning "Windows may require a valid User to be defined even for Public shares. See Help.". Is it possible this is why they are showing as possibly unprotected?
January 22, 20251 yr 1 minute ago, beatmurph said: (orange triangle: "some or all files unprotected") Any files for the share that are on a non-redundant pool are unprotected.
January 22, 20251 yr Just now, trurl said: Any files for the share that are on a non-redundant pool are unprotected. I have several shares like that, not a problem if they are unimportant or if they are backed up in some way. You should backup appdata anyway.
January 22, 20251 yr Author Now that I think about it, these are both set to move from Array to Cache. Would that be the reason?
January 22, 20251 yr Author 5 minutes ago, trurl said: You should backup appdata anyway. I do have the backup plugin set up and used it successfully (after some pains) for restoring appdata during this rebuild. I'm not sure about the system share, but the only files I see in there are docker, which I believe the backup plugin also covers since I used it to rebuild from templates? Edited January 22, 20251 yr by beatmurph
January 22, 20251 yr Since your cache is raid0 it is not redundant. Your most recent diagnostics are many days old. I see in those that some of system share is on the array. Ideally that share would all be on a pool so Dockers/VMs will perform better, and so array disks can spin down since these files are always open. No need to backup docker.img, it is easily recreated from Previous Apps, you just need appdata backups. Also a share, possibly named Downloads, set to only use cache, but it has files on many array disks.
January 22, 20251 yr Author 8 minutes ago, trurl said: I see in those that some of system share is on the array It seems you're correct. I'm seeing that also. In the Shares tab under the Storage column both appdata and system shares seem to indicate they are to be moved from Array to Cache with the arrow pointing that direction; however, when I go into each share's settings the Primary and Secondary storage for both are set to "Array" with the mover action set to "Array to Array". Would you say that they should be set to cache for at least the Primary storage? 17 minutes ago, trurl said: Also a share, possibly named Downloads, set to only use cache I do have a downloads folder that is listed under the Storage column of the Shares tab as "Cache", but when I go into the share setting Primary storage is set to "Array" and Secondary set to "None". I don't know if I'm reading these wrong, but I'm surprised as the settings don't seem to match what's indicated under the Shares tab
January 22, 20251 yr appdata and system both have files on the array. The below applies to appdata as well. 42 minutes ago, trurl said: Ideally that share would all be on a pool so Dockers/VMs will perform better, and so array disks can spin down since these files are always open. Downloads share is all on the array. Settings seem to be saying Primary:cache;Secondary:none The settings for appdata and system shares seem to say Primary:cache;Secondary:array;Mover Action:array->cache Post a screenshot of appdata settings
January 22, 20251 yr Author OK, I discovered that I didn't have a cache drive set up. I didn't think of it while re configuring the array, and it only just occurred to me now while looking into this issue. I added the pool back in and now the settings match and the errors are gone. That was silly. I'm sorry to waste your time on that one.
January 22, 20251 yr But your most recent diagnostics shows some files on cache. Did cache exist when you took those diagnostics?
January 22, 20251 yr Author No, I can't explain that one. I only discovered the issue after sending over the diagnostics. The drives were in the server, but not assigned to the array. Is that possibly the reason?
January 22, 20251 yr If anything referenced /mnt/cache directly, and you didn't actually have cache, that would be a path in rootfs (which is in RAM). And I see rootfs is over half full, which is not a good sign. Do any of your containers have host paths that refer to /mnt/cache... instead of /mnt/user... ?
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.