I am using Unraid Pro and 5x1,5TB 2x0.5TB and 1x0,3TB disks

I started moving my data in the disks adding them one by one

I have setup the small disk as a cache disk

The last 1,5TB disk i added as a parity disk

Then I tried to sync my data

 

In any case, combination, and also tried version 4.4 and 4.4.2 after a random time while syncing

(sometimes its only 2% and i have also seen 12%) the computer freezes

It doesn't respond to ping command and I also get a blank screen

I have tried this a lot of times without any luck

If i don't use the parity sync procedure the array is available and i can use it for many days without any problem

I cant get the syslog and troubleshoot since i have  to reboot my computer to ge taccess

Any idea how to troubleshoot this ?

Any script so it saves the logs and use them after the reboot ?

 

Thank you in advance,

Dimitrios

Sounds like perhaps insufficient power supply - what model are you using?

My configuration is:

Tualatin 1200Mhz on a GA-BX2000 with 512MB RAM

3xSATA PCI controllers (Via and Silicon chipsets)

1Gbit NIC (I think its US Robotics)

 

2xWD5000AAKS

1xWD1200JD

5xST31500341AS

 

PSU Q-TEC 500W

 

I am thinking to disable (power off) all the disks except 2 (the empty ones) and try the sync procedure

I hope the procedure will complete successful and then I am going to buy a new more powerful and reliable PSU

 

Thank you,

Dimitrios

Before you do that, why not post your syslog for us to check.  Just capture it after booting, and periodically thereafter, until you can't.  Post the last one.  See the Troubleshooting link in my sig for instructions.

My configuration is:

Tualatin 1200Mhz on a GA-BX2000 with 512MB RAM

3xSATA PCI controllers (Via and Silicon chipsets)

1Gbit NIC (I think its US Robotics)

 

2xWD5000AAKS

1xWD1200JD

5xST31500341AS

 

PSU Q-TEC 500W

 

I am thinking to disable (power off) all the disks except 2 (the empty ones) and try the sync procedure

I hope the procedure will complete successful and then I am going to buy a new more powerful and reliable PSU

 

Thank you,

Dimitrios

 

 

Check your IRQ sharing. You may have to turn off ACPI or APIC in tbe bios and/or use boot parameters 

Try adding each of these to the following command line in syslinux.cfg to see if it helps.

 

When using PCI controllers, I've found I had to use some of the options in order to avoid lockups.

 

pci=noacpi noapic nolapic

 

append initrd=bzrootd rootdelay=10 (add parameters here)

 

You still need to publish your power supply information. Although it is a PIII processor, I would bet there is a PCI IRQ issue.

 

I bought a new 650 watts PSU and replaced the old one.

The problem is still the same.

I am also afraid that it has to do with IRQ....

I  am also thinking to replace the 2xVIA Sata controllers (2+1 external sata slots each) with a Sil3114 (just an idea to solve the problem)

My original thought was to replace 1 VIA controller with the Silicon one so i can have the parity disk "alone" connected to the VIA port (increase performance?).

I tried a few minor changes in BIOS (Disabling devices like audio etc)

Hard to find something to turn off ACPI or APIC.

I also added this line pci=noacpi noapic nolapic as it is in the place that you suggested

I will give it a  try and come back with results

 

Thank you,

Dimitrios

After reviewing the motherboard model I'm going to question ram and/or CPU speed on this board.

(if it's still a GA-BX2000 with a Tualatin 1200Mhz) I

 

From Gigabytes website http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Products/Motherboard/Products_Spec.aspx?ProductID=1451

This model does not support that processor.

Therefore I would consider the BUS speed you are using, comparing it with high quality ram.

I might consider slowing it down to 100MHZ. (as a last resort).

FWIW the link says Intel® 440 BX AGPset  This chipset was only ever rated to 100MHZ.

Therefore if you have a higher bus speed, you are exceeding(overclocking) the chipsets rated values.

the ABIT BX-133 got away with this, but it also locked up.

 

I would disable the floppy drive controller (freeing IRQ6) and any serial ports (freeing up 3 and 4).

I would make sure I the PCI slots were not sharing any IRQs and if so, move them from slot to slot to insure they were not shared.

 

I'm not sure the VIA plays nice with sharing IRQs.

 

 

Sorry for confusing you with BX-2000

My mistake.

I used to run my freenas in the BX-2000 PC and unraid at the very beginning

Last night my parity check was successful completed and and  i can revise the following:

 

Asus TUV4X (Revision 1006 Beta 002 Official Bios)

Tualatin 1200Mhz Celeron CPU

512MB RAM

1xPCI vga card

2xSilicon (4xSATA)

1xVia (3xSATA+1PATA)

1xGBit Nic (USR)

 

5x1,5TB Seagate (one of them as parity)

2x500GB WD

1x120GB WD (cache)

 

Parity and cache drive are connected to Via controller

The rest are on Silicons

I use the floppy trick to boot from USB stick

All unnecessary options on bios are disabled

I get parity sync speeds around 11MB/sec (about 2000minutes for a full parity sync)

 

The problem seems to be that i used to have 3xVia + 1xSilicon controllers

When I replaced 2xVia with a Silicon (That means  i got one free pci slot in my pc right now) the problem was solved

 

Thank you very much for your help

Dimitrios

 

P.S. I guess there isn't a way to get more speed from this hardware

 

 

 

P.S. I guess there isn't a way to get more speed from this hardware

 

All those drives on the PCI bus will definitely slow parity check performance.  The good news is that, in normal operations involving just one or two disks, the PCI bus will not bottleneck, so you'd get about the same performance as someone with MB and PCI-e controllers.  The lure of a fast parity check is definitely there, but the truth is it is not that big of a deal in normal use.

 

You should be seeing a nice little bump in performance as you pass the 500G mark, as the two smaller drives stop being accessed.

 

The fact that you are using big drives is a 2 edged sword.  On the one hand you are reducing the number of drives requiring parallel access.  On the other hand, you are having to check 1.5T rather than, say 1T.

 

All in all, though, I think you've got a good setup.