[SOLVED] How to diminish array hdd count?

[CaptainSpalding]

I was thinking of getting bigger drives to my array and to remove about half of the smaller size hdd's.

 

How should I proceed?

 

There's nearly 200GB's of free space per disk on my 21 disk array and I would first want to fill the drives as much as possible and see how many of the 2TB drives I can remove from the array after. Then I would replace the remaining 9 2TB drives one by one with 4TB drives and fill those to again in the process and always take of one 2TB drive as it is emptied.

 

How can I move files from one disk to rest of the array?

 

Thanks in advance!

[dirtysanchez]

I was thinking of getting bigger drives to my array and to remove about half of the smaller size hdd's.

 

How should I proceed?

 

There's nearly 200GB's of free space per disk on my 21 disk array and I would first want to fill the drives as much as possible and see how many of the 2TB drives I can remove from the array after. Then I would replace the remaining 9 2TB drives one by one with 4TB drives and fill those to again in the process and always take of one 2TB drive as it is emptied.

 

How can I move files from one disk to rest of the array?

 

Thanks in advance!

 

You can use Midnight Commander.  Type mc at a command line.

[garycase]

Depending on your ultimate goal, I'd do one of two things ...

 

(a)  If the goal is all 4TB drives and no more of the 2TB drives, then I'd just buy the 4TB drives;  remove ALL of your current drives (be sure you know which ones are the data drives);  and create a new array configuration with the 4TB drives.    Create the shares you want;  and then start the process of populating the server:  One-at-a-time, copy all of the data from your old 2TB drives.  You can either do this via the network from another PC [On a Windows box, just install the free LinuxReader so you can "see" the data];  or you can mount the drives outside the array (either via SATA or USB) and copy them in Linux.

 

(b)  If your goal is to make the move to 4TB drives more gradually, then I'd just buy some 4TB drives and then, one-at-a-time at a rate of your choice, replace a 2TB drive with a 4TB drive and let UnRAID do the rebuilds ... nothing to copy that way, as each drive will have all of the contents of the old drive plus an additional 2TB of free space.    Do be sure you run a parity check before each replacement, to be sure you have no parity issues before a drive rebuild.    Ultimately, you'll have enough free space on the 4TB drives to copy all of the data from the remaining 2TB drives.  At that point, if you want to reduce the drive count, you can simply copy all of the data to 4TB units;  then do a "New Config" and exclude the 2TB drives from the array.  Or you may decide to just leave the drives in place and have plenty of extra space ... if you copy the data off the drives, they'll never be spun up except for parity checks, so the "cost" in terms of power is almost nil.

 

 

[CaptainSpalding]

Thanks for the info!

 

I did try the mv /mnt/disk1 /mnt/disk2 command, but I just got a "disk1" folder to disk2 that I cannot access and now I cannot access the real disk1 either?

 

My built is like 5 years old, back then I did not really understand the split levels etc. So basically my file structure is a mess. I was all so hoping to re-arrange in the process.

 

What should I do with that disk1 "thingy"? I saw in the webgui that the disk2 was getting data, but there was no decrease in the data of disk1? After it started and I did not see the data being removed from disk1 in the webgui and cancelled and was beginning a parity check but cancelled that too as I thought it could do even more damage.

 

I really think the best way would be to copy data of from the small disks as much as possible, but is it impossible or highly unsafe to remove 2 or more empty disks from the array at the same time?

 

garycase: the plan b sounds like a great idea, but as said my split level has been 10 in the beginning so there are files lying god knows where. So I think the only way to get them in order would be to ensure that all the files are under their folders before I copy them to the new array configuration?

 

I have ATM the Sharkoon Rebel 12 Value and I'm thinking of moving to Fractal Design R4, that should be quite quiet?

[garycase]

I'd be inclined to just build a whole new server with all 4TB drives; then copy your shares to the new server, with the split levels and allocation methods set as you want them before you do the copy.    That's by far the best way to ensure your data is arranged the way you want.

 

... and then just use the old server for your backups 

[CaptainSpalding]

I'd be inclined to just build a whole new server with all 4TB drives; then copy your shares to the new server, with the split levels and allocation methods set as you want them before you do the copy.    That's by far the best way to ensure your data is arranged the way you want.

 

... and then just use the old server for your backups 

 

I too think this would be the best way. But what about the disk1 not been accessible since the mv attempt? Disk1 seems to have the data but I cannot confirm the contents.

[trurl]

mv copies data to the destination before it deletes it from the source. I think if you interrupt it you will get some of the data copied to the destination but not deleted from the source.

 

When I moved a lot of data with mc I noticed that the disk I was moving to was getting fuller but the disk I was moving from did not get emptier until the end of the move so I think the copy all happens first then the delete.

 

Anyway, what exactly do you mean when you say disk1 is not accessible? How exactly are you trying to access it? Linux command line? Window Explorer?

[DaleWilliams]

Not sure I understood this correctly:

I did try the mv /mnt/disk1 /mnt/disk2 command, but I just got a "disk1" folder to disk2 that I cannot access and now I cannot access the real disk1 either?

But, in your new array, do not name your shares 'disk1', 'disk2' etc. Call them 'movies', 'files', 'backups', 'tax returns', etc.

 

'Disk1', etc., should be reserved for the system's use.

 

That way, when you access 'disk1', unRAID will know you mean the 'physical' disk #1, and not your user share called 'disk1'.

[CaptainSpalding]

My point was to move contents of a disk not a share. But I too think that the data is still on disk one just can access the from explorers "Network". I do however access the other folders pn disk2 just not the disk1. I think it's due the interruption during the move.

[dgaschk]

My point was to move contents of a disk not a share. But I too think that the data is still on disk one just can access the from explorers "Network". I do however access the other folders pn disk2 just not the disk1. I think it's due the interruption during the move.

 

Run "New Permissions".

[CaptainSpalding]

Thanks, I will try that tomorrow. 

[CaptainSpalding]

Thanks dgaschk!

 

I can now access the disk1 from "Network", but...

 

The disk1 has also become a share? And it has one file in it (although it's smaller in filesize than it should). The disk1 from the "Network" list points to it and the disk1 folder that was created during the move to disk2.

 

In the webgui the disk one still seems to hold about 1.8TB of data.

 

Should I remove the share named "disk1"?

 

And it seems that I can access the file list through the webgui with browse /mnt/disk1 and the file seems to be there in it's correct size.

[garycase]

... I'm thinking of moving to Fractal Design R4, that should be quite quiet?

 

Yes, the Fractal case is VERY quiet.  I've built several systems with these cases, and they are very nicely built for such a modestly priced case, and have excellent acoustic insulation.

 

Won't, of course, hold 21 drives      [11 is the reasonable max -- 8 in the trays, and 3 in a 3-in-2 cage mounted in the 2 5.25" bays.

 

[garycase]

Thanks dgaschk!

 

I can now access the disk1 from "Network", but...

 

The disk1 has also become a share? And it has one file in it (although it's smaller in filesize than it should). The disk1 from the "Network" list points to it and the disk1 folder that was created during the move to disk2.

 

In the webgui the disk one still seems to hold about 1.8TB of data.

 

Should I remove the share named "disk1"?

 

And it seems that I can access the file list through the webgui with browse /mnt/disk1 and the file seems to be there in it's correct size.

 

If I understand what you said here, you've got a "Disk1" top-level folder on Disk2 ... so you now have both the disk share (Disk1) and a User Share with the same name !!    I'd rename the folder on Disk2 that's named "Disk1".    Perhaps call it "Files from Disk1" -- but in any event do NOT use a name that's already a system-level share (i.e. "Flash", "Diskxx", etc.).

 

I suspect that will resolve the access issue.

 

[CaptainSpalding]

I did not have a share named disk1 prior the mv /mnt/disk1 /mnt/disk2. It was created during the move.

 

How about the Fractals 5.25" slots, what have you used to mount 3.5" hdds?

[garycase]

How about the Fractals 5.25" slots, what have you used to mount 3.5" hdds?

 

I've not needed to use the 5.25" bays for 3.5" drives -- none of the systems I built with this cage had more than 8 hard drives.

 

But if you need to use them, there are several choices:

 

To maximize your drive count, you can use a 3-in-2 cage.  IcyDock has several choices in 3-in-2 cages.  This is a nice one: http://www.icydock.com/goods.php?id=158

 

If you're okay with 10 drives, you can use a simple adapter to mount one drive in each bay.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/3-5-Hard-Drive-to-5-25-PC-Drive-Bay-Adapter-Mounting-Bracket-Kit-/291064660837

 

[garycase]

I did not have a share named disk1 prior the mv /mnt/disk1 /mnt/disk2. It was created during the move.

 

ANY folder at the top level of a drive is automatically a share if shares are enabled.  So when a folder names "disk1" was created, it became a share.    But this clearly is causing issues, since it has the same name as a reserved disk share (the physical disk1).

 

[CaptainSpalding]

Thanks garycase for your suggestions for the Fractal.

 

I renamed the disk1 folder on disk2 to "Files from disk1" and ran "New Permissions", but I still do not have access to physical disk1. When I open the Shares in webgui it (disk1) shows there as one of the shares, even though the others are the ones I have created. There are no others disks shown there. After "New Permissions" I can access to disk2 though and others disks.

[trurl]

Try stopping and restarting the array.

[garycase]

Reboot the system and see if disk1 still shows in the User shares.  If so, remove it (click on it; then clear the name & click Done).

 

... but BEFORE you do that, check ALL of your other disks to be sure none of them have a root-level folder named disk1 !!  (Once it was created, the copies you were doing MAY have been stored on some other disks if the share needed the space)

 

 

[CaptainSpalding]

Nice, that worked!

 

But the share needed to be empty and there was a share delete tick box for the webgui. Just deleting the name did not work.

 

Now I can proceed with my migration plans, yes!

 

garycase: As I'm trying to minimize noise on the new server do you think 12 drives would be too much for Fractal r4? I'm also thinking of the Mini. Theres some space between the PSU and the hdd drive cage, so I thought I could buy one of those Fractal cages for 3 drives and mount it in between. So that the hdd connectors would be facing up.

[garycase]

garycase: As I'm trying to minimize noise on the new server do you think 12 drives would be too much for Fractal r4? I'm also thinking of the Mini. Theres some space between the PSU and the hdd drive cage, so I thought I could buy one of those Fractal cages for 3 drives and mount it in between. So that the hdd connectors would be facing up.

 

I've used both the Define R4 and the Define Mini.  I do not think there's room in either one between the power supply and the drive cage for 3 drives.  You could probably mount one to the side of the drive cage (just Velcro it in place), but that's about all (and even that depends on how long the PSU you're using is.

 

If you put one drive there, and use a 3-in-2 cage in the 5.25" bays, that would give you 12 drives in the R4.  Note that this case also has mounts for 2 SSDs "behind" the motherboard (on the rear of the tray).    A good place for a cache drive 

 

Bottom line ==> if your target is 12 drives, you definitely want to use the R4 instead of the Mini.

 

 

 

[CaptainSpalding]

Ok, thanks. I am little prejudiced to those bays and the little fans (the noise to be exact) they have. Maybe I just take the R4 and see as I build what kinda solution I'll end up with.

[garycase]

I agree that the fans in those little bays can be noisy.

 

I'd definitely use the R4.    And then what I'd so is just mount one drive/bay in a standard adapter (no fan); and mount one drive with Velcro to the side of the bottom drive cage.    That will give you 11 drives.  With modern 4TB drives that's a 40GB server    [Or 50GB if you wait for WD's 5TB WD Reds that were supposed to already be available !!]

 

And you'd still have space for 2 2.5" drives on the rear of the motherboard tray.

 

And there MAY be room to mount another 3.5" drive internally if you're a bit creative with the mounting ... you could probably Velcro a 2nd drive to the side of the upper drive cage.

 

 

[CaptainSpalding]

Ok, just want to minimaze noise and heat on this build. I am counting on that the 6TB drives are going to in the same price range as the 4TB's now when I get to fill the server up. I'm going to split the data on the current 40TB server, so there will be space left on the new build.