May 16, 201412 yr From my understanding, a split level of 0 means to keep all data for a directory on the same disk, so if that disk is full you will get a out of space message and it wont use other disks. I use a split level of 999 so it can spread all data across any of the disks.
May 16, 201412 yr Many Thanks jphipps, that seems to have been the issue. After I set the split level to 999 Disk2 was used. Duppie
May 16, 201412 yr That is your problem. Split level 0 is a "special" option. Unraid will not create the folder structure for you, you must do it yourself. So if you did not create a folder "my stuff" on both of your drives, then unraid will not do it for you and will not start copying data to the "other" drive despite your allocation method http://lime-technology.com/wiki/index.php?title=Un-Official_UnRAID_Manual#Split_Level_0 You will either need to create the folder you want on the other drive, or change to whatever number split you need.
May 16, 201412 yr I see jphipps sort of beat me to it. Just keep in mind that with a split level like 999, or anything relatively high, you run the risk of contantly spinning up drives (and thus waiting) as you travers directories. Not a huge deal, but also not great planning. For example if you're listening to an artists collection, why not set it up so at least entire albums stay on the same disc, if not even the entire artist. Otherwise you have to switch discs literally between songs. Same for tv shows ... keep a season on a single disc but allow multiple seasons to span discs. Or photos, if you organize them by event, or subject, etc ... you get the point. Which is, there is a logic to setting split level and the wiki has some great examples to give ideas.
May 16, 201412 yr Not sure what you mean about needing to create the directory manually. I have never had to do that, it has always done it automatically.. True, there are a lot of pros and cons about splitting. I have mine with split of 999 and most free allocation. I wasn't as concerned about the disks spinning up, my thought was more spindles for the data. Not always good on writes since there is only 1 parity disk, but for reads, if I have multiple reads going on, it is a high likelihood that the files are on separate disks, so I get more data throughput. It is also bad because if you did have a catastrophic failure and did happen to loose a disk ( Not too likely with unraid.. ) you would loose some of the data in multiple directories, as a posed to complete directories. But I figure better to loose a little then all of a directory...
May 16, 201412 yr Like I said, Split 0 is a special case. read that link, I'm not making it up Regardless, you've solved you concern with split 999, I just want you to consider if that is really what you want, especially as you grow. As for spindle reads and speed ... that will only matter if you have a lot of concurrent activity going on. If you do, gotcha. If you don't, you'll never notice the speed difference since your network will quickly become the bottle neck anyway. I also agree on the failure issue ... that is why I too use most-free and let all my data split across all drives. But I do it such that common sequential access situations will not result in spinning up more drives than needed. Like when binge watching a TV show season.
May 16, 201412 yr Thanks to all explaining the split levels. Sorry for this, I did not realize it is this complicated and did not want to deviate from the original posts. Anyway, at least I did learn something new about Unraid today. Duppie
May 16, 201412 yr From past experience, some things need to be in one directory to work well (dvd rips come to mind, had no amount of trouble with them split across several drives back when I just ripped the VIDEO_TS folders for my old Sage system to read). I think I have mine set somewhere around 3 or 4, and usually don't have any issues. Didn't realize the special case with the '0' split level, may set some of my data shares like that, so I can manage where they go..
May 17, 201412 yr There is, and I've updated it ... mentioned in my first post in an edit along with other updates. There are some IOMMU-related kernel settings which have been turned on for -beta6. May or may not help. Tom, can you also activate VFIO modules on next release? //Peter
May 17, 201412 yr Author There is, and I've updated it ... mentioned in my first post in an edit along with other updates. There are some IOMMU-related kernel settings which have been turned on for -beta6. May or may not help. Tom, can you also activate VFIO modules on next release? //Peter For upcoming -beta6a using 3.14.4 kernel: CONFIG_VFIO_IOMMU_TYPE1=m CONFIG_VFIO=m CONFIG_VFIO_PCI=m CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_VGA=y CONFIG_KVM_VFIO=y That about it?
May 18, 201412 yr There is, and I've updated it ... mentioned in my first post in an edit along with other updates. There are some IOMMU-related kernel settings which have been turned on for -beta6. May or may not help. Tom, can you also activate VFIO modules on next release? //Peter For upcoming -beta6a using 3.14.4 kernel: CONFIG_VFIO_IOMMU_TYPE1=m CONFIG_VFIO=m CONFIG_VFIO_PCI=m CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_VGA=y CONFIG_KVM_VFIO=y That about it? Great, that is was I have enabled, thanks Tom, I also enabled all IOMMU modules, but I see you already done that;-) //Peter
May 18, 201412 yr I might have missed this somewhere, but do we have an ETA for 6.0 FINAL? We haven't even made it out of the beta phase and into RC (release candidates) yet. It will likely be several months at least before RTM (final).
May 18, 201412 yr Jeeez asking alot ey ? Om more inqured about 6b6 Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
May 19, 201412 yr My cache mover refuses to move the files over. I start it manually, it'll move 2-3 files, then stop. Not sure if it's caused by accessing the cache or writing new files to the cache but this didn't happen on 5.0.
May 19, 201412 yr My cache mover refuses to move the files over. I start it manually, it'll move 2-3 files, then stop. Not sure if it's caused by accessing the cache or writing new files to the cache but this didn't happen on 5.0. Is it possible that one of your array disks is almost full? This has been known to prevent mover operations for others.
May 19, 201412 yr My cache mover refuses to move the files over. I start it manually, it'll move 2-3 files, then stop. Not sure if it's caused by accessing the cache or writing new files to the cache but this didn't happen on 5.0. Is it possible that one of your array disks is almost full? This has been known to prevent mover operations for others. They all have 800GB+ free. If I click the script, it'll move over 2-3 more files, then stop again. I am going to click it this time and not access the server in anyway. It almost seems like the mover is stopping due to user read/write activity. EDIT: Fixed it. Somehow my share got set to cache "only". Odd... I haven't been in that share settings for months.
May 19, 201412 yr Did php-cgi build get dropped? Yes but php-fpm is enabled. Ahhh. It broke my webserver config which was looking for php-cgi, so family could not get to my media system... nothing but 500 errors. Would have saved me a bit of good bit of grief had that been in the release notes.
May 19, 201412 yr Last week, I disabled network bonding, to eliminate a source of possible problems while working on other issues. I now only have one network cable connected to my machine, but I have 2 NIC on the motherboard, and a 3rd on an Intel NIC installed in a PCI slot. Last week, I rebooted the machine, using the GUI, and when the machine finished booting, I could not access it from my network. I tried several things, but it was just not accessible. I finally thought to move the ethernet cable from one motherboard slot to the other, and all was well. I had full access and was happy. Today, i rebooted again from the GUI and once again I can't access the server. I just switched the cable back to the other slot in the motherboard, and once again have access. Seems like a bug to me
May 19, 201412 yr My father-in-law is running 5.0.5 and it does the same thing. He has an ASUS motherboard with 2 onboard NICs, and most times when he reboots the server, it switches to the other one, and he has to switch the cable over to the other NIC to get the network back...
May 19, 201412 yr Last week, I disabled network bonding, to eliminate a source of possible problems while working on other issues. I now only have one network cable connected to my machine, but I have 2 NIC on the motherboard, and a 3rd on an Intel NIC installed in a PCI slot. Last week, I rebooted the machine, using the GUI, and when the machine finished booting, I could not access it from my network. I tried several things, but it was just not accessible. I finally thought to move the ethernet cable from one motherboard slot to the other, and all was well. I had full access and was happy. Today, i rebooted again from the GUI and once again I can't access the server. I just switched the cable back to the other slot in the motherboard, and once again have access. Seems like a bug to me I wonder if linux isn't doing the same thing with nic's that it does with drives and enumerates whichever nic initializes first as eth0. You might try hiding all but the one you want with pciBack.hide and see if it works more consistently that way. Assuming what I guessed is even remotely accurate of course.
May 19, 201412 yr Author Last week, I disabled network bonding, to eliminate a source of possible problems while working on other issues. I now only have one network cable connected to my machine, but I have 2 NIC on the motherboard, and a 3rd on an Intel NIC installed in a PCI slot. Last week, I rebooted the machine, using the GUI, and when the machine finished booting, I could not access it from my network. I tried several things, but it was just not accessible. I finally thought to move the ethernet cable from one motherboard slot to the other, and all was well. I had full access and was happy. Today, i rebooted again from the GUI and once again I can't access the server. I just switched the cable back to the other slot in the motherboard, and once again have access. Seems like a bug to me When there are multiple enabled NIC's there are race conditions in linux affecting how they get enumerated. The network setup scripts always uses 'eth0'. There are few ways to solve this but easiest is just turn on bonding. You don't have to have cables connected to all the ports, in fact you only need one cable, but it won't matter which port you plug it into.
May 19, 201412 yr Author Did php-cgi build get dropped? Yes but php-fpm is enabled. Ahhh. It broke my webserver config which was looking for php-cgi, so family could not get to my media system... nothing but 500 errors. Would have saved me a bit of good bit of grief had that been in the release notes. In the words of Robin Seggelmann, "oops".
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.