February 14, 201511 yr Author almost 30hrs and counting... ================================================================== 1.15 = unRAID server Pre-Clear disk /dev/sdp = cycle 1 of 1, partition start on sector 1 = Disk Pre-Clear-Read completed DONE = Step 1 of 10 - Copying zeros to first 2048k bytes DONE = Step 2 of 10 - Copying zeros to remainder of disk to clear it DONE = Step 3 of 10 - Disk is now cleared from MBR onward. DONE = Step 4 of 10 - Clearing MBR bytes for partition 2,3 & 4 DONE = Step 5 of 10 - Clearing MBR code area DONE = Step 6 of 10 - Setting MBR signature bytes DONE = Step 7 of 10 - Setting partition 1 to precleared state DONE = Step 8 of 10 - Notifying kernel we changed the partitioning DONE = Step 9 of 10 - Creating the /dev/disk/by* entries DONE = Step 10 of 10 - Verifying if the MBR is cleared. DONE = Post-Read in progress: 37% complete. ( 1,489,816,780,800 of 4,000,787,030,016 bytes read ) 114 MB/s Disk Temperature: 30C, Elapsed Time: 29:26:43
February 14, 201511 yr Looking good ... it DOES take time to go through 4TB => note that it's working at 114MB/s, which is certainly a good speed. There's just a LOT of data on modern disks I remember thinking how insanely large my first hard disk was ... a 26MB Seagate I bought in 1981. And this disk has 153,846 times as much storage as that disk had !! [And, incidentally, costs about 1/12,000,000th as much per MB]
February 14, 201511 yr Author i saw it do its thing at upward of 150MB/sec, even. when Todd Rundgren and i started NUtopia, our early 90's CG Video company, we were shipped an 8GB drive by NewTek that looked like a 5-drive Synology RAID system, size and weight wise...and cost as much as one. yeah, we've come a long way since dialing into a CompuServe BBS Forum at 1200baud (not to mention 300baud)!
February 15, 201511 yr Author and this is that: ================================================================== 1.15 = unRAID server Pre-Clear disk /dev/sdp = cycle 1 of 1, partition start on sector 1 = Disk Pre-Clear-Read completed DONE = Step 1 of 10 - Copying zeros to first 2048k bytes DONE = Step 2 of 10 - Copying zeros to remainder of disk to clear it DONE = Step 3 of 10 - Disk is now cleared from MBR onward. DONE = Step 4 of 10 - Clearing MBR bytes for partition 2,3 & 4 DONE = Step 5 of 10 - Clearing MBR code area DONE = Step 6 of 10 - Setting MBR signature bytes DONE = Step 7 of 10 - Setting partition 1 to precleared state DONE = Step 8 of 10 - Notifying kernel we changed the partitioning DONE = Step 9 of 10 - Creating the /dev/disk/by* entries DONE = Step 10 of 10 - Verifying if the MBR is cleared. DONE = Disk Post-Clear-Read completed DONE Disk Temperature: 29C, Elapsed Time: 46:59:51 ========================================================================1.15 == WDCWD40EFRX-68WT0N0 WD-WCC4E6ENHNNK == Disk /dev/sdp has been successfully precleared == with a starting sector of 1 ============================================================================ ** Changed attributes in files: /tmp/smart_start_sdp /tmp/smart_finish_sdp ATTRIBUTE NEW_VAL OLD_VAL FAILURE_THRESHOLD STATUS RAW_VALUE Temperature_Celsius = 123 125 0 ok 29 No SMART attributes are FAILING_NOW 0 sectors were pending re-allocation before the start of the preclear. 0 sectors were pending re-allocation after pre-read in cycle 1 of 1. 0 sectors were pending re-allocation after zero of disk in cycle 1 of 1. 0 sectors are pending re-allocation at the end of the preclear, the number of sectors pending re-allocation did not change. 0 sectors had been re-allocated before the start of the preclear. 0 sectors are re-allocated at the end of the preclear, the number of sectors re-allocated did not change. so, do i need to a New Config before assigning the new parity disk to the array, or can i do it with the config i just did before running the preclear command on the one un-assigned disk (which will now be the new parity disk)? i mean, it will *let* me assign this new disk as parity right now, but is it the correct thing to do?
February 15, 201511 yr Author just to be safe, i did a New Config...what's another 5mins after all this? and now it's doing the Parity Sync...in another 24hrs or so, i should be back to a protected and complete (-12GB) array. but i think i said something like this a few days ago, so let's just see how it goes...
February 15, 201511 yr From what I read here: http://lime-technology.com/wiki/index.php/Un-Official_UnRAID_Manual#Colored_status_indicator This may be a normal condition! (Look at the 'Yellow' color.)
February 15, 201511 yr Author Yes, according to that outline, it could actually be "normal", although that big orange window sure has way of making me feel otherwise...I'll just let it run its course and hope for the best.
February 15, 201511 yr Yes, according to that outline, it could actually be "normal", although that big orange window sure has way of making me feel otherwise...I'll just let it run its course and hope for the best. I think what happens is that the flag is 'run-up' by Dynamix whenever there is a yellow dot condition. (Unfortunately, a few months ago, I had a parity drive with come 27,000+ errors on it and never got a message. I only found it when I checked the 'Main--Array Devices' page and saw the error count on the screen!) Perhaps there should be some additional logic added so that if the yellow dot is for the parity drive and a parity-sync is going on then the flag should not be run-up.
February 15, 201511 yr Author solid idea! isn't Tom implementing much of the Dynamix code into unRAID v6 ? This sounds like a great suggestion for him then.
February 15, 201511 yr solid idea! isn't Tom implementing much of the Dynamix code into unRAID v6 ? This sounds like a great suggestion for him then. I believe that the GUI code for Ver 6 is actually be written by the same person who developed Dynamix for Ver 5. I would suggest that, if your parity-sync is successful, you post a message in the thread for ver 5 Dynamix and point to the posts in this thread about the issue.
February 16, 201511 yr I suspect it will finish just fine. As noted in the link Frank gave regarding the colors, yellow has this note: "... The parity disk has this status when Parity-Sync is taking place ..." Why Dynamix has that flag is beyond me. The original Web GUI would have simply shown the yellow dot that you'd have expected ... and that's really all Dynamix should show when there's not an actual error in the drive (as during a parity sync).
February 16, 201511 yr Author i wish you were all right, but this is what i found this morning...i don't know what to do anymore, and i'm getting *very* tired of this system's ability to suck so much time (and money) out of me...pretty much same warnings as with the previous parity drive, so i wonder whether there was anything wrong with the previous disk...it must be something else:
February 16, 201511 yr At the moment the notifications (in particular the SAMRT tests) are a 'work-in-progress' so one needs to take what they say with a note of caution. I would suggest that you have a quick look at the SMART report results an as long as nothing throws up a red flag not worry too much. More important is whether the drive shows up as 'green' in the main GUI or 'red' indicating there has been a write failure.
February 16, 201511 yr Author well, it looks like the Parity Check stopped at 28%, as you can see in the previous screen shot, and as you can see in this one, the Parity is now red and offlined...so, i am worried about this being essentially the same thing that happened with the previous 4TB Red drive i just swapped out with this one...although, if i remember correctly, the previous one actually completed the Parity Check and showed up green in the end...maybe i could/should have stopped there?
February 16, 201511 yr Wow - I just don't know what to tell you here. I don't use Dynamix -- I prefer the original Web GUI and use UnMenu to get SMART reports, control the UPS, etc. -- so I don't know if its interactions with the disk have any impact on the parity checks or not [it's constantly accessing the disk for SMART reports; updating the GUI; etc.]. ... but you might want to try reverting to the basic Web GUI and then starting another parity sync.
February 16, 201511 yr Author damn, which folders will i need to rename again to revert back to the stock WebGUI?
February 16, 201511 yr Author > stock go script > /config/plugins needs to be renamed > /plugins needs to be renamed if i remember correctly.
February 16, 201511 yr Author yup, that was it. just started another Parity Sync...10hrs or so to go...will report back. or 15hrs, depends on when i ask.
February 16, 201511 yr Fingers crossed -- I'll look for your post tomorrow (actually today) evening. Hitting the sack now (almost 5AM here ... as I'm sure you've figured out, I'm a night owl).
February 16, 201511 yr Author 40% in, 0 errors...i got a much better feeling about this attempt. maybe i just learned an important lesson about using Dynamix for critical disk operations...keeping my fingers crossed.
February 16, 201511 yr Hope saying that didn't jinx you ... There's no choice about using Dynamix with v6 -- it's now the standard GUI, but that also means that virtually all development of it has been focused on the v6 version for the past few months. I also know there were a lot of issues with it that caused several weeks delay in the release of the latest v6 Beta that included Dynamix as the GUI. I have no insight as to whether these were in any way related to the issue you had with this -- but I think the "safest" thing to do with v5 is to simply stay very conservative and use the stock GUI. (That's what I do - I just don't see anything I need that's not in the stock GUI with UnMenu added) By the way, did you ever update from 5.0.4 to 5.0.6? It's just a matter of copying the new bzroot and bzimage files to your flash drive -- and this would ensure you have the final, most-stable version of v5. This may even have something to do with the interaction with Dynamix (I don't know whether that's the case or not). Hopefully by later today you'll have a positive report on the successful completion of the parity sync. Then you just need to run a parity check to confirm everything went well and you'll be done with this saga :)
February 16, 201511 yr Author Yes, I did update to 5.06 last week. I faintly remember having had all sorts of problems getting unMenu to work as designed, but failed pretty miserably...but that was a while ago, so maybe I'll give it another try...I was elated when I found Dynamix, as I am a UI designer myself and really appreciate good UI design...it physically hurts me to look at the stock WebGUI...but if that's what it takes...
February 16, 201511 yr Dynamix is a nice UI ... although the simple fact is I don't spend any significant amount of time using the GUI, so it really doesn't matter to me. I glance at it periodically to be sure all the drives are "green" ... but that's about it. I just want my array to be rock solid -- and it has been for many years. I have 4 UnRAID systems ... 3 that I use and 1 that I use to test UnRAID (it has no real data on it ... or, more correctly, no data that's not also on one of my other systems). My 3 operational systems are v5, the test system is v6 ... and it's the only one I run Dynamix on. I tried it a few months ago on one of the v5 setups, but had several issues, so I reverted to the stock GUI, and haven't bothered to switch back. I'm sure the latest version of Dynamix is much more stable ... although your experience makes me wonder if perhaps the focus on v6 development has left a few bugs in the older version that were never resolved.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.