Hello all,

 

Recently noticed that a limit has been placed on the size of a one-time transfer to my unRAID server. I know when I initially started that I could (and did) move over 100's of GBs at a time, but now it seems I'm limited to about 63GB at one time. If I try to transfer anything over 63GB, it says "There is not enough space on _____. You need an additional ___GB to copy these files." Obviously there's plenty of space left on my array. I can do multiple simultaneously transfers at <63GB, but can't do more than 63GB at once. It's odd, and to the best of my knowledge I didn't fiddle with anything.

 

Any ideas?

What are you share settings?  Post a picture of the settings for the share in question, and your global share settings, along with the Main screen so we can see the space available on the various drives

Agree the settings for the shares, the global share settings, and the main GUI will provide a lot better info for identifying why you're seeing this issue.

 

Two more questions:

 

Is this a single file > 63GB you're trying to copy, or a group of files that total that?

 

Is the share in question cached?

 

 

Will check the settings in question for you gentlemen tonight when I get home.

 

In the meantime, some questions I can definitely answer:

 

- none of the shares are cached, because I don't have a cache drive. Then again, I tried a cache drive for a while, but only used it for one share, and I believe that wasn't the one in question. Still, I'll have to look into that

- group of files that make up the transfer, not one single file that's >63GB

- from what I recall, my shares fill up relatively evenly, and I had about 100-200GB available on each, or definitely much more on one each single disk than I was trying to transfer

Share settings:

 

Allocation method: high-water

Minimum free space: 0KB

Split level: automatically split any directory as required

Included disks: all

Excluded disks: none

Use cache: no

Share empty? no

 

Global Share Settings:

 

Enable user shares: yes

Included disks: all

Excluded disks: none

 

Global Share Settings/Cache Settings:

 

Use cache disk: no

Min. free space: 2000000

 

Main screen:

 

Free space in disks 1 through 6, respectively: 443GB, 307GB, 442GB, 286GB, 243GB, 1.06TB

Total: array of seven disks (including parity disk) Size: 18.0TB; Used: 15.2TB; Free: 2.79TB

Interesting.

 

What are you copying FROM (details of the system)

 

and WITH (what program are you using to do the copies?).

 

 

From Windows 8.1, with Windows 8.1. After initial setup, I do all my moving in Windows, with the server as a networked drive or folder, however you want to see it. Nothing fancy.

What version of UnRAID?

 

... and have you made any recent changes that correlate with the occurrence of this problem?

 

6.0-beta12, and no, none that I can think of. Added a cache drive and removed it. Then added two new drives to the array.

For starters upgrade to the latest Beta.  It's a waste of time to try and debug an older Beta release ... you at least need to know if this is something that's already been resolved.    A lot has changed between Beta 12 and Beta 14b.

 

Will upgrading to the newest beta fudge anything up? I'm of the mind that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

Also, I can confirm that I hadn't had this issue before, with the same version of unRAID. It just popped up out of the blue a week or so ago, it seems.

Will upgrading to the newest beta fudge anything up? I'm of the mind that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Difficult to say.  However if you are not on the latest beta release then it is unlikely that you will get much support.

 

Another point to note is that if you DO have problems on the latest beta you want them to be identified so that they can be fixed.    As a general rule you want to stay up to date on beta releases, although waiting a few days after a release first becomes available is a good precaution as it gives a chance to get feedback as to whether the new beta has serious issues of any sort.

When I said "fudge anything up" I meant that I have my array of 6 disks + parity with all my stuff and I want all that stuff to be okay. I can live with re-setting some settings and all that, but if I upgrade I want my array intact and functional.

 

Is that an issue with upgrading? Losing data, basically?

Is that an issue with upgrading? Losing data, basically?

You'll be fine with 14b

Agree ... your data will be just fine.

 

... and you can't submit a defect report for Beta 12 => the response will simply be to upgrade to 14b and THEN see if you have the problem.    If it's still an issue there, THEN you can submit a defect report.

 

There was nothing listed about this specific issue in the changes since B12 [ http://dnld.lime-technology.com/beta/unRAIDServer-6.0-beta14b-x86_64.txt ]

 

... but there were a lot of changes, so something could easily have an impact on it.

 

In any event, all you need to do (as I assume you know) is copy the bzroot and bzimage files from the 14b download to your flash drive and then reboot.

 

THEN see if you still have the problem.

 

 

One other thought ...

 

Do you have another PC [Laptop?] that you can use to copy data to the array?

 

If so, try copying a large amount of data ( > 63GB) from that.

 

Also, I assume you're doing your copies with Windows Explorer.    Try using a different copy utility -- e.g. install the free version of TeraCopy [ https://codesector.com/teracopy ] and then try a large copy.

 

You may have some setting that's limiting the network copies to 512Gb (64GB) ... not sure what that might be, but it'd be useful to isolate this problem so you know whether it's an UnRAID issue or a client PC/software issue.

 

TeraCopy would be a good test -- and it's a good utility to use for your copies anyway, as you can set it to automatically verify all the copies.

 

 

 

 

Just tried to transfer something to the server via my Windows 8.1 laptop. Tried 70TB, and it worked! So apparently something is wonky with my desktop now. I have no idea what that could be.

 

If I update from 12 to 14, will I have to reconfigure any settings? Just trying to get an idea of how much mental "backing up" I need to do before I give it a go.

 

EDIT: And it's Explorer-specific. TeraCopy let's me pass the 63GB limit. Weird.

You shouldn't have to do anything to upgrade to 14b except copy bzroot and bzimage, then reboot.

 

None of your settings should be impacted, and your data will be just fine.

 

Just saw your edit r.e. TeraCopy.

 

I actually suspected that might be the case.    I don't, however, know why you have this artificial limit on the copies.  I'm not aware of any setting in either Windows or Windows Explorer that would limit this.  At least there's a trivial work-a-round (just use TeraCopy) that's actually a better way to copy anyhow 

 

Are you copying directly to the network or using a mapped drive?

 

 

Problem solved!

 

I had set my main folders as shortcuts (software, movies, music, etc.) for easier access. If I go Network > Server > Folder in question, I can transfer whatever. But if I go to one of the shortcuts, it spits me out in a "folder" in this location: C:\Users\Nevada\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Network Shortcuts\Movies. How odd. Apparently that imposes the limit.

 

Very weird. But thanks, I guess!

Problem solved!

 

I had set my main folders as shortcuts (software, movies, music, etc.) for easier access. If I go Network > Server > Folder in question, I can transfer whatever. But if I go to one of the shortcuts, it spits me out in a "folder" in this location: C:\Users\Nevada\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Network Shortcuts\Movies. How odd. Apparently that imposes the limit.

 

Very weird. But thanks, I guess!

That should mean you were just writing to your C drive which should have around 63GB of available space on it.  Check out your C drive and see if my assumption here is correct.

Your assumptions are indeed correct! What sorcery is this!?

Exactly -- when you copy to a shortcut the info is first "collected" in a buffer (on C:) and then the actual copy is done.

 

The coincidence that your limit seemed to be a binary power (i.e. 64GB) made it a bit more perplexing.

 

That's why I asked if you were copying directly to the network -- this doesn't involve any local buffering.

 

Weird that it does that, but oh well. So much for my time-saving shortcuts 

Weird that it does that, but oh well. So much for my time-saving shortcuts 

 

You can, of course, still use the shortcuts but just do the copies with TeraCopy