So I've finished setting up my first unraid server, have all my drives set up, and I just finished aggregating all my previously distributed files into one user share I just labeled 'Media' that I set to most-free with splitting any level.  I want to create new shares based on the media type (i.e. Movies, TV Shows, Pictures, etc.), but I was reading some of the threads on the forums here and there's a bug about copying files around the system.  I only want to move from the Media share to my new TV Show share, but I don't want to get the zero-length file issue.  Is that glitch only when moving from a disk to a share, or is it share to share as well?  If need be I can shift individual files off the server when I'm sorting but that would be a lot more work than I'd like.

So I've finished setting up my first unraid server, have all my drives set up, and I just finished aggregating all my previously distributed files into one user share I just labeled 'Media' that I set to most-free with splitting any level.  I want to create new shares based on the media type (i.e. Movies, TV Shows, Pictures, etc.), but I was reading some of the threads on the forums here and there's a bug about copying files around the system.  I only want to move from the Media share to my new TV Show share, but I don't want to get the zero-length file issue.  Is that glitch only when moving from a disk to a share, or is it share to share as well?  If need be I can shift individual files off the server when I'm sorting but that would be a lot more work than I'd like.

If you're moving from SHARE_A to SHARE_B then you will not be affected.  The "bug" (its debatable whether its a bug or just a by-product of how linux works) only happens if you move a from from diskX/SHARE_A to SHARE_A.

 

But, if you're doing the moves through Windows, it will be slow because it has to first transfer the files to windows, and then back to the server.  It would be faster to use Midnight Commander or the command line to accomplish what you're trying to do.

I don't plan on doing anything at the disk level, and will only be going through the shares as I plan on mapping them as networked drives in windows.

 

I use TeraCopy when doing moves and copies, will this avoid that move delay you mention?

I don't plan on doing anything at the disk level, and will only be going through the shares as I plan on mapping them as networked drives in windows.

 

I use TeraCopy when doing moves and copies, will this avoid that move delay you mention?

It'll be faster than just using windows, but the files will still have to traverse the network.

... I use TeraCopy when doing moves and copies, will this avoid that move delay you mention?

 

Teracopy is fine.  There's actually no delay to worry about as long as you have a Gb network.

 

 

... But, if you're doing the moves through Windows, it will be slow because it has to first transfer the files to windows, and then back to the server.  It would be faster to use Midnight Commander or the command line to accomplish what you're trying to do.

 

As long the network is Gb and the array is fault tolerant (i.e. has a parity drive assigned), that is not correct.  Using a Windows client to do the copies (Windows Explorer, TeraCopy, etc.) won't slow things down because the Gb network can easily transfer data fast enough to sustain the maximum write speed to the protected array.

 

If, however, you haven't yet assigned a parity drive, then it's correct that doing the copies locally on the UnRAID box would be quicker.

 

 

... It'll be faster than just using windows, but the files will still have to traverse the network.

 

??  TeraCopy IS a Windows utility, so you're still using Windows.    It's no faster than simply using Windows Explorer ... in fact, it's likely slower, assuming you use its automatic validation setting.

 

... It'll be faster than just using windows, but the files will still have to traverse the network.

 

??  TeraCopy IS a Windows utility, so you're still using Windows.    It's no faster than simply using Windows Explorer ... in fact, it's likely slower, assuming you use its automatic validation setting.

Not that it matters, but I do disagree with you here.  In my experience, terracopy is faster than using explorer.

As long the network is Gb and the array is fault tolerant (i.e. has a parity drive assigned), that is not correct.  Using a Windows client to do the copies (Windows Explorer, TeraCopy, etc.) won't slow things down because the Gb network can easily transfer data fast enough to sustain the maximum write speed to the protected array.

 

If, however, you haven't yet assigned a parity drive, then it's correct that doing the copies locally on the UnRAID box would be quicker.

 

I have my parity drive set-up and running fine, and I am on a gigabit connection for both to my router, so I can just keep using TeraCopy?

As long the network is Gb and the array is fault tolerant (i.e. has a parity drive assigned), that is not correct.  Using a Windows client to do the copies (Windows Explorer, TeraCopy, etc.) won't slow things down because the Gb network can easily transfer data fast enough to sustain the maximum write speed to the protected array.

 

If, however, you haven't yet assigned a parity drive, then it's correct that doing the copies locally on the UnRAID box would be quicker.

 

I have my parity drive set-up and running fine, and I am on a gigabit connection for both to my router, so I can just keep using TeraCopy?

 

Yes, that's what I'd do.

 

... It'll be faster than just using windows, but the files will still have to traverse the network.

 

??  TeraCopy IS a Windows utility, so you're still using Windows.    It's no faster than simply using Windows Explorer ... in fact, it's likely slower, assuming you use its automatic validation setting.

Not that it matters, but I do disagree with you here.  In my experience, terracopy is faster than using explorer.

 

I've not seen that -- they've actually been virtually identical in speed.    Teracopy takes longer because I have it set to always do a validation of the copies.

 

There IS, however, one VERY nice feature of TeraCopy that makes it FAR preferable to Explorer => if a file has a problem, it simply notes that in the status and continues the copies.  Windows Explorer simply aborts at that point and you have no idea what has/hasn't actually been copied.

 

Awesome, I'm sorting all my stuff now!

 

There IS, however, one VERY nice feature of TeraCopy that makes it FAR preferable to Explorer => if a file has a problem, it simply notes that in the status and continues the copies.  Windows Explorer simply aborts at that point and you have no idea what has/hasn't actually been copied.

 

This is the reason I use TeraCopy myself, on top of the built-in file verification.