Disable parity


Recommended Posts

The best way is to do a New Config and simply don't assign a parity drive ... i.e. assign all the data drives exactly as they are now -- and the cache drive if you have one -- but do NOT assign a parity drive.

 

Then, when the writes are all done, you simply Stop the array; assign the parity drive; and then Start the array again -- it will then do a parity sync.

 

As I'm sure you're aware, doing it this way means your array won't be fault tolerant while you're writing the data to it => so be sure you have a complete set of backups of your data (should always have those anyway, but clearly it's even more important when you don't have a parity drive).

 

 

Link to comment

Yes, that will work too => as long as you don't mind the "Missing" warning on the Web GUI.    I like it "clean:  :)

 

But since you're not actually likely to even look at the GUI, it's certainly a quicker way  :) :)

(Rob's right -- I wasn't completely awake when I posted that)

Link to comment

Thanks all!! Speed is not that much faster!

 

Interesting => I wonder if there's a difference in how UnRAID treats an array with "missing parity" vs. writing to an array that simply hasn't had a parity drive assigned [e.g. a "New Config" with no parity assigned].    Might be worth an experiment if you still have a lot of data to copy.

 

 

Link to comment

Ahh ... I think you have "hit the wall" on the shingled drive performance with your copies !!  The good news is once the data's all copied, it's unlikely you'll encounter that issue again with normal array usage.

 

Good to know actually => when I build my next BIG array I'll remember this and just copy my entire media server collection to the new array BEFORE assigning a parity drive.

 

 

Link to comment

One notable difference between your transfers and the testing Daniel did is (I think) that you have several more data drives.    This likely caused the writes to the parity drive to be "scattered" a lot more, and thus may very well have caused the persistent cache to fill up quicker ... thus "hitting the wall".

 

This is EXACTLY the scenario that made me (and others) very skeptical about using a shingled drive for parity.  I still think Daniel's testing shows that for MOST typical UnRAID array usage patterns, it's not likely to be a problem => indeed as long as you never copy more than 25GB at once it certainly won't be, since the persistent cache will have time to empty itself during the interim idle periods ... but clearly for a very active array with a lot of writes, the concerns are very valid.    The idea of using a pair of 4TB drives in a RAID-0 array for your parity drive in arrays with the 8TB SMR drives is perhaps not a bad one if your usage pattern is one that may have this problem.

 

Link to comment

... Unfortunately it timeout again.

 

Your experience is a bit scary ... not nearly as positive as Daniel's.    What are the characteristics of your data?  i.e. all large media files;  a lot of smaller files;  all going to the same place, or are they spreading around a lot due to share settings/split values ??

 

Link to comment

I am doing a direct disk to disk transfer of large bluray files. I am transferring from hd share disk to disk. I am now doing smaller transfers and then swapping to another target data disk to give the previous disk a break to clear the persistent cache.

 

The timeout disk only has 500gb left of the 8tb and maybe that's the problem.

Link to comment

The timeout disk only has 500gb left of the 8tb and maybe that's the problem.

 

Hmm ... I wonder if this is the same issue with XFS that Reiser has when a disk is very full => if so, this may be a file system issue and not an SMR problem.  Really hard to say for sure, but I'd think that a large BluRay file would result in full band writes that wouldn't use much (if any) of the persistent cache.

 

Link to comment
  • 5 years later...

I had 6 drives in my array without a parity drive for over 2 months. The speed difference is over 2x without parity enabled. When I used Krusader to copy large movie files (>20gb) from one drive to another, I used to average about 150 MB/s, but now with a single parity drive my transfer speed is about 55 MB/s. I wonder if its possible to turn off Parity when you want to and then enable it later to run in the background and sync everything.

 

Anyone know if the speed is any better with 2 parity drives?

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, mondama13 said:

I had 6 drives in my array without a parity drive for over 2 months. The speed difference is over 2x without parity enabled. When I used Krusader to copy large movie files (>20gb) from one drive to another, I used to average about 150 MB/s, but now with a single parity drive my transfer speed is about 55 MB/s. I wonder if its possible to turn off Parity when you want to and then enable it later to run in the background and sync everything.

 

Anyone know if the speed is any better with 2 parity drives?

 

I don't believe there is any way to disable parity except to unassigned the parity drives.

 

I agree the speed issue is annoying but the trade off is you disable parity to move the data and then have to create parity each time you do this.  That might not be as annoying since you can do parity in the background but my parity checks/creations take around 8-10 hours, and I'm uneasy about writing new data to the array during that time, but that's just me. 

 

So is a slower transfer better or a long parity creation time? That's your choice.

 

2 parity drives does not effect the speed in either way.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, mondama13 said:

I wonder if its possible to turn off Parity when you want to and then enable it later to run in the background and sync everything.

Not really. I guess you could do a new config and remove the parity assignments, then do another new config, add parity back, and rebuild it. That would take much longer to complete and you would be unprotected from drive failure until parity was done building.

 

10 minutes ago, mondama13 said:

Anyone know if the speed is any better with 2 parity drives?

Definitely no. In some instances it's slower because parity 2 slot requires much more maths, and some CPU's don't have the horsepower.

 

Why are you doing so much disk to disk moving? Normally that's not really a thing, unless you are rethinking how you want things permanently arranged.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.