June 30, 201511 yr Make sense? Sure, that makes sense, but I'm having difficulty aligning your explanation with my personal experiences. In my most recent and ongoing adventure, the data drive that was flagged Unmountable was not being written to. I was performing a new parity build after replacing my failing parity drive. The new parity build failed when a data drive had some issues and was disabled. So in this case, I wouldn't trust the parity drive which I know is bad, but I would trust my data drive if I could get it online. So, why was this data drive flagged Unmountable and disabled when it wasn't being written to? I find this even more interesting since I was able to get the drive back online via the 'New Config' tool. I don't think things are so black and white as you explained it. Obviously this is an extreme edge case - this being a dual drive failure - so a rainy day scenario to your sunny day instructions. Following the steps you outlined did not recover the failed drive (yes I tried, still Unmountable) because the parity was bad. The 'New Config' path at least let me see the drive (and catalog what is on it). Even if some data was corrupted from an interrupted write, that would be just a few bad files to deal with vs. losing an entire drive. What is 'News' to me, if I understand what you and trurl are stating, is that if I had been writing to a drive when it failed, that my writes would continue without interruption. I guess I fully expected that at the moment of drive failure that the file write process would fail immediately, rather than continue solely to Parity. This means the writes to parity during on-the-fly reconstruct mode are unprotected. Whenever I have had a failure, I don't write to my array (and typically shut it down until I have replacement drives ready). I don't like the idea of continuing writes to an array in reconstruct mode. Personally, I would rather have my write fail, than to succeed only to a single Parity drive and thus forcing my parity and failed data drive to be instantly out of sync with each other. I've had plenty of glitches (loose cable, flaky slot, cranky backplane) over the years that were recoverable with a 'New Config' (and delete the last file being written), but only a couple true failed drives. Lastly the sunny day options on the Main menu had me either rebuilding data from bad parity, or formatting a drive that still had accessible data on it, while the rainy day option of a 'New Config' has dire warnings that I would never ever be able to recover a failed data drive if I did this, but we both know that's not true. I was able to use the New Config to get my old parity drive reinstalled and am currently rebuilding the failed drive onto a new disk, plus I got to see what was on the failed drive because miraculously it still works. The default behavior of unRAID, basically ignoring a data drive that had accessible data on it, feels unpolished. I couldn't mount it, browse it, see much of anything about it. Yet by doing exactly what I'm warned not to do, I got it back online and could browse it, catalog it, save data off of it. I understand that the system behavior is probably best for a sunny day single drive failure, but I truly feel I would have lost data had I not known better. Seems to me that instead of offering to 'Format' a drive that had a hiccup, offering to at least retry mounting the drive so I could browse it, and possibly reporting on any potentially corrupted files, would have been a nice option. Don't get me wrong - I love unRAID and swear by it, and its definitely better than ever - I'm simply pointing out how unfriendly the system menu was when I had my dual drive issues. It could have been much better. Perhaps it could have recognized I had a dual drive failure and pointed me to a forum topic for advanced recovery techniques. Instead, it lied to me that my parity was good, and basically offered to format my data drive as the only way to get it mounted. I'm glad I knew better (and thanks to Gary for consulting), and feel sorry for the person who doesn't. Sorry for my longwindedness, I know no other way.
July 2, 201511 yr Hi folks, I'm on 6.0.0 final with no issue BUT if I check for updates, it reports me that I'm 'up to date' and it doesn't show me 6.0.1 as available Is this a known bug? What could it because of? EDIT: it seems to be related to bad internet connectivity due to Jumbo Frame settings... LAN connectivity was perfect, but internet had issues... Anyway unRAID wasn't reporting any error during checks... (and I think it should do... even only for help troubleshooting! ) Found 6.0.1 & two more plugin updates now...
July 2, 201511 yr Hi, today i have installed 6.0.1. all runs fine at the moment, the only thing i´m searching for is the "mover" settings. I could swear that this settings was under settings/Global share settings, where i could say at what time the mover will run. Where could i find these feature now ?
July 2, 201511 yr Hi, today i have installed 6.0.1. all runs fine at the moment, the only thing i´m searching for is the "mover" settings. I could swear that this settings was under settings/Global share settings, where i could say at what time the mover will run. Where could i find these feature now ? Settings>Scheduler You can also now execute the mover from the Main tab too.
July 2, 201511 yr Thanks for the fast answer. Based on your initial question I am guessing this is your first play with v6. If it is, enjoy. It's awesome!
July 2, 201511 yr It will depend on what goes into the release. Plan is to release 6.1-rc1, then 6.1.0. If before 6.1.0 is released, something is found in 6.0.1 (the current stable) that needs immediate attention, we'll generate a 6.0.2, but once 6.1.0 is released, that's the end of the line for 6.0.x. Now that we are on a stable release with 6.0.1, will the update plugin still suggest upgrading to betas/release candidates, or will it stick to stable releases? Ideally there should be two branches, one for the latest stable release, and one for beta releases with an toggle somewhere that allows users to go between the two (with the typical beta caution language baked in)
July 2, 201511 yr Ideally there should be two branches, one for the latest stable release, and one for beta releases with an toggle somewhere that allows users to go between the two (with the typical beta caution language baked in) And another custom build branch with selectable options e.g. media drivers
July 3, 201511 yr We are in process of integrating docker 1.7.0 into unRaid-6.1. Along with P+Q dual parity? <big grin> I'd certainly like to see more of a focus on such things like this, given it is unRAID's core functionality. VM's seem to have been a big focus of 6.0. It'd be nice to see a focus on the core features and functionality. I fear now that the drive and focus is going to be more about VM features and functionality.
July 3, 201511 yr We are in process of integrating docker 1.7.0 into unRaid-6.1. Along with P+Q dual parity? <big grin> I'd certainly like to see more of a focus on such things like this, given it is unRAID's core functionality. VM's seem to have been a big focus of 6.0. It'd be nice to see a focus on the core features and functionality. I fear now that the drive and focus is going to be more about VM features and functionality. Guess you'll just have to wait and see what we have in store!! It's worth noting that the poll running in the v6 webgui right now shows some interesting results about what features the majority of folks are voting for as their favorites...
July 3, 201511 yr We are in process of integrating docker 1.7.0 into unRaid-6.1. Along with P+Q dual parity? <big grin> I'd certainly like to see more of a focus on such things like this, given it is unRAID's core functionality. VM's seem to have been a big focus of 6.0. It'd be nice to see a focus on the core features and functionality. I fear now that the drive and focus is going to be more about VM features and functionality. I would say there was a very strong focus on core NAS features and functionality in the 6.0 series. Do not overlook the work put in on the following core items: UPS Integration SMART Monitoring Scheduled Parity Checks System Event Notifications System Diagnostic Reporting Support for XFS Support for BTRFS Support for BTRFS Pool for Cache Drive Software Upgrade Notifications and improvements Better support for community provided feature expansion (Docker)
July 3, 201511 yr We are in process of integrating docker 1.7.0 into unRaid-6.1. Along with P+Q dual parity? <big grin> I'd certainly like to see more of a focus on such things like this, given it is unRAID's core functionality. VM's seem to have been a big focus of 6.0. It'd be nice to see a focus on the core features and functionality. I fear now that the drive and focus is going to be more about VM features and functionality. I would say there was a very strong focus on core NAS features and functionality in the 6.0 series. Do not overlook the work put in on the following core items: UPS Integration SMART Monitoring Scheduled Parity Checks System Event Notifications System Diagnostic Reporting Support for XFS Support for BTRFS Support for BTRFS Pool for Cache Drive Software Upgrade Notifications and improvements Better support for community provided feature expansion (Docker) Thats a great point. It is "easy" to get carried away and forget that good work. I for one am guilty of that sometimes. Nice reminder.
July 3, 201511 yr I think it's clear that unraid v6 had turned out to be an awesome improvement over v5. The work put in it was well worth the wait. As an unraid user for nearly 3 years (2years as an esxi guest) i'm totally enthusiastic about v6 and what is has become! I've recently switched from esxi to bare metal unraid. So i just wanna give a BIG thank you for all the work put into unraid. Thx limetech, jonp and everyone involved.
July 3, 201511 yr Is there cache_dirs still working with V6.0.0 and up? Or is there a easier configurable version now that is integrated in the GUI?
July 3, 201511 yr Is there cache_dirs still working with V6.0.0 and up? Or is there a easier configurable version now that is integrated in the GUI? Look here: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=36543.0
July 3, 201511 yr I would say there was a very strong focus on core NAS features and functionality in the 6.0 series. Do not overlook the work put in on the following core items: UPS Integration SMART Monitoring Scheduled Parity Checks System Event Notifications System Diagnostic Reporting Support for XFS Support for BTRFS Support for BTRFS Pool for Cache Drive Software Upgrade Notifications and improvements Better support for community provided feature expansion (Docker) And some more ... New webGUI New dashboard page Enhanced navigation for user and disk shares Enhanced plugins manager with support of release notes Enhanced interface for Docker installation Enhanced interface for VM installation Download individual SMART reports Download syslog information as zip file
July 3, 201511 yr And for system notifications, let's not overlook the fact that we support a lot more than just SMTP now.
July 3, 201511 yr And for system notifications, let's not overlook the fact that we support a lot more than just SMTP now. One of the biggest awesomeness on unraid 6 is this for me. So great to be hetting pushover messages about my NAS status. Just have to find an icon now which fits unraid....googling lemon pics now....
July 3, 201511 yr And for system notifications, let's not overlook the fact that we support a lot more than just SMTP now. One of the biggest awesomeness on unraid 6 is this for me. So great to be hetting pushover messages about my NAS status. Just have to find an icon now which fits unraid....googling lemon pics now.... lemon for limetech ?
July 3, 201511 yr And for system notifications, let's not overlook the fact that we support a lot more than just SMTP now. One of the biggest awesomeness on unraid 6 is this for me. So great to be hetting pushover messages about my NAS status. Just have to find an icon now which fits unraid....googling lemon pics now.... lemon for limetech ? Lemon, Lime, what's the difference (for the colorblind)?
July 3, 201511 yr I moved the support for Merlyn to a new topic, to General Support for v6. [iurl=http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=41238.0]http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=41238.0[/iurl]
July 4, 201511 yr And for system notifications, let's not overlook the fact that we support a lot more than just SMTP now. One of the biggest awesomeness on unraid 6 is this for me. So great to be hetting pushover messages about my NAS status. Just have to find an icon now which fits unraid....googling lemon pics now.... lemon for limetech ? Lol have always thought they were the same thing,just that one was the colour when its ripe and the other isn't
July 4, 201511 yr lemon for limetech ? Lol have always thought they were the same thing,just that one was the colour when its ripe and the other isn't Really? http://www.diffen.com/difference/Lemon_vs_Lime
July 4, 201511 yr Guess you'll just have to wait and see what we have in store!! It's worth noting that the poll running in the v6 webgui right now shows some interesting results about what features the majority of folks are voting for as their favorites... Would be nice if those of us who can't yet upgrade to v6 could also vote for the future...
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.