Wrong File System Type on new drive?

[walterg74]

 

I just removed a 1TB drive from my array, to replace it with a larger 3TB one. I have done this before and all good.

 

However I noted on this occasion that besides the fact that my default FS is XFS, the main screen is showing the new disk as reiserfs?

 

Did I do something wrong, or is this normal because the old drive was resierfs and it will change later when the process is finished?

 

Attaching screenshots.

 

Thanks.

[Squid]

A rebuld will always restore the original file system.  The only way to switch file systems is to copy all of the files off of the drive and when it's empty to change the file system, format the drive and then copy the files back

[walterg74]

Ok, that's weird... If you look at the screenshots, the one that says "disk 1"  replaced another 1TB one with reserves, yet that one shows XFS

 

In any case, what is the proper way to do this copy you mention?  Between disk shares? Or would I mess something up this way?

 

Besides the details I'm asking for above, would the steps be:

 

1) Let the rebuild finish

2) Copy what-s on that disk to another one

3) convert the disk

4) copy files back?

 

Any difference/reason for copying the files back instead of just leaving them on the destination disk where they were copied prior to the file system conversion?

[Squid]

Ok, that's weird... If you look at the screenshots, the one that says "disk 1"  replaced another 1TB one with reserves, yet that one shows XFS

 

In any case, what is the proper way to do this copy you mention?  Between disk shares? Or would I mess something up this way?

 

Besides the details I'm asking for above, would the steps be:

 

1) Let the rebuild finish

2) Copy what-s on that disk to another one

3) convert the disk

4) copy files back?

 

Any difference/reason for copying the files back instead of just leaving them on the destination disk where they were copied prior to the file system conversion?

As far as disk1 is concerned, I can guarantee that when you upgraded it that it was xfs not reiserfs as there is no way unRaid ever does the conversion for you.

 

Those steps are the correct rough steps.  There's a whole sticky dedicated to rfs -> xfs conversion  http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=37490.0

 

and yeah, there's no real reason to copy the files back.

[walterg74]

Ok, that's weird... If you look at the screenshots, the one that says "disk 1"  replaced another 1TB one with reserves, yet that one shows XFS

 

In any case, what is the proper way to do this copy you mention?  Between disk shares? Or would I mess something up this way?

 

Besides the details I'm asking for above, would the steps be:

 

1) Let the rebuild finish

2) Copy what-s on that disk to another one

3) convert the disk

4) copy files back?

 

Any difference/reason for copying the files back instead of just leaving them on the destination disk where they were copied prior to the file system conversion?

As far as disk1 is concerned, I can guarantee that when you upgraded it that it was xfs not reiserfs as there is no way unRaid ever does the conversion for you.

 

Those steps are the correct rough steps.  There's a whole sticky dedicated to rfs -> xfs conversion  http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=37490.0

 

and yeah, there's no real reason to copy the files back.

 

 

Thanks for that, it's clear now with this and the thread

 

One last doubt I have is regarding the copy process itself.  I would rather do it from windows through file explorer, files at a time, etc.  Don't have that much data on the disk anyway, it's a reasonable amount.

 

So my doubt is how exactly should I copy this?  Would I have to just use the *disk* shares and copy it like that?  (creating an outermost folder first like it suggests in the thread to avoid duplicates).

 

Since I do have other disks, with enough free space to contain the data on the disk I want to convert, I would just copy it to that disk (unless I mess up the water mark thing balance unraid calculates).

 

What about later to move the file? I haven't had too much luck when I tried a move once from windows, as it didn't seem to take any time to do it and not sure what the result of that was...

 

Maybe it's better to copy the file to a folder on another disk, and then after converting the resierfs one and it getting formatted I can just copy them back to the root of that one?

 

 

[Squid]

Go from disk to disk.  Do not go from disk to share as you will possibly run into the user share copy bug which will trash your data.

 

Windows is fine (albeit slow since everything navigates through the network back and forth)

 

A faster way is to use the dolphin / krusader apps (add a mapping for /mnt mapped to /mnt) for a windows-like environment

[walterg74]

Go from disk to disk.  Do not go from disk to share as you will possibly run into the user share copy bug which will trash your data.

 

Windows is fine (albeit slow since everything navigates through the network back and forth)

 

A faster way is to use the dolphin / krusader apps (add a mapping for /mnt mapped to /mnt) for a windows-like environment

 

Sorry, I'm particularly slow/stupid today...

 

What do you mean "don't go from disk to share"?  do you mean *user* share,  or share un general? (is a disk share also a user share?)

 

If I go to:  \\tower\disk1  is that disk or still a share?  If share, how do I actually go to disk???

 

 

If I wanted to try those apps, any pointers to installing them and using them?

 

[Squid]

Go from /mnt/diskX/share to /mnt/diskY/share.

 

If you go from /mnt/diskX/share to /mnt/user/share, then you're going to wind up trashing your files

 

Alternatively, you *can* go from /mnt/diskX/shareA to /mnt/user/shareB (and exclude diskX from shareB settings).  Do it this way if you want to maybe spread out all those files across the other disks.

[walterg74]

Go from /mnt/diskX/share to /mnt/diskY/share.

 

If you go from /mnt/diskX/share to /mnt/user/share, then you're going to wind up trashing your files

 

Alternatively, you *can* go from /mnt/diskX/shareA to /mnt/user/shareB (and exclude diskX from shareB settings).  Do it this way if you want to maybe spread out all those files across the other disks.

 

But would I have to do that cli or is it the same if I do it from windows?

 

i.e.:

open a windows explorer window to \\tower\disk1\pictures

open a windows explorer window to \\tower\disk2\pictures

 

Copy from the first to the second.

 

(This would give me duplicate files I suppose, so maybe instead for the destination sonething like: \\tower\disk2\temp ?)

[Squid]

You can do in windows.  Since that's what you're used to using, its probably the safest, but it is the slowest way of doing things... But it will work no problems)

 

Dups won't hurt in this case, but its always a good thing to avoid, so do the second then after its done rename the folder (or cut the files from the new share you just created on disk2 to the pictures share on disk 2.  Will be instantaneous

[walterg74]

You can do in windows.  Since that's what you're used to using, its probably the safest, but it is the slowest way of doing things... But it will work no problems)

 

Dups won't hurt in this case, but its always a good thing to avoid, so do the second then after its done rename the folder (or cut the files from the new share you just created on disk2 to the pictures share on disk 2.  Will be instantaneous

 

I'm familiar with using linux/unix, just not with the underlying unraid os itself and I don't want to screw anything up by doing something I'm not aware may have any effectc but open to doing it another way if it's better/faster.

[switchman]

You could always uses unBalance. 

 

Or something like this:

rsync -avh --progress --remove-source-files /mnt/disk3/ /mnt/disk1/

or

rsync -avh --progress --remove-source-files /mnt/disk3/TV_Shows /mnt/disk1

or use midnight commander. I would try to keep the copy/move on the server if possible.

 

NOTE:  Edit the paths as appropriate for you application.

[RobJ]

rsync -avh ...

 

I believe that should be rsync -avH instead.  -h shows help screens, -H includes hard links.

I stand corrected!  Apparently I've been using obsolete man pages!

[switchman]

rsync -avh ...

 

I believe that should be rsync -avH instead.  -h shows help screens, -H includes hard links.  But not sure if you want hard links?

 

from man page

 

-h, --human-readable        output numbers in a human-readable format

 

--help

    Print a short help page describing the options available in rsync and exit. For backward-compatibility with older versions of rsync, the help will also be output if you use the -h option without any other args

[RobJ]

rsync -avh ...

 

I believe that should be rsync -avH instead.  -h shows help screens, -H includes hard links.  But not sure if you want hard links?

 

from man page

 

-h, --human-readable        output numbers in a human-readable format

 

--help

    Print a short help page describing the options available in rsync and exit. For backward-compatibility with older versions of rsync, the help will also be output if you use the -h option without any other args

I stand corrected.  The man pages that come up for me mostly do not have the human-readable option!  I did some searching, and it looks like almost a third of the rsync man pages do not have it, and show -h is help only.

 

It would be nice if the correct man pages were available for unRAID, perhaps in a folder on the boot drive, or perhaps on the LimeTech web site.  But the help for the rsync included with unRAID does indicate -h is the human-readable option.

[walterg74]

Thanks guys!

 

As I see mc is builtin, and it should serve my purposes, I will just use that.

 

One question that is probably stupid... even though I'm not accessing the "standard" way through shares, etc. I assume unRAID in the background keeps track of all this writing to the disks anyway and updates parity and the likes accordingly, right?  I won't have to do anything special after copying to another disk and deleting from the source one?  (and using this tool I guess I can just *move* the files from /mnt/diskA/share to /mnt/diskB/share and also forget about the duplicates problem.

 

[trurl]

Thanks guys!

 

As I see mc is builtin, and it should serve my purposes, I will just use that.

 

One question that is probably stupid... even though I'm not accessing the "standard" way through shares, etc. I assume unRAID in the background keeps track of all this writing to the disks anyway and updates parity and the likes accordingly, right?  I won't have to do anything special after copying to another disk and deleting from the source one?  (and using this tool I guess I can just *move* the files from /mnt/diskA/share to /mnt/diskB/share and also forget about the duplicates problem.

unRAID doesn't need to keep track because any write to the array immediately writes parity so it is always in sync.

[walterg74]

Thanks guys!

 

As I see mc is builtin, and it should serve my purposes, I will just use that.

 

One question that is probably stupid... even though I'm not accessing the "standard" way through shares, etc. I assume unRAID in the background keeps track of all this writing to the disks anyway and updates parity and the likes accordingly, right?  I won't have to do anything special after copying to another disk and deleting from the source one?  (and using this tool I guess I can just *move* the files from /mnt/diskA/share to /mnt/diskB/share and also forget about the duplicates problem.

unRAID doesn't need to keep track because any write to the array immediately writes parity so it is always in sync.

 

Thanks!

 

[switchman]

you should also use Screen with any command line solution you go with.

[walterg74]

you should also use Screen with any command line solution you go with.

 

Doesn't putty send keepalives? Would mc also close or remain open?

[JonathanM]

you should also use Screen with any command line solution you go with.

 

Doesn't putty send keepalives? Would mc also close or remain open?

It's not putty we are worried about. If the machine you are using putty on goes to sleep or loses connection in some way, the entire session will close, along with any command currently running.

[walterg74]

you should also use Screen with any command line solution you go with.

 

Doesn't putty send keepalives? Would mc also close or remain open?

It's not putty we are worried about. If the machine you are using putty on goes to sleep or loses connection in some way, the entire session will close, along with any command currently running.

 

That's OK, I have my computer said to never sleep just as the monitor off and that's it. In any case I will be doing this manually anyway just to be sure. It's not that much data anyway should be finished relatively fast only about 800 gigs