Preclear plugin


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, killeriq said:

Is there any specific reason why is not updated to latest Unraid release?

 

No, you are encouraged to upgrade your version of unRAID.

 

3 minutes ago, killeriq said:

as it seems like many users are using it or would like to...

 

I am assuming that you are talking about the preclear plugin.  That is a hit and miss proposition.  I strongly suspect that preclear plugin interacts in some manner with a few other plugins (or, maybe even, Dockers).  (At this point with an apparent lack of support for the preclear plugin, no other plugin developer is going to address any problem of interaction from one side of the problem!)   If you are not using one of these plugins, everything may work fine, you are one of the lucky ones, and you are home free.  If you have any problems after the OS upgrade, your first action should be to uninstall preclear and reboot. 

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, killeriq said:

Is there any specific reason why is not updated to latest Unraid release?

The developer of the plugin has not kept it up to date, AFAIK.  Remember, plugins and dockers are not necessarily products of Lime Technology, and their continued development and support is unfortunately not guaranteed.

 

I only ever used it to preclear disks before adding them to the array.  Once it was pointed out that unRaid can clear a drive without stopping the array I was fine.  If people want to stress-test a drive, there are still ways.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, sureguy said:

Just a heads up gfjardim (the plugin creator) appears to have updated the preclear plugin for 6.5.0 compatibility. 

 

It's available at:

 

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gfjardim/unRAID-plugins/master/plugins/preclear.disk.plg

 

It would appear that he is back to working on it.  This is the first few lines from the link above:

 

<?xml version='1.0' standalone='yes'?>

<!DOCTYPE PLUGIN [
<!ENTITY name      "preclear.disk">
<!ENTITY repo      "unRAID-plugins">
<!ENTITY author    "gfjardim">
<!ENTITY version   "2018.03.29">
<!ENTITY launch    "Tools/Preclear">
<!ENTITY gitURL    "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/&author;/&repo;/master">
<!ENTITY pluginURL "&gitURL;/plugins/&name;.plg">
]>

<PLUGIN name="&name;" author="&author;" launch="&launch;" version="&version;" pluginURL="&pluginURL;">

<CHANGES>
##&name;

###2018.03.29
- Fix: early unRAID 6.5 compatibility

 

Thanks, @gfjardim, for your time and effort in writing and maintaining this plugin.  It is so good to see that you haven't abandoned  this plugin.  I, for one, feel that preclearing a disk (While it does not often find a bad one) is a step that can prevent headaches a few days down the road when either (1) a disk that should have never been  put into service in the first pl;ace starts throwing errors or (2) a disk fails from the infant mortality phenomenon. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Frank1940 said:

Thanks, @gfjardim, for your time and effort in writing and maintaining this plugin.  It is so good to see that you haven't abandoned  this plugin.  I, for one, feel that preclearing a disk (While it does not often find a bad one) is a step that can prevent headaches a few days down the road when either (1) a disk that should have never been  put into service in the first pl;ace starts throwing errors or (2) a disk fails from the infant mortality phenomenon. 

 

Seconded!  Looks like the update is also available via native GUI plugin update which is very welcome.

Edited by dabl
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Frank1940 said:

 

Thanks, @gfjardim, for your time and effort in writing and maintaining this plugin.  It is so good to see that you haven't abandoned  this plugin.  I, for one, feel that preclearing a disk (While it does not often find a bad one) is a step that can prevent headaches a few days down the road when either (1) a disk that should have never been  put into service in the first pl;ace starts throwing errors or (2) a disk fails from the infant mortality phenomenon. 

 

 

Sorry for the delay, guys. I'm very short on time so I had to decrease the level of support dedicated to this plugin. If someone could verify if the script is working fine with v6.5 I do appreciate that.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 minute ago, gfjardim said:

Sorry for the delay, guys. I'm very short on time so I had to decrease the level of support dedicated to this plugin. If someone could verify if the script is working fine with v6.5 I do appreciate that.

 

 

That's OK.  So glad you are back.  I have already started with ver6.5.1-rc2.  I am now 5+ hours into a 3TB drive.  Will report back when done.

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, gfjardim said:

 

 

Sorry for the delay, guys. I'm very short on time so I had to decrease the level of support dedicated to this plugin. If someone could verify if the script is working fine with v6.5 I do appreciate that.

It ran fine on a known bad 2TB drive and failed when it hit errors.  It seems to be working correctly.

 

I’m running it again on same drive, but can slap in a good 100GB drive once it’s finished.

 

craigr

Edited by craigr
Link to comment
6 hours ago, gfjardim said:

 

 

Sorry for the delay, guys. I'm very short on time so I had to decrease the level of support dedicated to this plugin. If someone could verify if the script is working fine with v6.5 I do appreciate that.

 

 

I'll be running this on 3x 12TB drives later this week. I will report back if there's any issues.

Edited by tyrindor
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, luisv said:

Safe to assume, nothing to worry about at this point of time?

Single error is not a problem, but since it happen on all disks you might get more, and that would mean there's trouble, I would say 4 bad SATA cables it's not likely, so maybe controller or if they share some kind of enclosure.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
17 hours ago, Frank1940 said:

 

 

That's OK.  So glad you are back.  I have already started with ver6.5.1-rc2.  I am now 5+ hours into a 3TB drive.  Will report back when done.

 

Results of that preclear test with your new version.  NOTE:  the End-to-End and the CRC Errors have exist for quite some time now and were the product of a bad SATA expansion card.  This disk is now one that I currently use just for test purposes and has probably been through ten preclear cycles in the past couple of years.  I might use it in an array in a real bind but with crossed fingers!

New Text Document.pdf

Edited by Frank1940
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, johnnie.black said:

Single error is not a problem, but since it happen on all disks you might get more, and that would mean there's trouble, I would say 4 bad SATA cables it's not likely, so maybe controller or if they share some kind of enclosure.

 

Everything being used in this second smaller system is brand new, no drive enclosure, no additional controller card, using the built-in controller of the Asrock Z370M-ITX Motherboard.   

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, luisv said:

Everything being used in this second smaller system is brand new, no drive enclosure, no additional controller card, using the built-in controller of the Asrock Z370M-ITX Motherboard. 

The fact that's it's new doesn't mean there isn't a problem, but wait, as long as you don't get more you're OK.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, luisv said:

 

No sure totally understandable.  Just wanted to indicate that parts weren't repurposed.  

 

As I understand it, the CRC error count is a count of errors that occur between when the SATA data is encoded on the hard drive and when it is later decoded (a few microseconds later) on the SATA port on either the MB of a SATA expansion card.  So it a basically an error that occurred in data transmission. 

 

It can be a simple random event. 

 

It can also be caused by tying all of the SATA cables together to make the inside of the case look 'neat'!  (Tying cables together can cross-talk between the cables if the cables are not shielded and 99%+ of all cables today are not!)   

 

It can be caused by a bad cable or loose connection.   (See here for an possible loose connection cause:   https://support.wdc.com/knowledgebase/answer.aspx?ID=10477   Please note that If WD made a design to their SATA connector that must have been some reason behind it and other manufacturers may have done the same thing and not posted about it.)  

 

It could be a bad SATA controller on the MB but that is a most unusual occurrence. 

 

EDIT:  A CRC error is not a fatal error in any sense of the word.  The data will simply be resent.  The only way it becomes a real problem is if a high percentage of the packets have errors.  That could impact performance.  It can also be a indicator of a potential fatal error in the future.  

Edited by Frank1940
Link to comment

I installed my first new drive into the array without using preclear and it went flawlessly! The new drive is a WD Datacenter Gold 12TB which replaced a WD Red 6TB. Here are the stats:

 

Event: unRAID Parity sync / Data rebuild

Subject: Notice [TOWER] - Parity sync / Data rebuild finished (0 errors)

Description: Duration: 1 day, 33 minutes, 16 seconds. Average speed: 135.8 MB/s

Importance: normal

 

Much faster to be fully up and running and have a protected array than it used to be. 

 

Good job!

 

Link to comment
18 hours ago, gfjardim said:

 

 

Sorry for the delay, guys. I'm very short on time so I had to decrease the level of support dedicated to this plugin. If someone could verify if the script is working fine with v6.5 I do appreciate that.

 

@gfjardim thank you!  Preclear is, to me, a critical component of sticking with Unraid :)

May I buy you a beer or two?  (PayPal, bitcoin, etc?) 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, dchamb said:

I installed my first new drive into the array without using preclear and it went flawlessly! The new drive is a WD Datacenter Gold 12TB which replaced a WD Red 6TB. Here are the stats:

 

Event: unRAID Parity sync / Data rebuild

Subject: Notice [TOWER] - Parity sync / Data rebuild finished (0 errors)

Description: Duration: 1 day, 33 minutes, 16 seconds. Average speed: 135.8 MB/s

Importance: normal

 

Much faster to be fully up and running and have a protected array than it used to be. 

 

Good job!

 

 

If you really want to make sure that everything is truly OK, you should run a second parity check (either correcting or non-correcting).   It should finish with zero errors.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Frank1940 said:

 

If you really want to make sure that everything is truly OK, you should run a second parity check (either correcting or non-correcting).   It should finish with zero errors.  

And an extended smart test. That way you are reading every sector after the clear operation has written every sector.

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, Frank1940 said:

 

If you really want to make sure that everything is truly OK, you should run a second parity check (either correcting or non-correcting).   It should finish with zero errors.  

 

My monthly parity check is scheduled for tomorrow so I should know before the weekend is over. Thanks!

Link to comment
  • Squid unpinned this topic

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.