March 30, 200719 yr Hi, I decided to replace a hard disk with a larger one in my Unraid. As the smaller disk was empty, I decided to just replace it. Then I was just going to reset the config and let it rebuild the parity data. At the same time I enabled the SATA controllers on the Lime Technology Intel logic board, and added two 500GB SATA drives, with the intention of using one of them for my parity drives. 1) Initial config looked like this: 2) Then after adding the new devices, and changing their order, and resetting the configuration I ended up with the predicted: 3) After pressing Start I got: 4) Then: If I press Start, I end up back at 3).. Stopped, Configuration Valid. Any Ideas on what to try next? Daniel Parker
March 30, 200719 yr Author To simplify things, I decided to do an experiment with 1 x SATA and 1 x PATA HD, as shown here: The result is exactly the same. If I go into the Bios, and select 'Legacy' for the IDE config, it will then work with just the PATA drive. As soon as I enable the SATA drive, with 1 PATA drive connected (ALL other drives are disconnected at this stage) it fails again. Revised Syslog emailed.
March 30, 200719 yr Author After reading through the forums, it looks like my issue is the same as the one in forum titled 'Getting (unknown) drive device recognition'
March 30, 200719 yr Author OK.. Did another test. Two SATA drives, with the same results. There are NO PATA drives attached. So, it is some kind of SATA problem. My Mainboard is a Intel D865GLC Bios Version BF86510A.86A.0075.P24 Revised Syslog Emailed.
March 30, 200719 yr Author Im now not convinced it is a SATA problem, as I have just reproduced it with 4 x PATA drives, and NO SATA Drives :-( I'm at a loss..
March 31, 200719 yr I seem to now be experiencing the same symptom, interestingly with the same Seagate 500GB SATA drives: Refer my thread: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=597.0
March 31, 200719 yr Author It is not SATA related.. I can get it to do this with SATA support turned off in the bios, and only PATA drives installed. I have tried every beta of 4.0, and I get the same results with all of them. I'm about to try 3.1b2. With a name like KoolKiwi, I can only assume you are in New Zealand, as am I.. Maybe it has something to do with that :-) Daniel
April 1, 200719 yr Hi Daniel. Yes I'm in New Zealand, perhaps us Kiwi's just like pushing the limits? OK, so now I'm getting more frustrated. I went out and bought another Seagate 500GB SATA drive, so I at least have 2 drives for testing. I setup a Parity and a disk1, and all I end up with is exactly the same as you have, in your posts above. The only difference in what I am seeing on my web screen (versus yours), is that my drives are ST3500630AS, and yours are ST3500630NS. But otherwise I'm getting just the same 'Stopped: Configuration valid.' message after pressing the [start] button, getting the 'Mounting' message and 'Starting...', and then hitting the [Refresh] button! Unfortunately this is getting very frustrating! The unRAID system can obviously detect the drives, and can even see their serial number details etc. (so you would assume that the hardware is all functioning as it needs to), but the unRAID just refuses to initialise the drives and Start. All I'm wanting to do is build a SATA only unRAID system, that will support either 12 or (preferably) 14 SATA drives. To do this I am assuming we need a motherboard with 6 SATA onboard ports, plus the maximum of 2 x Promise SATA300 TX4 PCI cards, for a total of 6 + 4 + 4= 14 SATA ports. Given that the ICH8R southbridge SATA ports, and the attached SATA drives, are detected (with V4.0beta), this would seem to be a logical and workable solution. I can only guess that there is some sort of compatibility issue/bug with the current V4.0beta version? Hopefully Tom will chime in with some advice, or request additional information from us to try and get this working. I'm not keen on a mixed PATA / SATA solution using an older motherboard with multiple onboard PATA IDE ports, I'd rather look at an alternative solution (I already have an IDE based RAID5 server, so I'm looking to move up to a SATA only solution based on newer 500GB dives - will go to a RAID5 solution if necessary, but unRAID looked well suited to my Home Theater media serving needs). Fingers crossed, and (for the moment) remaining optomistic for a solution...
April 1, 200719 yr Heh... just noticed this guys new thread sounds kinda familiar... http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=600.0
April 1, 200719 yr I would click start and walk away...or go to bed and check it in the morning If it still isn't up maybe Tom can point you in the right direction but I believe clearing can take a good few hours.
April 1, 200719 yr I would click start and walk away...or go to bed and check it in the morning If it still isn't up maybe Tom can point you in the right direction but I believe clearing can take a good few hours. Thanks, I tried this, but no luck. Just the same repeated Syslog messages every minute, as noted in my other thread... http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=597.0 ie. forever: Apr 1 08:30:19 MediaServer kernel: [ 4229.103015] md: no device Apr 1 08:30:19 MediaServer kernel: [ 4229.103019] md0: removed Apr 1 08:30:19 MediaServer kernel: [ 4229.103144] md: import [8,0] (sda) ST3500630AS 5QG1BYP5 offset: 63 size: 488386552 Apr 1 08:31:19 MediaServer kernel: [ 4289.102037] md: no device Apr 1 08:31:19 MediaServer kernel: [ 4289.102041] md0: removed Apr 1 08:31:19 MediaServer kernel: [ 4289.102161] md: import [8,0] (sda) ST3500630AS 5QG1BYP5 offset: 63 size: 488386552 Apr 1 08:32:19 MediaServer kernel: [ 4349.091064] md: no device Apr 1 08:32:19 MediaServer kernel: [ 4349.091068] md0: removed Apr 1 08:32:19 MediaServer kernel: [ 4349.091192] md: import [8,0] (sda) ST3500630AS 5QG1BYP5 offset: 63 size: 488386552
April 3, 200719 yr 4.0b8 seams to have fixed my issue.. Thanks Tom. Woohoo! Great news Daniel. I saw V4.0-beta8 was posted a couple of hours ago by Tom, but I'm still 4 hours away from getting home to try this out myself. Your success gives me hope this will also solve my similar problem... my fingers are crossed, I'll post my results in about 4 hours.
April 3, 200719 yr my fingers are crossed, I'll post my results in about 4 hours. Unfortunately support for my network card (Attansic L1) that was added in beta4 appears to have been dropped from beta8, so unfortunately I've gone back a step with beta8, and so I don't yet know if my earlier issue has been resolved as I can no longer get ethernet connectivity. EDIT: All fixed now with V4.0-beta9!
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.