To many devices?

[dragon2611]

I have a machine running 6.4.0_rc18f that's complaing of to many devices and not letting me start the array since upgrading it from Trial to a basic license.
It seems i've missunderstood the storage device license as I thought it limited the storage devices in an ARRAY + Cache not the total number of devices unraid can detect

 

The 7th device is a small SSD that's not worth using in an array or as cache, I'd only left it in there as it was in a physical posistion in the case that makes it awkward to remove but it looks like I'm going to have to fiddle around inside the case and unplug it.

 

Edit:  disconnected it and can now start the array - although having the limit on detected disk kind of makes the unassigned devices plugin useless (I had been using it for a firewall VM via unassainged devices)

Edited December 31, 2017 by dragon2611

[1812]

https://lime-technology.com/pricing/

What are “attached storage devices”?
They refer to the total number of storage devices physically attached to the server before you start the array.  This number is in addition to your USB flash device used to boot unRAID (e.g. 4 HDDs + 2 SSDs + unRAID boot device = 6 attached devices). 

 

 

This cold be slightly better clarified, but since unassigned devices doesn't "ship" in the standard unRaid download, it is written correctly for software as you purchased it.

[itimpi]

It is worth pointing out that the check on the number of connected devices is carried out when you start the array.    It does not stop you temporarily connecting more devices to the array while it is running (e.g. some USB drives being used for backup purposes).

[dragon2611]

It would be better if the restriction was on devices that could be used within an array.

 

I was going to say maybe it's to stop people using more disks than they have paid for elsewhere but that doesn't make sense either as I'm pretty sure there's nothing stopping you going into the underlaying OS and mounting disks or even linux raid arrays if you wanted to (Although at that point I would wonder why you were using unraid anyway as you'd be losing the features you were presumably after unraid for in the first place)

 

 

[1812]

3 hours ago, dragon2611 said:

was going to say maybe it's to stop people using more disks than they have paid for elsewhere but that doesn't make sense either as I'm pretty sure there's nothing stopping you going into the underlaying OS and mounting disks or even linux raid arrays if you wanted to (Although at that point I would wonder why you were using unraid anyway as you'd be losing the features you were presumably after unraid for in the first place)

 

Actually, a few people run raid disks as parity drive to bump up their write/parity check speeds. One of my workhorse vm's uses 24 15k rpm disks in a raid 0 as one giant disk for intensive video rendering/editing, and it is setup as the only drive in the array/server. Why? Because unraid has easy visualization that I know how to use and can easily rework  an 80 core enterprise server into a beast video editor for cheap.

 

There are many uses for unraid beyond basic data storage.

[dragon2611]

I find Proxmox better if the intent is to use it as a visualization server,

 

Unraid is pretty decent at providing a simple frontend to KVM for basic setups but I'd always consider it as a storage server with the capability to run VM's rather than something that should be used primarily as a virtual machine host.

 

Also 24 spindles in raid0  i'm guessing that's just a scratch disk that won't have much impact when it dies?

[1812]

3 hours ago, dragon2611 said:

I find Proxmox better if the intent is to use it as a visualization server,

 

Unraid is pretty decent at providing a simple frontend to KVM for basic setups but I'd always consider it as a storage server with the capability to run VM's rather than something that should be used primarily as a virtual machine host.

 

Perhaps, but I'm lazy and don't want to learn another system if I don't have to do so. And so far their vm implementation works with a very high degree of stability for everything I've need it to do. I have been fortunate to not have most of the vm issues that many folks do on here (knock on wood). I don't know if it's because most of my hardware is enterprise/workstation grade, or that I just follow instructions better setting them up.

 

3 hours ago, dragon2611 said:

Also 24 spindles in raid0  i'm guessing that's just a scratch disk that won't have much impact when it dies?

 

Basically. Not recommended for long term data storage.