Jump to content

Share issues


Recommended Posts

Hello guys

Im trying to setup the users for my 4x1TB Seagate unRAID NAS.

I've got 5 pc's that need access, 4 of them are already added but can't get them to work.
I've also read that MS fucks up with unRAID so my user name should be the account name on windows.

So I've got DESKTOP-1234 with user name gamingpc so Windows will try to login as "DESKTOP-1234/gamingpc", but it tries with "gamingpc" first, notices that it works and then it keeps that in mind for the other shares.


So these are the users:

#1: ggp, gaming pc from the 2nd gaming setup, needs access to games & documents
#2: gamingpc is gaming from the main gaming setup, needs access to games, vids & documents
#3: streamingpc is a workstation fitted with 2 E5-2640's as a dedicated streaming rig, needs access to documents & vids
#4: hoofdpc is the office pc from my parents in the living room, needs access to games & documents





All the pc's that need access to those shares / folders have been named to the user list and it doesn't work this way.


If I put it on public it just works but I want it to be secure.

2nd question: I've got 4 1TB drives atm, 1 of them being the parity drive. As far as I know this means I can only write 1TB because I can only save 1TB of binary code in the parity drive, right? Somehow it's showing that I've got 2.41 TB free atm (540Gib worth of games)


Thanks in advance

Link to comment
  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Windows doesn't really treat unRAID any differently than it treats other things on the network. Basically, Windows doesn't allow multiple connections to another computer on the network. And once it has established a working connection, it won't let you make a different one even though it may prompt you to login. You can get rid of the established connection in Control Panel - Credential Manager.


There is a thread pinned near the top of this same subforum discussing Windows connections. See if there is anything there for you.





You seem to have a very fundamental misconception about parity. Parity is not a backup of any of your data. Parity plus all the other disks allows unRAID to calculate the data from a missing disk. This is very similar to the way parity works in other system, not just unRAID. Note that this means all bits of all other disks must be reliably readable before unRAID can reliably recover all the data for a missing disk.


Also, unRAID parity is realtime. As soon as any disk in the array is written, parity is updated. And all disk operations except simple reads, such as deleting, copying, moving, formatting, are actually write operations. So, unRAID parity can't help you recover a deleted file or a formatted disk, for example.


You must have a backup plan. You don't have to backup everything, but you must have more than one copy of anything important and irreplaceable.


Here is a wiki about how parity works:



Link to comment

Thanks for your reply.

About the first problem, idk what changed. I didn't touch anything but suddenly it seems to be working on 3 pc's. Can't check the 4th one atm. I know about the credential thing, I did some googling myself.

About the 2nd problem, are you saying that my data now isn't protected? 

Link to comment

If you have successfully built parity, then you have all the protection parity can provide. Parity doesn't have a backup of any of your data, but assuming all the other disks are working well, it can let you recover all the data from a missing or failed disk. But there are a lot of ways to lose files that have nothing to do with a failed disk. Parity can't recover an accidentally deleted file, it can't recover data from a disk you shouldn't have formatted (many people have made that mistake here), it can't fix filesystem corruption. And if you have more missing disks than you have parity disks, you can't recover anything (though you will still have all the data on the other disks).


Did you look at that wiki I linked? Understanding how parity works can make sense of a lot of how unRAID operates, and might keep you from making costly user errors, or expecting more than parity can give you.


As I said, and many others have said, about unRAID and all other systems that use parity such as the various types of RAID. Parity is NOT a substitute for backups.

Link to comment

The main disadvantage of unRAID vs RAID is speed. unRAID makes that sacrifice in order to give other advantages. unRAID doesn't stripe data across multiple disks so you don't get multiple disks supplying the data simultaneously. But you also don't have to have all those disks in order to access any file since any file is completely on a single disk. Many of us have chosen unRAID despite less speed because of its other advantages. What you should use depends on what is important to you.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, trurl said:

But you also don't have to have all those disks in order to access any file since any file is completely on a single disk. Many of us have chosen unRAID despite less speed because of its other advantages.


Very few situations requires extremely high single-file bandwidth. So it's seldom a sacrifice to not stripe the data. It was more important when unRAID was originally created and the disk transfer rates was much lower. Today it is more often the seek speed that is the limiting factor when using HDD solutions.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, lachiu said:

Thanks for the replies. I did read that, but doesn't that make, let's say, 2x 3TB drives (and 2 parity drives) safer compared to 4x 3TB drives (and 2 parity drives)? 

Fewer disks means fewer points of failure, all else being equal. Obviously 2x3 doesn't have the capacity of 4x3, but if you don't need the capacity yet don't add it.

Link to comment

I currently have 2x6TB Seagate IronWolf dual parity, with 4x6 WD Red + 1x4TB WD Red data, and 2x275GB Crucial SSD cache. But I have had lots of configurations over the years since I started, adding and upsizing drives and even changing out most of the other hardware.

Link to comment

7200 vs 5400 RPM. I had WD Reds as parity but when a good deal came up on the IronWolfs I got them and used those WD Reds to upsize some of my data disks. They've been fine so far, so as I replace other disks I may go that way for a little more speed.


I used a mix of drives in the beginning based strictly on price but as I expanded and increased capacity I eventually settled on WD Reds. Most of those old disks are still in use either as backups or given away to friends.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, lachiu said:

I always thought the speed of the parity will be doing the speed of the slowest one. 

It is, when you are writing to a single data drive. But if you write to two data disks, then the parity drive is involved in both tasks and have to do much more seeks and writes than the individual data disks.

Link to comment

In normal write mode (not "turbo write") the parity calculation involves a block being read from the parity disk, modified and then written back in the same place. Therefore between the read and the write the disk has to rotate to reposition the start of the block under the head. The faster the parity disk rotates the less the delay.

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, John_M said:

In normal write mode (not "turbo write") the parity calculation involves a block being read from the parity disk, modified and then written back in the same place. Therefore between the read and the write the disk has to rotate to reposition the start of the block under the head. The faster the parity disk rotates the less the delay.

I'm not sure it matters when updating just a single data disk - the data disk also has to perform read/modify/write so for single-disk-writes it should still be the slowest of the two disks that decides the write speed. But since the parity is involved for any data disk writes, it's obviously never good if the parity drive is slow.

Link to comment

I've got another 3 questions.

First question / issue :
Today I swapped out the MSI H110M Eco for the MSI Z170A Pro because I got a really good deal on the Asus Maximus VIII Hero Alpha and Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3000 2x8GB Red LED for 110 euros. Mobo is from the 1st of August, everything's sealed and works fine. Somehow I even get 5 degrees Celcius lower on my i7...

While doing that I also added the RocketRaid 2720SGL with a SAS to 4x SATA cable to my NAS. 
I put some games on my NAS to boot off from on my 2nd gaming rig (since it's only got a 120GB ssd).
I noticed that the files, like for instance the gameplay I record from the gaming rigs, ( HDMI port -> HDMI Splitter -> HDMI switch -> AverMedia HD Lite -> NAS ) play as they normally would. When opening ETS2 it was freezing so bad that I just decided to stop. Like normally only the boot up, till you can select a profile, takes a bit longer, but that's it without cache drives.

Doing a parity check just to make sure, normally it takes an hour to an hour and a half, now it's saying that it would take 2 days? Obviously I'm just going to let it do it's thing. 

2nd question: 
I was thinking about going with 3 NVMe drives (Samsung 970 Pro's to be exact), 2 as cache, 3rd as cache parity drive. Perhaps it's overkill but I like to have new fancy stuff haha. 
Now, looking at my current network, a single cat6a cable from my nas to my internet switch. (and everything else hooked up with cat6a to the switch) I know this wont cut it when I go to NVMe drives . 
So I figured I'd need 2 10Gbe ports on my NAS and my main rig to get the 2500mb/s mark and a TP-Link JetStream T1700G-28TQ (4 10Gbe ports for 250 euros). This way everything that's going to or from the NAS would get a lower delay, right? If I'm going to add more 10Gbe ports it's going to be a pain in the *** because the switch 'only' got 4 of them. 

The plan is to get all the spinning hard drives out of the systems and move them to the NAS including but not limited to rendering edited video's to the NAS. 

3rd question:

Looking at bigger cases I noticed that they are really rare, apart from the server racks. The Corsair 750D holds up to 16 3.5" drives when adding more cages and then you got 3 more 5.25" bays which can add 4 more 3.5" drives using their "3 5.25" to 4 3.5" drive module with fan" . I'm really thinking about just making my own case out of wood and add foam or rubber, or both, so the drives won't go anywhere. 

This is what I've come up with, I'm open for any recommendations since this is new terrain for me. 

For a full spec list, click here.


Link to comment

Just put an order on ebay for a LSI00137 for a whopping 20 euro's including shipping on ebay. 4 SAS ports up to 3gb/s which is fine for HDD's. Looking at other posts about LSI cards etc I only issue I can run in is that I gotta flash this one, right?  

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, John_M said:


See here:



and Fireball3's reply lower down the page. Maybe the situation has changed but maybe it hasn't. It's an old card, which is probably why it was cheap.

Thanks for the reply. Somehow I couldn't find that forum post... However, it's also from 2014. I'll see what it does once I get. Decided not to pay extra for priority shipping so it should arrive September - October. Somewhere in between. 

Link to comment


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...