We had a momentary loss of power yesterday. I know the server should have a ups, but have not been able to buy a large one yet, but looking at the parity check history it seems we've had more power issues than I realized. Upon rebooting the parity check started as normal. This time it found 309 errors. But looking up at the drives there are 0 errors listed. Between this forum and reddit there are many different posts with what to do about parity errors from nothing to running it 3 times and reseating all the hardware.

 

Do I need to do anything?

raza-diagnostics-20190523-2113.zip

21 minutes ago, Cull2ArcaHeresy said:

This time it found 309 errors. But looking up at the drives there are 0 errors listed.

Read errors (ie: the 0) aren't the same as parity errors (where the contents of the parity drive is out of sync with the contents of the data drives).  You would have had a write to the drive(s) happening when you lost power

1 hour ago, Squid said:

Read errors (ie: the 0) aren't the same as parity errors (where the contents of the parity drive is out of sync with the contents of the data drives).  You would have had a write to the drive(s) happening when you lost power

So I'm good then? I think I was downloading off my seedbox when it happened, or mover running since that share has use cache turned on (or plex causing it cause was watching a tv show). And I don't need to run more parity checks or disk checks (altho in just over a week the monthly one will run).

So I'm good then?

You need to run a correcting check, since the auto check after an unclean shutdown is non correct.

 

 

On 5/24/2019 at 1:45 AM, johnnie.black said:

You need to run a correcting check, since the auto check after an unclean shutdown is non correct.

 

 

Ran check got 309 errors again and then ran and got 0. For future reference that second manual run was not needed, right?

19 minutes ago, Cull2ArcaHeresy said:

Ran check got 309 errors again and then ran and got 0. For future reference that second manual run was not needed, right?

Technically the second run is not needed, but if it had not returned 0 errors after running a correcting check then you have something else wrong and would need to look into why so it is still a good idea to do it as a confidence check.

8 hours ago, Cull2ArcaHeresy said:

For future reference that second manual run was not needed, right?

It's a Schrödinger's check. It's only needed if it finds errors. If it returns 0 errors, it wasn't needed. So, it's both needed and unneeded at the same time, but you have to do it to find out.

 

(just kidding about the term Schrödinger)(it does almost fit though)