TSM

Members
  • Posts

    268
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Converted

  • Gender
    Undisclosed

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

TSM's Achievements

Contributor

Contributor (5/14)

3

Reputation

  1. Did you ever find a solution to this problem. I think I'm seeing similar behavior.
  2. I mean... You all know this of course, but Firefox is what's in the Unraid GUI option... So...
  3. Thanks again MAM59. I tried the "vm.dirty_backround.ratio" and "vm.dirty.ratio", using the suggested settings in the plugin of 2 and 3 respectively. It's not completely perfect, but the performance on large file copies is definitely much better. So, fingers crossed that when I am using better hardware, and planning on using nvme for the cache it will be completely a non-issue.
  4. Thanks MAM59, this makes a lot of sense. I didn't mention it in my original post, but I did notice that even after my pc showed file moves were completed, I still saw drive activity on the Main page. That's why.
  5. Hello Folks, I've been playing around with it for a few days, and I finally got 2.5gb networking working between my pc and unraid server. Let me preface my question here by saying that the 2.5gb networking is just the first step in several upgrades I'm planning to my home LAN setup. So this question may end up being moot but I'm curious none the less. In my Unraid server I have a Celeron 3920, which is a dual core unit running at 2.9ghz. I am not currently using a cache drive, but I will be after all of my upgrades are complete. And I will also be using a much faster processor, but I'm not there yet. So, dual parity calculations are taking place in real-time as the files are being moved to the server. Slow cpu yes, but at 1gigabit it was never a problem. In a setup like this would the cpu be a bottleneck for 2.5gb networking? Is the overhead of having to do dual parity calculations at that speed going to kill this cpu? Both pc and unraid server report network adapters running at 2.5gb, and with small single file copies I see speeds that are consistent with what you'd expect with 2.5gb going to a mechanical drive. Between 140 megabytes and 180 megabytes. But doing large multi file copies with teracopy it was choppy, inconsistent. Sometimes seemed to be going very fast, and right around the 4th or 5th gigabyte it would stop completely and then start again several times until it was done depending on the overall size of the copy. Looking at the dashboard screen, at the times it was stopping, either 1 of the 2 cpu cores was being pegged at 100%, or both cores were getting up into the 90% range on utilization. If I turned Teracopy off, the regular Windows explorer copy process, behaves similarly but different. After 4 or 5 gigabytes, the cpu starts to get high utilization again maybe getting into the 90s for a second, but instead of file copy stopping altogether for a moment, explorer throttles the copy speed down considerably to like 30 or 40 megabytes, but it never seems to stop and the unraid server cpu never gets pegged at 100%. I'm guessing that some sort of Windows QOS is kicking in where it detects a potential problem coming up and changes it's behavior so it doesn't completely stop. I have another computer on my network, that still has only a 1gigabit adapter, and file copies between it and my unraid server, and it and my primary computer seem completely normal and work fine. So I don't think the networking components are faulty. Ultimately after all of my upgrades are done, I'm going to be using a much faster cpu in my primary unraid server, and a cache drive. But I'm several weeks to a month out from completing everything I want to do. And was planning on moving a lot of files around between now and then, thus why I decided to do the 2.5gigabit networking first, so that the file moves would be faster. Is there any setting I might be able to change in the interim that would make file moves and copies more consistent while still getting benefit from the 2.5gb networking? For example is there any way to manually throttle the speed to where it's faster than 1gigabit, but isn't throwing work at the cpu at 2.5gigabit speeds? I've also looked at the drive tuning settings, but the only one I'm really familiar with is tunable md write method, and changing that didn't do anything of value. I might just change back to 1 gigabit until my upgrades are done. Don't want to do that, but I'd really like for file management behaviors to be more consistent.
  6. Thanks folks. Yeah, I know that just with straight file copies you don't need much processing power. Thus why I'm currently using a celeron.👍 But I guess I was thinking that if using a proper backup application, that's performing intelligent operations on the files like deduplication, compression, encryption,, determining changes for an incremental, that it might be more cpu dependent.
  7. Hello Folks, On Christmas Day last year I narrowly averted a minor tragedy. 2 data drives came up with the dreaded Red X at the same time!!!!! After extensive troubleshooting, and looking through the forums, I think I've resolved the problem and my server is now back stable. I'd been considering setting up a backup server for years and never pulled the trigger, but the experience of having 2 data drives fail at once, pretty much nailed it for me that I need to do something. I'm trying to architect this in my mind now. I've pretty much decided that the duplicacy docker is probably the right way to go with software. Compression, deduplication, encryption look good only saves deltas on changed files, and everything I've read so far, people claim it's easy to use. But I'm wondering how powerful the server it's running on reasonably needs to be. Currently I have roughly 130TB of data on my array. Does all that need to be backed up? Probably not, but I'm going to do it anyway!!! The cpu on my current unraid server is a 2.9ghz dual core celeron. I don't want it to take months to complete the initial backup. I've had difficulty finding hardware requirements for duplicacy. Should I upgrade that cpu? Or should I put the new more powerful processer in the backup server? Should I put a better processor in both? And when considering what processor to put in which server, does it matter which server the actual duplicacy docker is running on? Should it run on the primary or the backup? Or does it make a difference? Thanks in advance for any advice,
  8. Sorry Replying after another few months again. I hadn't looked at the forums recently. I have 2 dual 8087 port cards in my system. One night after I still couldn't figure out what the issue was, I said f*ck it, and started moving cables around to different cards, and the issue followed a specific 8087 port connector on one of the cards. Bought another card, tossed that card in the trash, and things related to this have seemed fine since. Computer problems always try to fool you. I got stuck on the fact that I had just replaced the drive connected to that cable. Surely it was the drive if everything had worked with the previous drive. NOPE!
  9. Sorry, I know this post is a few months old. I've been kind of lazy in figuring out this problem. But I wanted to post a reply in case my experience could help someone in the future. The problem for me ended up being a bad controller card. I'm guessing the 8087 port on the card specifically. Card has been replaced, and everything seems to be fine now. As far as I can tell cabling and drive involved were good. Thanks to all who provided advice to me.
  10. Thanks itimpi. Drive is rebuilding now, going to take about a day. It's frustrating that I don't know what the issue really was here, power cable was slightly ajar, but I'm not sure if it was enough to actually be a problem. I think I'm going to ultimately replace the 8087 cable and power supply cable. Thanks to All!!
  11. Hmmm, intersting question. Power connector may have been slightly ajar on the power supply end. I've fixed that, but it doesn't seem to have resolved the issue. Lets say that the problem is a bad cable, either power or sata, how will unraid respond when I resolve the problem? Will it just automatically pick up on the fact that everything is good now, and everything will just look normal? Or will I have to do something to force it to re-evaluate itself or maybe even do a rebuild?
  12. Sure thing. Thanks trurl. Your response is very much appreciated. unraid-diagnostics-20201030-2214.zip
  13. Hello Folks, Thanks for taking the time to read this, and I appreciate any advice. The drive in question is a 10tb drive I shucked from an external drive, so unfortunately no warranty is possible. I'd really like to save it if I could, so I don't have to buy another drive so soon. I've only been using the drive a little over a month. Since the beginning it was getting UDMA CRC errors, but I read in a few places that this was likely a problem with cabling or the port. This drive replaced a very old 1TB drive, which utilized the same cable and port for years with zero problems. So, I had a hard time believing the cabling or the port was the issue. And... I'm ashamed to admit that I got lazy about it. Kind of just ignored the problem. Everything seemed to be working perfectly fine. The original rebuild went off without a hitch, and since then at least a terabytes worth of additional reads and writes have taken place. No hiccups that I'm aware of, except for the UDMA CRC errors. Then on Thursday tropical storm Zeta came through and knocked my power out. When power returned, all other drives were good, but this one was in "Device is disabled, Contents emulated" state. I shut the server back down, reseated cable, used canned air to blow out the ports. Still the same. It's using an SFF-8087 cable and the 3 other drives connected to the cable are all good. I could buy another cable, easily enough, just to see if that helps. I'm afraid to test the cable on another drive in the server, for fear of it causing a problem with another drive. The server allowed me to run a smart test. The results are attached. Thanks for your time, unraid-smart-20201030-0049.zip
  14. My 2 cents, is that even with streaming services and cloud storage becoming more and more popular, there will always be a use case for having your own media stored on a storage medium that you own and have physical control over. As far as SSD's over mechanical drives are concerned, the technical reasons mechanical drives are preferred has been discussed in this forum before. As for me though, even if those technical issues were overcome tomorrow, I'd probably stay with mechanical drives until the cost\storage ratio of SSD's came in line with mechanical drives.
  15. Wow! If this is the worst thing that's ever happened to you, then the rest of your life must be fantastic. I'm jealous of you. It seems to me, that you need to calm down and read for comprehension the things that have already been posted in reply to your topic. You also might want to peruse the unraid online documentation, parts dealing with storage management. https://wiki.unraid.net/UnRAID_6/Storage_Management