Leaderboard

Hello everyone, I'm new to this forum but I've been reading for some time now, thanks to all of u guys for all the info you provide, very very helpful. Currently I use a 213J Synology NAS, It has served his purpose, but it's really slow for what I want it for. I am planning to switch to an unraid system to do the following: What is your budget? 600€-1000€ How many drives do you want your server to be able to support and how much capacity do you need? At least 6 drive bays , but since I'm going ATX factor, 8bays would be nice to have. As capacity goes, I'm currently at 5TB and I'm coming up really short. I was aiming for 20TB to future proof this thing. As I already own HDDs, I could use those and switch later on. Is expandability important to you? If so, what's your long term goal? Expandability is important, I want it to future proof it in terms of capacity and the possibility to run 1-2VMs for software development or similar (not there yet though). Are you interested in running any unRAID Add Ons? I'm planning to use the typical Sonarr, Radarr, Torrent, PLEX Server, iTunes Server, Git Repo, VPN Server and a sync/backup system for my 4 Pcs at home (any suggestions are appreciated, I'm currently using HyperBackUp from Synology and...meh). Do you want to run green/low power drives or faster 7200 rpm drives? I want it to be as power efficient as it can get, I have some WD reds, so I'm guessing low power drives should do, I'm guessing I wont have problems transcoding 1 4K stream and 1-2 more 1080p strems, right? Do you have any spare parts laying around that you would like to apply towards your build? I currently have: Drives: 2x 1TB WD Reds, 1x 4TB Seagate NAS, 2x 1TB Black GPU: Nvidia GTX 960 Strix Cooler: Kraken x41 and Scythe MUGEN Max So, one thing I still have doubts about is to either use this machine strictly as a NAS, or take advantage of the power and use it as an HTPC for my projector set up that I use just once a week. I dont know if the extra management-cost etc that comes with a VMs just for an occasional use is worth it. (which would be the simplest way to set up an HTPC VM?) If you already have parts in mind, please oh pretty please post links to them so that we don't have to look them up. As I have been reading that most of the Ryzen problems with UnRaid are solved so, I've been looking at this parts: GPU: I'll use my 960 Strix as I dont need gaming performance Cooler: either the Kraken or the Scythe work great, so I'm covered there. Also have some Noctua Fans laying around. Ryzen 7 1700 or Ryzen 1600 ("low TDP for many cores) Asus X370 PRO or MSI Pro Carbon x370 2x 250GB Samsung EVO 960 Nvme, or just one in case of the Asus board as a cache drive. Question: do I need more than 250GB? How much cache do I need? Fractal define R5 for the case, open to cheaper/better suggestions though. 3x 8TB Wd Reds (and use one as parity) + the seagate 4TB and 2x 1TB Wd Reds that I already own. Do you suggest any better storage configs or HD models? I'm new to UnRaid so I'm still figuring out things. 2x 16GB of 2133 or 2400 RAM that is in the QVL list of the board I pick, dont know which one, but I'm guessing speed is not much of an issue here Well, sorry for my english, I'm from Spain so doing my best here and sorry for it being a long post! Thanks everyone for the feedback. Cheers.

unRAID 6.4 supports UEFI, did you try this version?

OK, so, and if disk7 is really bad, i.e., it didin't drop out because of a dodgy cable or similar, the above is your best option, still if the array data changed there will be some corruption on the the rebuilt disk, maybe you can also use the old one to recover some data.

Note, it's currently not working on v6.4, but it works on v6.3.x

Use option 2, if all disks are working well there shouldn't be any issues, but if you can leave the disks you're removing and the array data intact during the re-sync and if anything goes wrong you can go back to the old assignments and rebuild any failed disk (or two since you have dual parity).

no You can't remove disks (even if they're empty) without clearing them and maintain parity.

Basically, it means that the disk in question has been disabled (The attached SMART report says that it has a "Current Pending Sector" which is most likely unreadable) and the contents of that drive are being emulated using parity to calculate those contents. If you lose another drive, you will lose data. I would replace that drive as soon as possible with a new drive. (I would use a new drive because if you do encounter a problem with a second drive during the rebuild, there is a possibility that you could recover some files on this drive.) Now, often drives with pending sectors can be 'fixed'. By forcing a write to that sector, the sector will be remapped to a spare sector from a pool of sectors that the manufacturer provides for just such a situation. When that occurs the "current Pending Sector" count will drop to zero and the "Reallocated Sector Count" will increase by the number of sectors remapped. After everything is back to normal on the array, you could run this drive through at least two full preclear cycles and see if the errors after the second count remain unchanged. If it does stabilize, you could then decide what you want to do with this drive. It has some 23,000 hours on it currently...

https://wiki.lime-technology.com/UnRAID_Manual_6 Search for virtio and there is the order. Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

It's the normal filesystem overhead for xfs, about 1GB per TB.

You normally need to load the drivers from the virtio CD image before the drive can be seen.

If your Windows workstation is a VM, you don't need your dedicated Windows box any more. And your GPU can live inside the server.

If you are using a Windows (or other OS) VM to access your data on the unRaid server, all the disks on the server are "local". There is no network lag. IMO, this is a big reason that a Windows VM is better than a dedicated Windows workstation.

In my experience Data is absollutly fine off UNRAID box. For Games and editing videos / photos eg lightroom you are much better off having a large local SSD (it is what I do) then backing up from said local SSD to unraid.

Yes, no file can span more than a single disk. https://wiki.lime-technology.com/Parity#How_parity_works

I just wanted to give feedback for the VPN Provider Problem with Perfect Privacy. It is working with the latest Docker now. Thank you:)

Yes, raid0 is only possible in the cache pool.

No, you need to have at least one data disk assigned for the array to start.

Yes Each share can be set in various ways depending on your use case, you'd set the VM share to cache only and it wouldn't be moved to the array.

From prior experience, I can tell you that the path of least resistance is to go with High Water and not worry about how unRAID fills up the disks. I know that's not the answer you wanted, but hey - having all your disks fail at the same time due to even wear would be really inconvenient... Rather than trying to make unRAID work the way you want, if you are worried about two disks failing it's a great idea to work on your backup strategy.

You can assign the HDD to the array as a data disk and make a raid0 cache pool with both SSDs.

See here for some information: https://wiki.lime-technology.com/UnRAID_6_2/Storage_Management#Cache_pool_operations There is not a much of advantage to using unRAID on long term basis if you are not going to use parity for your array. When you use a ssd cache drive setup running RAID1, your write performance will be limited to (1) the speed of your network (1Gb or 10Gb) or (2) the write speed of the drive. Ditto for read speed both from the cache setup or the array. The piece of information that is missing is what is type of usage pattern that you are doing where speed is paramount consideration--- Interactive Database operation or video editing are two examples that I could think of where speed could be THE major consideration. Giving a few details might allow some users who are doing something similar give you their views.

Thanks for the XFS, as dev I can not really come here and promote it. 1% of 8TB is 80GB, your 120Gb is 1.5% which you probably did to avoid the warning at 99%. I :+1: your request for getting the setting to allow decimals as I am constantly dealing with people who claim out of space 100%, yet have 100s of GB available. When you have room for thousands/millions more of your average filesize, you're not out of space, just because you see a 100% from df.