• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


SSD last won the day on July 19

SSD had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

172 Very Good

1 Follower

About SSD

  • Rank
    unRAID Revolutionary


  • Gender
  • Location
  • Personal Text
    ASRock E3C224-4L/A+, SM C2SEE/B, Asus P5B VM DO/C
  1. Looks like a bunch of older, smaller drives + 1 10TB drive. Drives over 4 or 5 years of power on hours (43,000 hours) are about ready to take out of service IMO. Having a bunch of such drives puts your array at risk for multiple drive failures. I'd try to weed out the older drives and reduce drive count. With 8T drives available for about $180, you could literally replace 4 2T drives with one. Very worthwhile. Some of your drives have a specific issues. Serial number: ZA20S6FH 195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered 0x001a 006 001 000 Old_age Always - 188856657 The normalized value is 6, and the worst value is 1. The normalized value should optimally be 100 for most manufacturers. It might drop to 80 or even 60 and still be ok. But yours is at 6, and has been as low as 1. At 0 the drive would report it has failed. This would be very concerning. Another drives, serial number ZA20SWDK 189 High_Fly_Writes 0x003a 008 008 000 Old_age Always - 92 Although high fly writes have never concerned me that much (I always get some with Seagate), the normalized value is showing 8. This is getting into the danger zone where I would be concerned. Again, I am seeing drives with over 50,000 power on hours. At that age I really like to use drives only for backups and not primary storage.
  2. @gridrunner may have other ideas. Reduction in gaming performance from >60 to 26 FPS is not typical.
  3. Setting up VM for remote workstation

    You might look at NoMachine and SplashTop as alternatives for RDP.
  4. Actually unRaid "array" requirement can be met with 1 hard disk - or even 1 USB thumbdrive. 20G would give 8G to each VM, and 4G to unRAID. I can't say that is enough. Depends on games. If you know Windows with 8G is sufficient for games, I'd suggest 8G from unRAID to be sure. So 24G. One SSD should be enough. So long as enough space for both Windows images. I'd suggest probably 250G or 500G. Or duals is fine too.
  5. I am not a gamer, but this is not typical of VM slowdowns I have read about. I'd expect reductions of maybe 20% or so. So there might still be something not quite right in your config. If this is the sole video card, you might try the ROM file in the XML. Could also be that you are not giving enough cores or memory. Or not allocating matching cores and matching hyper-thread cores properly. Review carefully and experiment and you might find something that could pump up the video performance.
  6. You would need two video cards which I'm not thinking your micro ATX is going to support. 8G RAM is not enough, probably need 20G minimum (8G each for VMs + 4 for unRaid). Although I'd recommend 32G+. 4 cores (only 3 available for VMs) is not optimal. I'm far from a gaming rig expert, but think if you want a serous 2 in 1 gaming rig, you're unfortunately going to be doing major upgrades. 6 or 8 cores, bigger motherboard able to support 2 x8 PCIe 3.0 video cards, good cooling, beefy PSU. If the goal is much more modest, you might squeeze a video card into an x1 slot and run games in lower res settings and get something running. I still think 8G would not be enough.
  7. Any issues in this SMART report?

    The smart report looks ok. Only thing that is a little concerning is the multi zone error attribute with a raw value of 22. I've seen multi zone errors cause strange symptoms on the past, but usually see them in combination with other issues. Part on hours are on the high side.
  8. Help me choose. . .

    I'd suggest getting the 3 8T. Replace parity and parity2. With other 8T, replace 2T+2T+3T=7T. So you'd have 1T free. You now have 2 empty slots. Buy 8T drives to fill those as needed. Use the 4T drives as backups or spares. This should keep you a while. If any of your 4T are showing their age (near 5 years power-on hours) or have SMART issues, I'd look to swap them out 2 for 1 with 8T. Recommend the best buy easystore 8T externals, which are easy to open and extract WD Red inside. Cheap and good option. HGST 8Ts are more expensive, but are an even better quality option IMO. But with a big price difference, I'd probably be leaning towards the harvested Reds.
  9. Intel Coffee Lake (8.gen)

    Interesting the Coffee Lakes do NOT come with HSF.
  10. The opposite is not true, however. You could boot the WIndows box into unRAID, format the new disk with unRAID, and copy data from Windows disks onto the unRAID disk. When done, you can boot back into Windows.
  11. User Share Copy Bug

    This would definitely cause the problem you are seeing. Double check this setting. If you are deeper than the split level, unRAID knows which disk to pick and it will ignore the user share settings like min free even if disk has little or no space available.
  12. Hard to spec a server with no clear requirements. Suggest you think about plans for next couple years. I didn't really plan to, but recently implemented my regular workstation as a VM on my unRAID server, and love it. Others use unRAID to replace a media server. If you'd like to do both, you'd need ability to have two VMs each passing through video. My server only supports one - so if I could, I'd prefer to be able to have two passthroughs. Know the possible and then know what you'd like your server to be able to do, and use that as your requirements. If you find one of your requirements is driving you out of your price range, you can reassess if that is really a need worth the investment.
  13. First NAS Build Advice

    Yea - rare I am doing just one at a time. Only if a disk is a problem. I tend to go in cycles, where I upgrade disks and reduce disk count. Then I add larger disks one at a time until I get to the magic number again, which keeps me going for a few years. By then drives have grown in size, often 2x+. And I can do another upgrade cycle and reduce drive count again. Old disks become backup disks. I'm normally upsizing parity at the same time. Then I am good for a few more years. I'm hoping by the time I need to go again. disks are at least 12T, hopefully 16T.
  14. First NAS Build Advice

    As I had said, replacing one disk with one disk, the rebulid is better (it is just not something I do very often if at all). But say you're replacing 4 disks with 3. A parity build is going to happen anyway. And the copies can happen 3 at a time, all at full speed. You had sent a partition command that I used the last time I did updates that worked fine. The other method is to boot unRAID with a fresh config directory, and create a dummy array, and format the disks. A third option is to unassign cache and reassign. I am not sure what effect cache pools would have on this, but with a singe cache this works ok - although you can wind up with some cache only shares getting created, on the new disk, along with a docker.img and a few other files. Once you stop the array and put the real cache back in place, and mount the newly formatted disks, those file can be deleted from the unassigned device and you can get on with whatever you were planning.
  15. First NAS Build Advice

    I too have learned from this thread. Thanks to all that have pushed back on my comments - which I hoped to generate counter-analysis from other experts to have a meaningful discussion on this topic. It is no secret that I'm a little disappointed that dual parity is not more useful. I believe that it could - if doing a parity check and finding a mismatch - triangulate on the disk at fault for a parity error. This would be tremendously useful, and there is no other way to do so. @tdallen I can agree with your analysis. Would be nice to bring some specific percentages from the analysis. I would add these risk factors: - Poor cabling - Not using hotswap bays - Not running monthly parity checks - Not running FCP, or equivalent with frequent manual review of SMART data - Not maintaining checksums - Using drives with more than 5 years power on hours - Using multiple drives of same model and similar vintage as one (or especially more than one) that have failed or been replaced due to SMART issues - Using drives with history of failure (e.g, > 10% at current age) according to BackBlaze, or poor forum / Amazon / Newegg feedback - No backups of critical data (dual parity is not a replacement for a backup - but if you don't have a backup, its hard to argue it isn't better than nothing. But instead of using a drive for dual parity, it is better to use that drive as a backup drive of more critical data and put into a safe place) - Unfamiliar / uncomfortable with unRAID and recovery techniques (EVERY new user should run dual parity for some period of time IMO) - New array during burn in period - Anticipation of flooding or other natural disaster. The two use cases I am sure dual parity helped or would have helped were literally flooded arrays. All of the above are indicators for dual parity. And there may be more. The nice thing about dual parity is that it is easy to drop it if the extra capacity is needed and you have overcome issues above. I would add one more point - RFS had a much better tool for single drive recovery than XFS. You might say it was as good as dual parity in many situations. XFS is, for all practical purposes, impossible to recover meaningful binary data. In the RFS era, we frequently saw users shoot themselves in the foot with parity and still able to recover with some RFS heroics. That isn't happening with XFS, despite is being a much more reliable and high performance file system. Dual parity does not protect you from shots to the foot, but might just protect you from one. It is a good idea to have while in your learning curve. I'd be interested in's thoughts on BTRFS. Does it have superior drive recovery tools to XFS? If it does, that might be a good reasons to consider migrating to BTRFS IMO. Bottom line - if in doubt - run dual parity. But realize that small to medium sized arrays, that contain relatively new and well-regarded drives with no SMART issues and with an experienced user at the helm, might not benefit commensurate with he cost. If all your risk is related to just drive failure rates and not the confounding risk factors above - dual parity can be an unnecessary and expensive luxury IMO.
Copyright © 2005-2017 Lime Technology, Inc. unRAIDĀ® is a registered trademark of Lime Technology, Inc.