Unassigned Devices - Managing Disk Drives and Remote Shares Outside of The Unraid Array


Recommended Posts

Just now, trurl said:

What are you going to use it for?

Just VMs.  My machine kept crashing and I've just removed all the files from it and removed it from the machine, and so far so good.  I'm checking at the moment my new cache pool isn't the problem (had some problems adding the 500gb which used to have my VMs to the pool) my doing a move all files to the array and back again.

 

Thinking the sm961 might be faulty, xfs was the wrong option or the sm961 doesn't like the recycle bin plugin (only other option i can come up with)

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, Krzaku said:

Not sure if this was reported already, but when you select auto-mount partition on a disk with multiple partitions, after refreshing the page all partitions will have auto-mount enabled.

You can set the auto-mount switch off for a partition you don't want mounted.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Krzaku said:

I know that. Like I said, it doesn't work. After I refresh the page it changes, either all partitions on auto-mount or none. I tried reinstalling the plugin, didn't work.

Setting any partition as auto mount marks the disk as auto mount.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Krzaku said:

I know that. Like I said, it doesn't work. After I refresh the page it changes, either all partitions on auto-mount or none. I tried reinstalling the plugin, didn't work.

The auto mount switches have been removed from the partitions in the latest version.  The auto mount applies to the drive, and not to the partitions.  This should eliminate the confusion.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, dlandon said:

It's not intended for UD to format drives for inclusion in the array.

 

Yes I know, but most users don't know that it's not going to work, it should be an easy change but if you don't want to do it consider at least putting a warning on the first post.

Edited by johnnie.black
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, dlandon said:

It's not intended for UD to format drives for inclusion in the array.

 

Shouldn't it be?  It seems to me that it would be better for consistency if all formatting functions worked the same way, for interchangeability?

Edited by RobJ
better worded
Link to comment
1 minute ago, johnnie.black said:

 

Yes I know, but most users don't know that it's not going to work, it should be an easy change but if you don't want to do it consider at least putting a warning on the first post.

I would say that not only do most users not know it's not going to work, but they wouldn't really know how to proceed if it did work.

 

The user can only get a disk with data on it added to the array by doing New Config, at which point they should NOT check the parity valid box. But you know how people don't bother to understand things, or even read the first post of the support thread.

 

The more advanced users can still get this done by partitioning and formatting the disk at the command line, and then just having UD mount it.

Link to comment

I guess I don't see the issue here.  The formatting of a new disk in unRAID is determined by the setting in the Settings->Disk Settings, so there is not necessarily a standard format.  unRAID also needs the signature that it creates when it formats, or a by running a script like preclear.

 

Formatting a disk with UD is not the way to add disks to the array.  The format in UD is only to support disks used in UD.  Why would someone format a disk in UD and then decide to add it to the array?  If they wanted to keep the format, they would have to do a 'New Config' and that's another set of problems in the making.

 

UD uses parted to partition the disk and uses the '-a optimal' switch so the disk partition is created with starting sector at 64 it the disk is an Advanced Format disk.

From the parted manual:

"optimal

Use optimum alignment as given by the disk topology information. This aligns to a multiple of the physical block size in a way that guarantees optimal performance."

 

I'd rather favor disk performance than generically setting all disk partition sectors to start at 64 just so someone can stuff a UD formatted disk into the array.

 

EDIT: After thinking about this some more, why would unRAID not accept a disk formatted either way?  The format is optimized for the disk, not unRAID.  It affects the performance of the disk, not whether or not unRAID can accept the disk.

Edited by dlandon
Link to comment
2 hours ago, dlandon said:

I guess I don't see the issue here.  The formatting of a new disk in unRAID is determined by the setting in the Settings->Disk Settings, so there is not necessarily a standard format.

 

Everybody should be using 4k aligned by now, that always equals starting sector 64, but if someone is using unaligned, sector 63, it's ok, unRAID will accept both.

 

2 hours ago, dlandon said:

unRAID also needs the signature that it creates when it formats, or a by running a script like preclear.

 

Not for the partition, just a supported starting sector, 63 or 64.

 

2 hours ago, dlandon said:

I'd rather favor disk performance than generically setting all disk partition sectors to start at 64 just so someone can stuff a UD formatted disk into the array.

 

UD is using sector 2048, but AFAIK as long as the disk is 4k aligned, ie, starting sector is divisible by 8 performance will be optimal.

 

2 hours ago, dlandon said:

EDIT: After thinking about this some more, why would unRAID not accept a disk formatted either way?

 

unRAID will accept it if partition 1 starts either in sector 63 or sector 64.  If it starts anywhere else, or if it's length does not comprise the whole disk, then it re-writes it so that partition 1 starts in sector 64 (if using 4k aligned) and extends to the end of the disk.

Edited by johnnie.black
Link to comment

Dan, I have to agree with johnnie.black.  For whatever reason, users just do it.  They format with UD and expect to add it to the array, and are shocked when it doesn't work.

 

I imagine some do it from ignorance, but even so, it should still work.  Others do it intentionally, perhaps as part of an initial data migration strategy - preclear and format a set of drives, take them to another system to fill with data, then bring them back to start an array.  Others don't intend to do it initially, but may later change their mind and decide to add the drive to the array, for better fault tolerance perhaps.  After all, they think, it's already formatted with XFS, so it should be easy to add.

 

I don't know the reasoning for sector 2048, so I may be wrong, but as far as i know, sector 64 is just as optimal as any other optimal starting sector.

 

I think it would be good for unRAID to be more flexible with what it accepts and can work with, but for now, it's the gorilla, and I think it would be wise to conform to what it wants.

Link to comment

Sorry, just one last comment about this, since I believe it's important:

 

The current problem, besides unRAID no recognizing an UD partitioned disk, is that since unRAID will re-write the partition to start on sector 64, after the user tries to mount it in unRAID and it doesn't work it will then also not mount on UD or manually (unless the starting sector is manually changed to the initial one), leaving the user with an unmountable disk.

Link to comment
  • trurl pinned this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.