Activity for alabama
-
alabama modified a comment on discussion Help
Hi again Leifi, Good to know I have been using "fix -e" correctly but confused why it doesn't seem to work for me. This is not the first time I encountered this and raised on this forum before. The conclusion then was bad ram/non-ECC and I left it as that. This time I reran "check" and also used independent hash files and multipar to confirm errors were real corruptions, not on the fly memory corruptions. This is actually what happened, I use "-l" for every snapraid command so I always have a complete...
-
Hi again Leifi, Good to know I have been using "fix -e" correctly but confused why it doesn't seem to work for me. This is not the first time I encountered this and raised on this forum before. The conclusion then was bad ram/non-ECC and I left it as that. This time I reran "check" and also used independent hash files and multipar to confirm errors were real corruptions, not on the fly memory corruptions. This is actually what happened, I use "-l" for every snapraid command so I always have a complete...
-
Hi again Leifi, Good to know I have been using "fix -e" correctly but confused why it doesn't seem to work for me. This is not the first time I encountered this and raised on this forum before. The conclusion then was bad ram/non-ECC and I left it as that. This time I reran "check" and also used independent hash files and multipar to confirm errors were real corruptions, not on the fly memory corruptions. This is actually what happened, I use "-l" for every snapraid command so I always have a complete...
-
I have been using snapraid wrong all this while I think. This is a sample of typical file error, where the file is corrupted during a copy or bitrot. error:2365656:u2:Users/photo/Panasonic LX5/20180916/IMG_3892.JPG: Data error at position 3, diff bits 65/128 status:damaged:u2:Users/photo/Panasonic LX5/20180916/IMG_3892.JPG error:5554388:u2:Users/photo/iPhone 6s/20200226/IMG_4817.JPG: Data error at position 2, diff bits 65/128 status:damaged:u2:Users/photo/iPhone 6s/20200226/IMG_4817.JPG msg:status:...
-
Yes, that would seem to be right option at this point in time for the retirees! Great suggestion. And good point regarding the speed although that's not an issue at the moment.
-
Understood 100%, thanks Leifi. In my case, I'm migrating 2 levels of parity, one level at a time so will execute "snapraid check -d parity" after migrating the first level of parity to new drives, then "snapraid check -d 2-parity" after migrating the second level of parity to new drives.
-
Hi Walter, thanks for suggestion! Yes, already using 2 sets of split parity (2x5TB, 2x5TB), still have bunch of drives leftover I rather use the extra drives for data than 3rd set of parity (a bit excessive for my current setup). Sorry my scenarios were very simplified just to highlight my proposal. Maybe something like spanned volumes is the solution after all although I really prefer the simplicity & safety of JBOD and don't mind a tiny bit more complexity in snapraid setup.
-
Hi Walter, thanks for suggestion! Yes, already using 2 sets of split parity (2x5TB, 2x5TB), still have bunch of drives leftover I rather use the extra drives for data than 3rd set of parity (a bit excessive for my current setup). Maybe something like spanned volumes is the solution after all although I prefer the simplicity & safety of JBOD and don't mind a tiny bit more complexity in snapraid setup.
-
Cheers Leifi for the confirmation! Could you clarify what you specifically mean by "first level" of parity? Just in case I missed out on a fine point.
-
Cheers Leifi for the confirmation! Could you clarify what you specifically mean by "first level" of parity? Just in case I missed out on a fine point.
-
Thanks for the vote! I am upgrading to larger drives and in a pickle whether I should include the older 2/3/5TB drives as I feel it would reduce the effectiveness of raid but hate to lose the space. ie the higher number of (older) drives will increase the probability of data loss as result of multiple drive failures. Being able to 'stack' the older & smaller drives will mitigate that increased risk.
-
For all it's worth, I vote for this. Personally, an explicit sync parameter is best.
-
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting joining 3 physical drives into a single virtual drive letter. I'm proposing something similar to how the split parity currently works where the data drives are separate and distinct with their own drive assignments. There's no change to how the data is currently stored. The only difference is in snapraid config and how snapraid treats the data drives when it computes the parity.
-
Hi, I have seen joined data disks had been brought up before in 2013 and dismissed for increased complexity and not much gain but hear me out here. Allow me to argue my case. Let's consider the following 2 scenarios. Scenario A (current) D: 10TB data E: 2TB data F: 3TB data G: 5TB data P: 10TB parity vs Scenario B (proposal) D: 10TB data E: 2TB + F: 3TB + G: 5TB data (aka split data drive) P: 10TB parity By treating E, F & G as a single disk under Scenario B, even if 2 of the 3 (EFG) or even if all...
-
Hi, I have seen joined data disks had been brought up before in 2013 and dismissed for increased complexity and not much gain but hear me out here. Allow me to argue my case. Let's consider the following 2 scenarios. Scenario A D: 10TB data E: 2TB data F: 3TB data G: 5TB data P: 10TB parity vs Scenario B D: 10TB data E: 2TB + F: 3TB + G: 5TB data (aka split data drive) P: 10TB parity By treating E, F & G as a single disk under Scenario B, even if 2 of the 3 (EFG) or even if all 3 (EFG) drives fail,...
-
Sorry for reviving an old thread. I found myself having to replace multiple parity with a single large parity, again. Do I run a "check" after to verify the new parity drive is 100% correct? Also, would I be able to apply a disk filter so only the new parity disk is "checked"? In the docs, it says I can filter a data drive but no mention if filtering parity drive works. Thanks in advance!
-
This is exactly it, thanks UhClem, I thought I read it all, but looks like I skimmed over this bit.
-
This is exactly it, thanks UhChem, I thought I read it all, but looks like I skimmed over this bit.
-
This is exactly it, thanks UChem, I thought I read it all, but looks like I skimmed over this bit.
-
Attached a screenshot of from windows properties. The total space used seem to line up with the status report, but the free space doesn't. I'm guessing "wasted" space is just the difference, and not actually a calculated number. Perhaps the question is why doesn't the free space tally with what windows sees? I checked the other drives, and the used and free space in windows agrees with the status report. So it's just one drive, "p1", which is anomalous. The recycle bin is empty. Just hazarding a...
-
Pardon the poor formatting, "p1" has 239GB of wasted space, why? I read the post from 2017 where Leifi describes how snapraid uses 256k to protect even a 1k file, hence this is the "overhead" cost. However, 99% of the files in p1 are copies of files already in u1 and u2, yet u1 and u2 show no wasted space. Why is that? Files Fragmented Excess Wasted Used Free Use Name Files Fragments GB GB GB 522167 90 156 - 6592 335 95% u1 209648 169 460 - 4013 843 83% u2 507695 4 7 239.2 7423 303 96% p1 98337 119...
-
Attached a screenshot of from windows properties. The total space used seem to line up with the status report, but the free space doesn't. I'm guessing "wasted" space is just the difference, and not actually a calculated number. Perhaps the question is why doesn't the free space tally with what windows sees?
-
Pardon the poor formatting, "p1" has 239GB of wasted space, why? I read the post from 2017 where Lefi describes how snapraid uses 256k to protect even a 1k file, hence this is the "overhead" cost. However, 99% of the files in p1 are copies of files already in u1 and u2, yet u1 and u2 show no wasted space. Why is that? Files Fragmented Excess Wasted Used Free Use Name Files Fragments GB GB GB 522167 90 156 - 6592 335 95% u1 209648 169 460 - 4013 843 83% u2 507695 4 7 239.2 7423 303 96% p1 98337 119...
-
Understand, so this is a symptom of hardware/non-ECC memory... worrying... So I had run Status immediately after the error was detected and came back with no errors. Does this mean Status will rechecks/rescrub the error block to see if the error still exist before it reports back? ie, snapraid knows there was an error (because of the original sync), proceeded to rescrub/retest it, realised the error no longer exists so reports back as no errors found? Think I would have preferred if it confirmed...
-
This has happened 4-5 times already which confuses me. When I sync there's an error, but no error detected when I run scrubnew, status or "-e fix" after the sync. Is this because the error block was detected and moved during the sync and hence no longer an error? If so, why does it tell me be run "-e fix"? I also know it's not a persistent/replicatable error because I have separate hash and parity files and they come out clean each time. Does this mean there was a random one-time read error during...
-
Fascinating! I will go down the 3 file parity path in that case. Thank you Lefi and Walter for your valuable input!
-
I wasn't confident moving the 3 files to the new drive works, I've not seen it suggested in the FAQ or forum (till now). Also all files are named the same so I've to figure a way to rename them. Not sure what other impact there might be. Walter, you are suggesting that I treat the 2-parity as failed, remove them from the conf, add the new empty drive then run "snapraid fix -d PARITY_NAME". Correct? That would work however I'm wondering if this is the best practice as my data would be reduced to single...
-
I wasn't confident moving the 3 files to the new drive works, I've not seen it suggested in the FAQ or forum (till now). Also all files are named the same so I've to figure a way to rename them. Not sure what other impact there might be. Walter, you are suggesting that I treat the 2-parity as failed, remove them from the conf, add the new empty drive then run "snapraid fix -d PARITY_NAME". Correct? That would work however I'm wondering if this is the best practice as my data would be reduced to single...
-
I wasn't confident moving the 3 files to the new drive works, I've not seen it suggested in the FAQ or forum (till now). Also all files are named the same so I've to figure a way to rename them. Not sure what other impact there might be. Walter. you are suggesting that I treat the 2-parity as failed, remove them from the conf, add the new empty drive then run "snapraid fix -d PARITY_NAME". Correct? That would work however I'm wondering if this is the best practice as my data would be reduced to single...
-
Hi, I want to replace my current 3 disk "2-parity" with a single larger hdd. What is the best practice? Current config: parity P:\snapraid.parity,Q:\snapraid.parity 2-parity R:\snapraid.2-parity,S:\snapraid.2-parity,T:\snapraid.2-parity <<<< Want to replace this parity with single large disk Option1 i) create 3-parity ii) remove 2-parity iiI) rename 3-parity to 2-parity (i.e. change conf and rename parity files) Option2 i) create 3-parity ii) swap 2-parity & 3-parity (i.e. change conf and rename...
-
Hi, I want to replace my current 3 disk "2-parity" with a single larger hdd. What is the best practice? Current config: parity P:\snapraid.parity,Q:\snapraid.parity 2-parity R:\snapraid.2-parity,S:\snapraid.2-parity,T:\snapraid.2-parity Option1 i) create 3-parity ii) remove 2-parity iiI) rename 3-parity to 2-parity (i.e. change conf and rename parity files) Option2 i) create 3-parity ii) swap 2-parity & 3-parity (i.e. change conf and rename parity files) iii) remove 3-parity (previously 2-parity...
-
Perfect, thanks Leifi.
-
Just want to confirm my understanding how sync works and get some peace of mind. Assuming some data corruption exist but not yet found by scrub. If I add some new files then run Sync... Scenario A. If the sync does not involve the corrupted data. Am I correct to assume the corrupted data will not get synced and the errors will get picked up by subsequent scrub? Scenario B. If the sync involves the corrupted data. Will the sync detect & produce an error then stop the sync? ie, it would first scrub...
-
That seems to have worked which is good news. Thanks! I'll try without -o and just...
-
Apologies, the graph didn't really paste very well. Basically there are several blocks...
-
I'm not sure if it's an anomaly. I had the understanding that scrubs would, by default,...
-
Ah, thanks Lefi, don't know how I could have missed those instructions. Thanks for...
-
Is there a safe way, or safest possible way, of recreating parity? Background: I...
-
thank you
-
Would second a move function between drives. Facing similar issue. Upgrading drives...
-
Thank you for the great work! That's a very slick way of detecting and implementing...
-
Andrea, Has there been any updates to this? I'll replacing and reordering (including...
-
Just trying to understand the behaviour. From an old thread, I understand that when...
-
Thanks for the clarification Andrea, that's perfect.
-
Hi Andrea, Got it! That's exactly what happened. Subsequent "-p new" works perfectly....
-
Hi Andrea, I would like to second Robert's suggestion even though I understand your...
-
Hi, I just installed and tested the "-p new", but it tells me "nothing to do" I had...
-
thank you Andrea. I'm sure you've heard this many times, this is an excellent piece...
-
As Quaraxkad suggested, PAR2 might be what you're looking for. I use Multipar myself...
-
As Quaraxkad suggested, PAR2 might be what you're looking for. I use Multipar myself...
-
As Quaraxkad suggested, PAR2 might be what you're looking for. I use Multipar myself...
-
As Quaraxkad suggested, PAR2 might be what you're looking for. I use Multipar myself...
-
Jessie, thank you for the concise summary, yes, that's exactly what i would want....
-
test....
-
test....
-
test....
-
test....
-
test....
-
test....
-
First of all, thank you for writing this amazing software, very well thought out....
-
Got it, makes sense. Thanks!
-
I've something similar, I've a false positive (not sure if hardware or non-ecc)....
1