or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official unRAID Thread - Page 25

post #721 of 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by kweisen View Post

I have my unraid server tucked away in a storage room and had to have my router switched out with a new one. This changed all the IP addresses and now I dont know what the IP address is anymore and cant access the tower/main frown.gif Is there anyway I can figure out what the ip address is so I can access the tower/main page? I can access it through my shared network devices still on my windows HTPC but just cant type the IP address in my browser because I dont know it. Any suggestions so I dont have to lug it out and plug it into a tv (no monitors)? Thanks guys

Just look at the IP addresses listed in your router and you should see the unRAID server IP address there. This is how it works on mine.
post #722 of 742
Im an idiot! Thanks will go do it right now you're awesome!
post #723 of 742
I'm new to this server world and need some help.
I have an unraid box and an HP Microserver that's running Synology. The synology was jbod and it crashed, I have all my files on the unraid server.
What's the fastest way to get these files to my Synology build over LAN?
post #724 of 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff.lebowski View Post

Not exactly. Power down the unRAID server anyway you can (likely just a hold of the power button), then remove the USB drive from wherever it's plugged into your server, then plug that USB drive into your computer and read the contents as you would any other USB drive.
So i turned off the server and unplugged the usb and then plugged it into my windows machine retrieved the IP address and then plugged the usb drive back into the unraid server and powered it back on. However now im freaking out because I cant connect to the IP/main through a web browser and when I go to my Networked devices where I could connect to it before and watch my media all that appears now is my tower but it simply displays everything on my USB drive like the config, packages, preclear_reports, and unmenu its as if the server isint running fully.... I just pray I didnt loose any media
post #725 of 742
Start small.

Click the Windows logo, type CMD, press enter.

Type ping THE.SERVER'S.IP.ADDDRESS, press enter.

It should look like this if the IP and network are functioning correctly:

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\jeff.lebowski>ping 192.168.3.175

Pinging 192.168.3.175 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.3.175: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.3.175: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.3.175: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.3.175: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64

Ping statistics for 192.168.3.175:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms

If your result matches mine (sent 4, received 4), then open Windows Explorer, then type \\THE.SERVER'S.IP.ADDDRESS in the address bar. Press enter. You should see all disks and shares.

If this test is also successful, type THE.SERVER'S.IP.ADDDRESS into your browser's address bar. Press enter. The webgui should appear.
post #726 of 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff.lebowski View Post

Start small.

Click the Windows logo, type CMD, press enter.

Type ping THE.SERVER'S.IP.ADDDRESS, press enter.

It should look like this if the IP and network are functioning correctly:

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\jeff.lebowski>ping 192.168.3.175

Pinging 192.168.3.175 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.3.175: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.3.175: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.3.175: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.3.175: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64

Ping statistics for 192.168.3.175:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms

If your result matches mine (sent 4, received 4), then open Windows Explorer, then type \\THE.SERVER'S.IP.ADDDRESS in the address bar. Press enter. You should see all disks and shares.

If this test is also successful, type THE.SERVER'S.IP.ADDDRESS into your browser's address bar. Press enter. The webgui should appear.

Thank you for helping! It says the "reply from IP ADDRESS: destination host unreachable."
"Packets: sent =4 received=4 lost=0 (0%lost)"

So its unreachable but somehow received the packets still? seems odd
post #727 of 742
Here is my network.cfg file from boot/config

# Generated settings:

USE_DHCP=no
IPADDR=192.168.3.175
NETMASK=255.255.255.0
GATEWAY=192.168.3.1
HWADDR=xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx
DHCP_KEEPRESOLV=yes
DNS_SERVER1=192.168.3.1
DNS_SERVER2=
DNS_SERVER3=

My router's address is 192.168.3.1, and the server's address is 192.168.3.175. Can you edit your network.cfg file, save it, then plug the USB drive back into the server? You'll most likely want to leave the HWADDR as you find it.
post #728 of 742
Edit it in what way?
post #729 of 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by kweisen View Post

Edit it in what way?

Edit yours so it matches mine not exactly, but whatever your Gateway and DNS server (Router) address are, DHCP = no, and the IP address should be in the same network. 192,168.1.x, 10.0.0.x, or whatever you use.
post #730 of 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff.lebowski View Post

Edit yours so it matches mine not exactly, but whatever your Gateway and DNS server (Router) address are, DHCP = no, and the IP address should be in the same network. 192,168.1.x, 10.0.0.x, or whatever you use.
THANK GOD nothing was lost! For some reason the network file had USE_DHCP set to "yes" instead of no. I was able to establish a connection to the main tower and restart the array in which I found all my files safe and sound. Doing a parity check now just incase. Thank you for your help!
post #731 of 742
Could anyone point me to an updated hardware guide to recommended unraid builds? I want to build a midrange system to serve as HTPC storage, Timemachine backup shares for a few macs in the house, mapped network drives for iTunes, iPhoto, etc. and who knows what else. I would like to have 4-6 TB to start with. The hardware guide at LimeTech doesn't appear to be that up-to-date. I would like to keep the budget under $700 or so, as I am also building an HTPC and upgrading my Hackintosh.
post #732 of 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaminnj View Post

Could anyone point me to an updated hardware guide to recommended unraid builds? I want to build a midrange system to serve as HTPC storage, Timemachine backup shares for a few macs in the house, mapped network drives for iTunes, iPhoto, etc. and who knows what else. I would like to have 4-6 TB to start with. The hardware guide at LimeTech doesn't appear to be that up-to-date. I would like to keep the budget under $700 or so, as I am also building an HTPC and upgrading my Hackintosh.

There isn't one. You can pretty much use anything out there. You just have to change the settings under BIOS so upon starting the server is reads the USB port for the OS rather than the hard drive. I would recommend using Intel CPU's. They are more reliable and efficient.
post #733 of 742
Thanks Gus. Your Media Server looks amazing, by the way!

Adam
post #734 of 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaminnj View Post

Thanks Gus. Your Media Server looks amazing, by the way!

Adam

Thanks.
post #735 of 742
Finally, it's that time. I've decided to bite the bullet and am looking to build out a streaming home theatre system. I posted in another thread and was able to get enough information on the basic skeleton of the system that I am going to put together. This is not something I am looking at doing "on the cheap", but I'm also not looking to spend more than I paid for my SUV in order to stream movies to the different devices in my home. Anyway, I'm preparing to put together my disc farm and am still a bit undecided as to what my best solution would be. A big reason for this is that the "experts" I have been talking to down at the shop are anything but impartial and decidedly unhelpful when it comes to answering questions about anything other than their standard stock suggestions.

So, I thought I would come here and see if I might get some info from folks that actually use similar systems in the same fashion I am looking to.

I will be looking to build from scratch, a media server with an initial pre-redundancy capacity of 40 TB. That will be enough storage for what I already have in the house, plus what I am likely to acquire within the next year. At that point I will need to be able to expand by adding another machine to the system to expand the number of drives I can place in the array. When I first set about trying to figure out what I was going to need in order to build my system, I had pretty much sold myself on unRAID to provide a means by which to protect my data from loss, as ripping DVDs and Blurays can be quite time consuming, not to mention a lost drive would mean having to drag discs out of storage. However, ever since I began asking around about building the system, I have been repeatedly warned off of using unRAID. I am told it is finicky and does not provide nearly as much protection as is claimed.

Here's the thing though, no one can give me specific examples of where unRAID comes up short. Therefore, I feel like I am missing out on potentially important information, and that I may simply be falling victim to the bias of those with financial motivation to steer me one way versus another. Currently I am weighing the following options: a Synology system, a Mediasonic disc farm using FlexRAID, an unRAID server, or using Windows 8.1's software RAID solution.

That brings me to why I am here. I am hoping some of you can answer some "simple" questions for me. I have tried contacting customer service over at Lime-tech, but they have been entirely unresponsive to my enquiries.


  1. Are there any significant short-comings to an unRAID system? Looking at the layout, it would seem that it can only sustain failure to one drive at a time, but it doesn't seem that that particular problem is unique to unRAID
  2. How easy/difficult will it be to add an additional enclosure to the array in another year?
  3. Since I am building the system from scratch, I am not worried about mixing and matching drive sizes, all will be the same size. Besides the ability to mix/match drives, what is unRAID's strong "selling" point? Essentially, why do I want to choose unRAID over the other options listed above?

I'm looking for any and all input that I can get. I'm hoping to begin building the system in the very near future and want to make sure that I am doing things right the first time around.
post #736 of 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aryn Ravenlocke View Post

  1. Are there any significant short-comings to an unRAID system? Looking at the layout, it would seem that it can only sustain failure to one drive at a time, but it doesn't seem that that particular problem is unique to unRAID
  2. How easy/difficult will it be to add an additional enclosure to the array in another year?
  3. Since I am building the system from scratch, I am not worried about mixing and matching drive sizes, all will be the same size. Besides the ability to mix/match drives, what is unRAID's strong "selling" point? Essentially, why do I want to choose unRAID over the other options listed above?

I'm looking for any and all input that I can get. I'm hoping to begin building the system in the very near future and want to make sure that I am doing things right the first time around.

1) Transfer speeds to the server can be slow when not using a cache disk. It's never been a concern for me, I average 25,000 kbytes/s and that's plenty. I'm in no rush. Serving speed is obviously fine.
2) Can you clarify what you mean when you type, "add an additional enclosure to the array"?
3) A year ago, I would have said choose another solution due to the SERIOUS lack of updates from Lime-Tech's owner regarding the next version. It was bad. Things have greatly improved, as has the unRAID OS. Well, it was strong before, but there was a big gap between updates. Like >2TB disk support, and likely other things.

I'm a very simple user. I need an array, shares, redundancy, email notifications. That's pretty much it. Dual parity disk is exciting, even though the chance of two disk failures at once is fairly low. In the old days with 2TB disk as the maximum, dual parity was a pipe dream, as we were all concerned about slots for data disks. But now with 4TB support, it's easier to spare a slot for a second parity disk.
post #737 of 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff.lebowski View Post


2) Can you clarify what you mean when you type, "add an additional enclosure to the array"?

I suppose I should have been a bit more clear. The options I have been looking at building have all been based off of a 10-drive enclosure. Even if I go with a case /enclosure that will allow me to use more hard drives, eventually the time is going to come when I will run out of disc space. So, whatever path I take in building the media server needs to accommodate adding another enclosure at some point in time. The new enclosure will likely only have 1-2 drives at first, but will over time slowly have more drives added.


I've gone back and forth about whether or not to use a cache disk. I suspect that I will decide to use one, if only to ensure the most consistent possible streaming experience. I could potentially have as many as 3 blurays streaming at once, though it is more likely that I would have a single bluray and a single DVD streaming and nothing else. However, once the media server is built, it is entirely possible that viewing habits in the house will change, and I want the media server to be ready for that eventuality. As for write speed to the server, I've already resigned myself to allowing up to 10 days for all of my external hard drives to be transferred onto the new media server. Once that process is complete, the server will have info added 1-2 discs at a time, so I'm not too worried. Discs simply continue to get added anytime I happen to be sitting at the computer already. I imagine that will pretty much stay the same.
post #738 of 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aryn Ravenlocke View Post

I suppose I should have been a bit more clear. The options I have been looking at building have all been based off of a 10-drive enclosure. Even if I go with a case /enclosure that will allow me to use more hard drives, eventually the time is going to come when I will run out of disc space. So, whatever path I take in building the media server needs to accommodate adding another enclosure at some point in time. The new enclosure will likely only have 1-2 drives at first, but will over time slowly have more drives added.


I've gone back and forth about whether or not to use a cache disk. I suspect that I will decide to use one, if only to ensure the most consistent possible streaming experience. I could potentially have as many as 3 blurays streaming at once, though it is more likely that I would have a single bluray and a single DVD streaming and nothing else. However, once the media server is built, it is entirely possible that viewing habits in the house will change, and I want the media server to be ready for that eventuality. As for write speed to the server, I've already resigned myself to allowing up to 10 days for all of my external hard drives to be transferred onto the new media server. Once that process is complete, the server will have info added 1-2 discs at a time, so I'm not too worried. Discs simply continue to get added anytime I happen to be sitting at the computer already. I imagine that will pretty much stay the same.

Ah. Case!

I started with a single case/server three years ago, added a second smaller server at month ten, and finally a third 24 bay enterprise server at month 27. But, my reasons were to segregate all content. Movies on server 1, TV on server 2, backup/everything else on server 3. I kept things simple, no VM, nothing difficult. Just more boxes and more IP addresses.

The cache disk is only for transferring TO the server, not for serving back to devices on the network. As far as I recall, anyway. The general process is: Transfer files to server (cache disk), the Mover script moves those files from the unprotected cache disk to the protected array at a specified time.

I strongly suggest you COPY data from the external drives to the server using a md5 check. I like TeraCopy. Once everything has passed hash check, then delete from your externals.
post #739 of 742
I considered separate cases for television, movies, and anime/music. I decided that might be going a tad bit overboard though, especially on power consumption. It sounds tome that if I were to choose to go unRAID that there would be no issues with adding another case to the array. Good to know. Thanks!
post #740 of 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aryn Ravenlocke View Post

I considered separate cases for television, movies, and anime/music. I decided that might be going a tad bit overboard though, especially on power consumption. It sounds tome that if I were to choose to go unRAID that there would be no issues with adding another case to the array. Good to know. Thanks!

Remember your power consumption will be fairly low when using a modern CPU and generally only one to two disks will be spun up at any time. My three year old rig:

CPU: AMD Sempron 140
Motherboard: ASUS M4A785-M Micro ATX
RAM: Kingston 2GB
Case: Cooler Master 590
Drive Cage(s): Icy Dock 5 in 3
Drive Cage(s): Norco SS-500
Drive Cage(s): Built in CM four slot cage
Power Supply: CORSAIR Builder Series CMPSU-500CX 500W
SATA Expansion Card(s): SUPERMICRO AOC-SASLP-MV8 PCI Express x4 SAS SAS RAID Controller
Fans: 2x Masscool SL-FD12025 120mm for the top (exhaust), one Scythe S-FLEX SFF21E / 120mm 1,200rpm installed on the side panel (intake), then stock fans for the front (intake) and rear (exhaust)
14 2TB disks

It consumes ~70W at idle. I think newer rigs are closer to 40W at idle. Especially with a smaller case and fewer cooling fans. That case has seven fans...

Also, careful with the terminology. In this application, an array is referred to as a system with a single parity disk that protects data disks. Generally within a single case. There are ways to expand a small case with another small case and it still be part of the same array. But generally, when you build a separate case, that is a different array.
post #741 of 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff.lebowski View Post



Also, careful with the terminology. In this application, an array is referred to as a system with a single parity disk that protects data disks. Generally within a single case. There are ways to expand a small case with another small case and it still be part of the same array. But generally, when you build a separate case, that is a different array.

This is why I am not the IT guy and I am asking around to make sure I get what it is I need. When I walk into the shop I need to make sure I am asking for the right stuff. Thanks!

Yes, it will eventually be 2 cases. Though I doubt I will ever need a third case to house my many hard drives, I have learned to never underestimate just how much hard drive space I might need. So I will avoid saying that I will never need to add a third case filled with drives. What I need is for whatever system I do build to accommodate adding extra cases with drives to whatever already exists with little or no fuss.
post #742 of 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aryn Ravenlocke View Post

I suppose I should have been a bit more clear. The options I have been looking at building have all been based off of a 10-drive enclosure. Even if I go with a case /enclosure that will allow me to use more hard drives, eventually the time is going to come when I will run out of disc space. So, whatever path I take in building the media server needs to accommodate adding another enclosure at some point in time. The new enclosure will likely only have 1-2 drives at first, but will over time slowly have more drives added.


I've gone back and forth about whether or not to use a cache disk. I suspect that I will decide to use one, if only to ensure the most consistent possible streaming experience. I could potentially have as many as 3 blurays streaming at once, though it is more likely that I would have a single bluray and a single DVD streaming and nothing else. However, once the media server is built, it is entirely possible that viewing habits in the house will change, and I want the media server to be ready for that eventuality. As for write speed to the server, I've already resigned myself to allowing up to 10 days for all of my external hard drives to be transferred onto the new media server. Once that process is complete, the server will have info added 1-2 discs at a time, so I'm not too worried. Discs simply continue to get added anytime I happen to be sitting at the computer already. I imagine that will pretty much stay the same.

You can always add external enclosures if you want with port multiplier capable eSATA ports. Although that is not the norm. I think I am one of the few people that uses external enclosures with unRAID. I have three unRAID setups. The two that are at max drive capacity each use five external enclosures along with drives in the main PC case. My most recent unRAID setup, uses an HP Proliant G7 N54L. So I have five drives in that plus four external enclosures. But I have not maxed out my drive capacity with that setup yet. One of the enclosures only has one drive in it. While the other enclosures each have four drives. And I still have an eSATA port available to add a fifth enclosure.
Edited by aaronwt - 4/5/14 at 4:06pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home