• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About AllGamer

  • Rank
    Super Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. As many of you know the default max capacity if we are to follow Synolgy spec DS3615xs is 32G and DS3617xs is 48GB. Regardless of that for our own custom builts, if I install 64GB or 128GB into my box... will XPEnology actually make use that extra available RAM, or it will ignore anything beyond the Synology's firmware Max RAM 32/48 GB limits? For example more RAM to host Dockers or other types of VMs / Minecraft Server / App Servers / Video Transcoding, etc... Currently I have 64GB installed, but according to DS3615xs static specs it shows 32GB, in the Synology info page.
  2. From experience, the LUN# or physical HDD# don't necessary matches within Synology to actual physical layout. Most of the time the Disk# (LUN#) is determined by the SATA Controller you are using.
  3. instead of going at this backwards... why not just setup a VMware and run DSM6 that is working already in VM ?
  4. I was doing some googling around, and apparently Driver wise for Linux, from Adaptec 6 series and above, it uses the same architecture, as in HDDs from Series 6, 7 and 8 are all interchangeable, however... that might or might not be the same in regards to drivers.
  5. wow, sorry for the late reply, I've been on recently. something simple to keep in mind with XPEnology. most of the boot loaders we use here are for version specific, sometimes you might get lucky, and you can upgrade to another patch without problem, but as you have found out, sometimes it simply can not be done to preserve compatibility. if your system is new enough, you might want to consider running XPEnoboot 5.2-5967.1 the 32bit is really meant for old machines that will not run any 64bit version, and as such it has long been ... "forgotten" per say, don't expect any updates to work asides the listed version supported. It's good enough to make good use of old machines that are still more than capable of being a good file server for home use, or small business use (not for important files)
  6. Hi does anyone have experience or know if the Adaptec 7 Series cards are supported? ... rs/series7 In special I'm planning to pick up this one model 72405: 24 internal ports since all the other cards I've tried didn't get much success breaking the 16 SATA host adapter limitation, by combining several 8 ports, it'll appear I'll have to get an actual card that can deliver 24 ports in a single card to solve my problem.
  7. Very interesting results. I've seen similar problems with Windows, like A lot!, and yes it's Windows fault from my tests, on other cases not related to yours. But the description is very similar, in my case Windows Explorer will simply grinds to almost a halt if I try to copy a HUGE batch of files, specially if each file is larger than a few GB, and you are trying to copy over several GB or TB of data from one server to another server. yet, If i try to copy each file 1 at a time, or even smaller batches of like 5 or 10 files at a time, then it copies them over really fast using max network speed. Now that being said, the issue with Rsync seems to be very similar, it might simply be how these old Apps were designed, without looking into the source code I wouldn't know, but perhaps Explorer/ Rsync were not updated to handle now in days data load. most file are larger than whatever queue buffer they were designed for. it could be the read ahead that is failing after a long process, not freeing the memory to take in more file names / file listing. it might maintain a list of files copied, and or to be copied in memory and after a while the list just get so long it takes too long to process (this is most-likely the issue).... WHICH reminds me of a very good test. have you tried transferring files from 1 server to another server locally using FTP Setup either side to be the server, and use the other as the client. Then repeat the same test you did with rsync. my Theory, Since FTP doesn't keep stuff in Memory, it reads the list from your list, the one the FTP Client creates when you selected all the files to upload, then it will have a lot less over head, or memory "leak" issue as Windows Explorer / rsync. In a semi-related, yet not related matter, DropBox in Linux has a super horrible memory leak, it's been there forever and they haven't fix it yet. My work around is to kill the Process everytime the memory usage goes beyond X GB RAM So, that's probably something else you can also look into, see if Rsync has any sort of memory leak after many hours / days of operation transferring a giant batch of files
  8. Definitely replace it, since that is a permanent issue on that disk, it will reappear again if you keep it. since you are still under warranty, might as well change it and get a new replacement.
  9. I'm starting to believe this might have something to do with the problem I'm seeing. ... e-2_70-GHz Expansion Options Scalability 1S Only PCI Express Revision 3.0 PCI Express Configurations ‡ Up to 1x16, 2x8, 1x8+2x4 Max # of PCI Express Lanes 16 but if that is true, then how did they managed to do those 40+, 50+ HDDs builds with XPEnology?
  10. if it's from the new HDD, then it's safe to hit the Repair button. alternatively, as you mentioned, just take it out, have it scanned on a Linux / Windows machine to see if it's an actual bad sector on the new HDD, then send it in for RMA if confirmed it's a bad drive.
  11. Yup, I did that already, as I did read and still remember an old post of you talking about it. So, I went ahead and disabled all the features from the motherboard, serial, parallel, SATA, sound, etc only left the 2 Intel Ethernet on board. I tried plugging the SATA controllers in different PCI-E slots hoping it might help, but still nothing. I'm starting to believe maybe it's the motherboard, and I might have to end up using a less sophisticated motherboard with a lot less features, then maybe that might work since now I'm using the ATTO 16 port in my main rig, I can experiment with the 3x Supermicro controllers on another motherboard to see if that works.... the problem is i don't have that many spare HDDs Oh yeah, one thing I did forget to mention in my original post. The problem will not get detected unless HDDs is physically connected to the controller. When I initially started with the 3x Supermicro AOC-SAS2LP-MV8, they all looked perfect I was able to hook up like 4 drives per controller, and I assumed it was working great, the problem only appeared when all 24 ports were filled, and started getting the weird detection, or HDD not detected issues, then I started removing drives until it was down to 16 is when I knew, even when all the controllers are recognized, only 16 ports can be active, this was tested in both Linux and XPEnology. I have a hunch it's those damn UEFI in the new BIOS and motherboards (I always set them to LEGACY mode), I'm trying to find an old motherboard to retry this, and get all 24 drives working.
  12. the 3rd Controller is recognized, but most of the SATA ports are non functional, only the first 2 ports out of the 8 ports, but even when it does show up, it corrupts the controller info, as it will believe it's the 2nd controller, so 2 of the SATA ports between the 3rd and 2nd controller will overlap, which is what caused me to almost corrupt my data. Similar issue when I tried to use the onboard SATA from the motherboard. back then I thought it was just a compatibility issue, but now I know better, it was not, just a weird way how SATA enumeration is handled / recognized by the BIOS / POST level.
  13. Hey guys Does anyone know if the maximum limit by hardware limitation is 16 SATA drives? Because I'm trying to setup 24 SATA disk, but I can't go past 16 without the remaining SATA ports not being recognized from the POST level. Here is what I've tried: 2x SUPERMICRO AOC-SAS2LP-MV8 = works great 3x SUPERMICRO AOC-SAS2LP-MV8 = only drives from the first 2 controller are recognized, the 3rd controller basically is not recognized by the BIOS, is not even XPEnology. If I use Linux is basically the same issue. (tried Ubuntu 16 LTS) So I thought maybe If I used a ATTO ExpressSAS H60F + SUPERMICRO AOC-SAS2LP-MV8 to get me to 24 ports... nope, same problem After the ATTO ExpressSAS H60F, it basically ignores the SUPERMICRO AOC-SAS2LP-MV8, it loads only 2 or 4 drives from it, then the rest crashes that attempt, almost corrupted my data. it's the exact same behaviour as when i tried to use 3x SUPERMICRO AOC-SAS2LP-MV8 The motherboard is a brand new Skylake P10S WS (work station) board with an i3 CPU Originally I was planning to use 2x SUPERMICRO AOC-SAS2LP-MV8 + the on-board 8 SATA port, when it did not work, I thought it was due compatibility issues, but when it did not work with 3x SUPERMICRO AOC-SAS2LP-MV8 and again to reconfirm, it did not work with ATTO ExpressSAS H60F + SUPERMICRO AOC-SAS2LP-MV8 then I'm not certain there is a weird limitation with 16 SATA ports only. Is that a Skylake limitation? Is there any other method to go beyond the 16 port barrier?
  14. Good news confirmed this 16 port works like a dream I was able to migrate my 2 existing SUPERMICRO AOC-SAS2LP-MV8, into 1 ATTO ExpressSAS H60F Just plug and play. Disk Groups and RAIDs volumes remained intact.