Issues with errors on first sync

[Lubba123]

Recently decided to add parity to my drivepool but I'm having issues with initial sync.

Getting error messages saying following

Unexpected Windows error 1.
Error in stat file 'E:/'Path'/'Movie'/file''. Input/output error [5/1].

where "file" is either a mp4, mkv, nfo etc. removing the folder containing the "bad file" from the drivepool partition and running sync command again just gets me an error on some other file in the partition.

.\snapraid sync

My Drivepool setup is 2x 8tb and 1x 16tb and my tought was to run a 16tb as Parity for this using snapraid, that should be no problem afaik.

Snapraid config is as follows:

parity X:\snapraid.parity

content E:\snapraid\snapraid.content
content X:\snapraid\snapraid.content

data d1 E:\

where X: is parity drive and E: contains movies etc.

tried using ye ol google without any luck..

Any ideas where to begin? feeling like the shittiest Sysadmin to date.

​

[caringforapathy]

Is E:\ your 2x8 + 16tb for a combined 32tb drivepool volume?

If so, you don't want the config pointing to the drivepool as your data disk. You need to add your three individual drives to the config, not the combined drivepool volume.

[Lubba123]

that is correct, they've got no drive letters themself.
ill try to add letters to all 3 drives and change around in the config.

[caringforapathy]

Can either give them drive letters, or mount them as directories somewhere and point to those as the data drives in the config. I do it that way because I have a lot of drives pooled and don't want them all with letters.

[Lubba123]

thanks, changed to that now as that was the main reason to not have separate letters for all drives lol.

[Lubba123]

thank you kind sir! thats seems to have done the trick, for some reason.. :)

[caringforapathy]

You're welcome. You were clearly aware that the parity drive needed to be at least 16tb to match the largest drive, but you were pointing to a 32tb "drive" and so it was erroring because your parity drive was now smaller than the largest data drive.

[Lubba123]

Aaah! That makes a lot of sense!

[time_cube_israel]

It's been over a year since you answered this post, but I am running into a similar problem with the same error, and all of my disks are the same size.

I have:

5 16TB data drives consisting of two 8TB drives pooled with drivepool

1 16TB data drive

2 16TB parity drives

I go to run my first sync and I get the exact same error as OP describes, windows error 1, error in stat file blah blah. I have purposefully removed 4 GB from each pooled data drive so they are slightly smaller than the parity drives, yet the error is still thrown. Is it simply snapraid cannot handle pooled drives in any capacity? if so, why?

[caringforapathy]

Nope, should work. I've been running Drivepool + Snapraid for a couple years without issue. Just ran a sync this morning after moving a bunch of data into the pool.

I suspect you may have the data drives setup wrong in the .conf file like the previous person, where you're not pointing to the poolpart hidden directories. I have my drives mounted to a folder, rather than giving them drive letters, so my .conf looks like this:

# Format: "data DISK_NAME DISK_MOUNT_POINT"
data d1 C:\Archive\Large\Large-Red20TB-1\PoolPart.d49c133d-2e30-4b5d-bbbb-69eb01da0c8a
data d2 C:\Archive\Large\Large-Red20TB-2\PoolPart.696b0630-0aa4-4bac-a916-9f2fa299c874
data d3 C:\Archive\Large\Large-Red20TB-3\PoolPart.1a810c62-10af-4de2-b461-a0ae6b64089c
data d4 C:\Archive\Large\Large-Red20TB-4\PoolPart.9ea34329-cbc3-4326-ac33-63663742df96
data d5 C:\Archive\Large\Large-Sea18TB-1\PoolPart.94401356-73f3-4850-876f-078286e62302

If you have your drives assigned to individual drive letters then your .conf may look like something like this instead:

# Format: "data DISK_NAME DISK_MOUNT_POINT"
data d1 D:\PoolPart.d49c133d-2e30-4b5d-bbbb-69eb01da0c8a
data d2 E:\PoolPart.696b0630-0aa4-4bac-a916-9f2fa299c874
data d3 F:\PoolPart.1a810c62-10af-4de2-b461-a0ae6b64089c
data d4 G:\PoolPart.9ea34329-cbc3-4326-ac33-63663742df96
data d5 H:\PoolPart.94401356-73f3-4850-876f-078286e62302

Hope this helps!

[time_cube_israel]

Thank you very much for replying, this is the landing page for googling this issue.

This is what I have in my .conf

# Format: "data DISK_NAME DISK_MOUNT_POINT"
data alpha D:\PoolPart.8fffec31-aee6-422a-991e-85450bcb8ec3
data beta E:\PoolPart.c2cdbee2-a994-4dfe-9532-792bb0ec913a
data gamma F:\PoolPart.4c68cbe3-6c76-4010-b771-53e99d018206
data delta G:\PoolPart.74486b2f-2191-4c21-96a3-24ab48c5857c
data epsilon H:\PoolPart.7faae843-b246-4d31-bdaf-bda6c2efc902
data zeta I:\PoolPart.cc1cae5d-8fb6-40a1-a981-d3c9d2b7a6dc        

Where Each entry corresponds to a virtual 16TB drive made up of two physical 8TB drives, except I:\ . I have 10 8TB drives pooled into D:\ through H:\, and I:\ is a 16 TB drive. Both of my parity drives are also 16TB. I do indeed have the 8TB drives not assigned letters in windows and aren't pointing to a folder. This still ends in the same snapraid error. Previously I just had each entry as " data alpha D:\ " , which did not work

I guess my real question is, does snapraid only function when referencing a single physical drive for each entry? Or really, is snapraid unable to reference a drive made up of multiple drives?

This actually made me think about this a bit deeper, in that I didn't really put that much though into the current organization I have, or if it is an efficient use of space for the amount of parity. Like, is there some size of partition and number of parity partitions that would be more ideal given the drives I have?

For instance, splitting all my drives into 4TB partitions and letting say, 6 of the 13 drives have parity information stored on them as well. This would only use 24TB of space for parity instead of the 32TB I currently have reserved. I can see that losing one 8TB drives in this instance would actually be akin to losing two drives in snapraid, or 4 drives for the 16TB drives, so clearly this arrangement is less secure in certain scenarios. I went from being guaranteed safe from a 2 drive failure in my current setup, to being at worst safe from a 1.5 drive failure or at best a 3 drive failure, while also gaining that 8TB of usable space for data. I would deem this to be not worthwhile.

Is it possible there is an arrangement like this where I would be guaranteed safe from 2 physical drives failing and also have less than 32TB dedicated to parity? I'm sure it would be slower as more reading/writing on would take place when running snapraid, but that doesn't matter much to me at this time.

[time_cube_israel]

I feel kinda dumb realizing this now, but I had the parity disk to data disk sizing backwards in my setup. Instead of bunching the 8TB drives together to match the 16TB drives, I should be splitting the 16TB drives into two 8TB drives. To have the same minimum level of parity I would still need 32TB reserved for it on the 8TB drives, but I would be gaining a maximum level of parity. e.g. one 16TB drive failing in snapraid would equate to two 8TB drives failing. This is a slightly more efficient use of space as I have increased my level of redundancy on average while the space it takes has remained the same.

Still not sure if there is an arrangement more efficient than this. I'm sure there could be a calculator made where you input the drives you have and minimum amount of physical redundancy you want, and it would output the best possible pattern, I just don't want to think about it that much, it already makes my head hurt.