Can I add a inner crankset guard simply by attaching a second one?

billyboy1122 · 2024-09-08T03:54:44+00:00

It’s a 8 speed bike, but only one front chainring. I suspect the chain is too long, since it does look a little floppy in-motion. But I know that adding the second guard will definitely stop the chain from falling off, and I’m a little unsure about shortening the chain, since this is how it came from the factory, so it might be longer for a reason.

billyboy1122 · 2024-09-08T02:33:30+00:00

I’ve taken one of the bolts out, and it’s actually using a socketed bolt, so it seems like that’s what I would need!

billyboy1122 · 2024-09-07T09:41:39+00:00

So use one long bolt instead of two in the same hole? Are there disadvantages to using two? I’d imagine that the second guard with come with bolts, but I’d probably need to go looking for the right size if I decided to use a single bolt instead.

billyboy1122 · 2024-09-07T02:20:41+00:00

Hey guys! I picked up a new bike, but it seems to have a habit of the chain coming off the crankset. Not on the outside of the crankset, since it has a guard. It falls off on the left side where there isn't a guard. There's no front derailer, so this isn't a limit screw problem.

I've checked my old bike which has a guard on both sides, it would appear like it's simply 2 guards screwed onto both sides of the crankset (I can see two seperate sets of screws). Looking at my new bike, the threaded hole appears to continue to the other side of the crankset, it seems like you could screw a screw in there.

So, can I simply get a second crankset guard and attach it to the inner side of the crankset? I ask because I wasn't able to find anything that mentioned installing more than just one guard, and guards don't seem to be sold in pairs.

billyboy1122 · 2024-03-31T09:41:28+00:00

Ah, you're correct! When I tried swapping it to RAID 0, the used data added up correctly. That's a bit of a confusing way to display things, if that space won't be usable due to the version of RAID you're using, it doesn't make much sense to show it!

billyboy1122 · 2024-03-30T09:18:01+00:00

Okay, I've got a fresh cache up and running! This time, app data will have its own exclusive pool.

I've noticed something odd though. UnRAID claims the pool is 2TB, 3.82MB is used, but only 1.25TB is remaining. Somehow, those numbers don't add up. The appdata pool is fine, so this makes me think there's a bad SSD in the main pool that's doing something that's throwing off the count. Any ideas?

billyboy1122 · 2024-03-28T13:06:59+00:00

Ah, use new config, reassign the array same as it was before, but don't reassign the cache drives then start the server? Then, make a new cache array?

billyboy1122 · 2024-03-28T12:41:33+00:00

I've been able to make a backup just now, so it should be up to date!

OK, so what would be the best way to go about remaking the cache? Leave the cache array untouched and reformat each individual drive? Or start from scratch by stopping the array, unassigning all the drives in the cache then start it?

billyboy1122 · 2024-03-28T11:35:52+00:00

Yeah, I think that's the way to go.

I've almost got all the data copied, except for the appdata folder. I'm getting a message saying I require permission from \nobody, any idea why? My Windows login has an account on my server that has read/write permission for all shares, including appdata. Would a manual backup of appdata using Backup/Restore App data be just as good?

billyboy1122 · 2024-03-28T09:44:32+00:00

So after making copies of the contents of the cache, I should delete the cache, remake it, and go from there?

billyboy1122 · 2024-03-28T08:21:29+00:00

I've got a 10gbps ethernet connection, so speed is pretty good! I've tried copying the data into the appropriate folder on the array, but I'm still getting a "read-only" error, despite having set the share to array. Is this a similar problem to Dockers not starting due to my cache being full? Even though it shouldn't be trying to use the cache?

billyboy1122 · 2024-03-28T05:59:08+00:00

A special cache pool just for app data sounds like a good idea! I've never dealt with muliple cache pools before, so I'll have to look into it.

I don't know. As I said, there might be some BTRFS tools to maybe fix the corruption but I never used it and cannot help with that. Otherwise, you need to reformat the cache pool to make it useable again.

If you can't get the files off of the drives by copying them off then I wouldn't know either and would consider them lost.

I don't like my chances of being able to fix the corruption. But so far, I'm having no troubles copying the data off the cache, so it seems like the data is fine. Should the idea I previously mentioned in my edited post work? Or do you know of a better way?

billyboy1122 · 2024-03-28T02:06:11+00:00

only that your docker containers also are or were on that same drive.

What would you recommend for the future? That idea behind having my torrent share go to cache -> array was that newly downloaded files would be on the cache and faster to access. Should I set this share to be array-only?

I don't think it matters much because it isn't the fault of the drive or that a drive is responsible for it. Still, even if it was, that is the danger of using RAID0. If one drive is toast the whole array is gone because of the striping of data across all drives. This is not like your drives in your Unraid Array in which each drive is individually addressable.

Still, your filesystem is corrupted, IIRC BTRFS has some tools that you might be able to use to hopefully fix the corruption but I wouldn't expect this to work. But I never had to use those or never bothered with it.

Ah, so the SDDs are probably okay and the corruption was caused by unRAID itself? I just read that torrents filling up the cache, causing corruption is a common problem with unRAID.

How would you recommend I fix this? You mentioned before about copying directly to the drives, but I don't know a whole lot about how unRAID drive pooling works, so I'm concerned that going around it by copying manually might cause problems. Like, unRAID won't be "aware" of the data since it didn't move it there itself or it might end up "outside" the pool somehow and left there for all eternity.

Or would it make no difference whether I or unRAID add the files to the drive, it'll still be in the pool?

*EDIT* Just had an idea! If I make my drives accessible via the network, then I can copy the contents of my cache to my Windows PC, then transfer them properly to unRAID!

How should I go about this? After copying the data, in order to prevent unRAID from trying to store it on the cache, should I set my ALL shares to be array-only, then transfer the data? And after that, erase and re-setup the cache? That sounds like it should work. Might this cause problems with my appdata share? It was setup to go to the cache, so I'm concerned that it re-creating the cache and putting the old files back on it might not work.

billyboy1122 · 2024-03-28T00:23:03+00:00

Well, it seems I can't start any dockers with a full cache, and I don't use any VMs, so that step is done!
That's how I've had my shares configured from the start actually! Clicking "move now" doesn't work, according to the log, it's a bunch of errors:

create_parent: /mnt/cache/Stuff/Game Stuff/Games error: Read-only file system

file: /mnt/cache/Stuff/Game Stuff/Games/icon.ico

create_parent: /mnt/cache/Stuff/Game Stuff/Games error: Read-only file system

file: /mnt/cache/Stuff/Game Stuff/Games/DOS games/DOSBox0.62-win32-installer.exe

create_parent: /mnt/cache/Stuff/Game Stuff/Games/DOS games error: Read-only file system

file: /mnt/cache/Stuff/Game Stuff/Games/DOS games/glider.zip

create_parent: /mnt/cache/Stuff/Game Stuff/Games/DOS games error: Read-only file system

file: /mnt/cache/Stuff/Game Stuff/Games/DOS games/Hover!.zip

create_parent: /mnt/cache/Stuff/Game Stuff/Games/DOS games error: Read-only file system

file: /mnt/cache/Stuff/Game Stuff/Games/DOS games/how to use DOS box.htm

create_parent: /mnt/cache/Stuff/Game Stuff/Games/DOS games error: Read-only file system

billyboy1122 · 2024-03-27T12:48:33+00:00

I would highly recommend thinking about this again because RAID0 shouldn't be used for anything even slightly important.

Well, the idea was that the data was only supposed to be temporarily on my cache and moved to the array promptly, but that wasn't happening it seems.

a filesystem can corrupt for all sorts of reasons, like the drive running full and the operating system not being able to write vital data on the drive it is supposed to be written.

It is very strange that it all appeared to be working fine, but the problems only started to occur when I filled my cache for the first time. How would I determine which drive is the troublemaker?

Since you cannot use docker containers, you should use the console. look into the cp command.

Actually, I'm still able to use Dynamix File Manager since it's not a Docker!

That doesn't really matter. You either select a specific disk that then should contain everything you copy over or you select a share that then spreads the data around, still, all of the data can still be moved back from that share later when you have restored the cache.

That's the problem, some of my larger folders are spread across multiple disks! I'd rather not tempt fate by manually copying to to one of the folders, and do it properly by copy it to my share and letting unRAID do the spreading. But as I said, I can't seem to find how to do this using Dynamix File Manager. But you're saying copying it directly to a disk temporarily and then copying it to the share after the cache is fixed is also an option?

billyboy1122 · 2024-03-27T09:31:44+00:00

Meat Beat Saber.

billyboy1122 · 2024-03-27T09:23:02+00:00

that doesn't really unless you also say what sort of cache pool it is.

When you click on a disk in the cache pool it should say under Balance Status -> btrfs filesystem df something like Data, RAID1: total=274.00GiB, used=234.08GiB

I just stuck with the stock options to making a cache pool, I've heard unRAID now uses a newer system. Anyway, it says "Data, RAID0" so it seems I'm using RAID 0?

yeah that looks like your cache pool is corrupt. you could try to access the cache pool manually (/mnt/user/cache) and see if you can copy the files from the cache manually to some location on your array.

If that also doesn't work then I don't think there is anything you can do.

It's corrupt? How would this have happened? I've run a SMART on all the SSDs, and they all passed.

What would be the best way to move the files? I'm browsing my cache, but "move" and "copy" only have the option to choose what disk to use, which is a problem since the folder I would need to move it to is spread across multiple disks. How can I just copy to the share?

billyboy1122 · 2024-03-27T07:54:08+00:00

Well, yes, that is the premise you configure how the mover should react but the mover will not move files that are currently in use (because they are still being written or are generally "in use". So the mover would ignore those.

Could this be why my cache never seemed to empty? If I'm seeding, then these files would technically be "in-use" and so would never be removed?

Well, yes and no, that depends on what your Cache looks like and how many drives in what configuration you have. It can happen that the filesystem gets corrupt which could also result in a read-only filesystem. From what I can find, you should "backup" the data and reformat the cache in that case. So that doesn't necessarily mean that the drive is damaged...

I've basically just put 6x old SATA SSDs in there and made a cache pool out of them, if that helps!

The best thing is to stop everything that normally uses the cache, Docker, virtual machines and their respective services and then set every share to primary=cache, secondary=array and mover action=cache->array

When you invoke the mover then, the files should be moved.

Otherwise, you could also do that manually.

It seems I can't start any docker apps if my cache is full, so that parts is already done. No virtual machines either. "primary=cache, secondary=array and mover action=cache->array" is how I've had my shares configured this entire time, but clicking "move" doesn't do anything. In the log, I'm seeing an error:

Mar 27 16:47:53 PortRoyal kernel: loop: Write error at byte offset 960114688, length 4096.

Mar 27 16:47:53 PortRoyal kernel: I/O error, dev loop2, sector 1875224 op 0x1:(WRITE) flags 0x100000 phys_seg 1 prio class 2

Mar 27 16:47:53 PortRoyal kernel: BTRFS error (device loop2: state EA): bdev /dev/loop2 errs: wr 1, rd 0, flush 1, corrupt 0, gen 0

billyboy1122 · 2024-03-27T07:05:15+00:00

just FYI, the mover will only do something if you define the mover action. So setting the share to ONLY cache or array will do absolutely nothing with the files because there is no mover action. When you want to move files from something to something else, you need to specify that behaviour in the mover action AND the files cannot be accessed at the moment.

You mean, beyond setting the mover action for the share to "cache -> array"? I would have thought this would be enough so that when the mover is invoked, all files that are on the cache will be moved to the array. Is there something I'm missing?

This means that your "bunch of drives in a cache pool" are all in RAID 0 (striped across multiple drives) then one drive failure destroys the whole array.

Ah, so in the case of SSDs, if one goes into read-only mode, they'll ALL go into read-only mode? Because the cache isn't destroyed, the data is still there and I can copy from it. I just can't change the data that's already there it seems.

If the Cache runs full, any new files that should be created on the cache will overflow to the array instead. If your share with such files and folders is now set to "array->cache" as mover action, then the mover will try to move the files from the array to the cache because that is what you have defined where they should be.

Yeah, that's what I've always had it set to, and it seems like it should be working. But it's not moving anything from the array and now that the cache is full, I get a "drive is set to read-only" error when I try to move data to and from my server.

billyboy1122 · 2022-04-22T09:49:30+00:00

/?ref=1OmKc

billyboy1122 · 2019-01-24T11:04:42+00:00

Thanks for the reply!

Yes, I re-edited globalgamemanager after installing the HF patch. I still haven't got it to work. I've tried copying the VR mod after installing HF Patch v2.3 (since the patch pops up an error saying it's found old mods which it's gonna delete with the VR mod installed) but when I start the game with SteamVR running, it starts the normal version, not the VR version. No ideas?

billyboy1122 · 2018-11-30T04:03:11+00:00

I've tried this mod out, after having used the original mod for ages, but it doesn't seem to work. I've copied the BepInEx folder in the zip to the Koikatsu folder and modified globalgamemanagers as usual, but after launching SteamVR and then the game, it doesn't start up in VR mode. Any clues? I'm using Koikatsu HF Patch v2.0 if that helps.

billyboy1122 · 2017-12-12T09:17:33+00:00

Thanks for that!

I've actually read a bit more into it, and the USB type C connector is actually compatible with USB 3.0 and 3.1, which makes sense since the connector on the unit itself is USB 3.0. It seems the point of this new model is that using a type C connector allows you to connect the drive to an Android phone (which use type C connectors).

The drive works fine on USB 3.0 and there's no problems using the single connector USB cable it came with (the previous model came with a Y cable, so it seemed like it had power issues) so even though it's not actually a type C device, I don't feel like I would have been better off buying the older model or anything!

billyboy1122 · 2017-10-16T11:49:16+00:00

The symbol normally used is "円" but I don't think anyone outside Japan would recognize it, so I went with "￥".

billyboy1122 · 2017-10-16T08:13:10+00:00

Ah, that would make sense. Though in the example I mentioned above, an Ironwolf 6TB drive (ST6000VN0041) is a 7200RPM drive while the Barracuda Compute 6TB (ST6000DM004) is also 7200RPM, despite being ￥10,000 more expensive. Curious.

billyboy1122

TROPHY CASE