<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: Crap&#8230;</title> <atom:link href="http://www.thehtpc.net/htpc/crap/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.thehtpc.net/htpc/crap/</link> <description>The Home Theater PC Weblog</description> <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:02:55 +0000</lastBuildDate> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <item><title>By: Jon</title><link>http://www.thehtpc.net/htpc/crap/comment-page-1/#comment-215</link> <dc:creator>Jon</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:26:18 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.thehtpc.net/?p=77#comment-215</guid> <description>It&#039;s probably too late for you, but a quicker way to move data to an unRAID server is to NOT activate a parity drive prior to moving.  This will disable the parity check process during copying data and will result in at least double the transfer rate.  Typically, I get around 11MB/s with parity enabled.  With it disabled, expect whatever the true transfer rate of the drive is, minus overhead for SMB (you can expect anywhere from 25MB/s all the way into the 50-60MB/s range).  After your copy is complete (make sure you don&#039;t cut and paste, eliminating an existing copy if anything goes wrong), simply enable parity, let it calculate and enjoy your new protected data store :)</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<br>Browser: <a
href='http://www.mozilla.org/' title='Firefox 3.0.3' rel='nofollow'>Firefox 3.0.3</a> OS: <a
href='http://www.microsoft.com/windows/' title='Windows XP' rel='nofollow'>Windows XP</a><p>It&#8217;s probably too late for you, but a quicker way to move data to an unRAID server is to NOT activate a parity drive prior to moving.  This will disable the parity check process during copying data and will result in at least double the transfer rate.  Typically, I get around 11MB/s with parity enabled.  With it disabled, expect whatever the true transfer rate of the drive is, minus overhead for SMB (you can expect anywhere from 25MB/s all the way into the 50-60MB/s range).  After your copy is complete (make sure you don&#8217;t cut and paste, eliminating an existing copy if anything goes wrong), simply enable parity, let it calculate and enjoy your new protected data store :)</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: havix</title><link>http://www.thehtpc.net/htpc/crap/comment-page-1/#comment-214</link> <dc:creator>havix</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:45:16 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.thehtpc.net/?p=77#comment-214</guid> <description>Thanks for the response. It sounds like a fluke.  I&#039;ve been enjoying unRaid so far but it&#039;s a little slow to move over my old data.  I am happy I&#039;m not running WHS anymore though.  unRAID appears to be rock solid, quick to boot, and easy to manage.  It&#039;s fun to read your experiences with this product.  Keep up the good work!</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<br>Browser: <a
href='http://www.mozilla.org/' title='Firefox 3.0.2' rel='nofollow'>Firefox 3.0.2</a> OS: <a
href='http://www.microsoft.com/windows/' title='Windows XP' rel='nofollow'>Windows XP</a><p>Thanks for the response. It sounds like a fluke.  I&#8217;ve been enjoying unRaid so far but it&#8217;s a little slow to move over my old data.  I am happy I&#8217;m not running WHS anymore though.  unRAID appears to be rock solid, quick to boot, and easy to manage.  It&#8217;s fun to read your experiences with this product.  Keep up the good work!</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Jon</title><link>http://www.thehtpc.net/htpc/crap/comment-page-1/#comment-213</link> <dc:creator>Jon</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:38:24 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.thehtpc.net/?p=77#comment-213</guid> <description>I never did, but I have to take some blame as I should have taken notice that they were detected as new drives to begin with.  I could have at least gone to the unRAID forum to find out what I needed to do before hitting that Restore button.
Port multipliers with unRAID is quite new and I&#039;m pretty sure I&#039;m only one of a handful that are even doing it right now (I only know of two others from the forums that use them).  I still find unRAID to be much more reliable and useful as a pure NAS than WHS.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<br>Browser: <a
href='http://www.mozilla.org/' title='Firefox 3.0.3' rel='nofollow'>Firefox 3.0.3</a> OS: <a
href='http://www.microsoft.com/windows/' title='Windows XP' rel='nofollow'>Windows XP</a><p>I never did, but I have to take some blame as I should have taken notice that they were detected as new drives to begin with.  I could have at least gone to the unRAID forum to find out what I needed to do before hitting that Restore button.<br
/> Port multipliers with unRAID is quite new and I&#8217;m pretty sure I&#8217;m only one of a handful that are even doing it right now (I only know of two others from the forums that use them).  I still find unRAID to be much more reliable and useful as a pure NAS than WHS.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: havix</title><link>http://www.thehtpc.net/htpc/crap/comment-page-1/#comment-212</link> <dc:creator>havix</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:04:57 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.thehtpc.net/?p=77#comment-212</guid> <description>Did you ever find out why these were detected as new drives?  This scares me as I&#039;ve had some drive failures lately with WHS and just got UNRAID up and running to avoid issues like this.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<br>Browser: <a
href='http://www.mozilla.org/' title='Firefox 3.0.2' rel='nofollow'>Firefox 3.0.2</a> OS: <a
href='http://www.microsoft.com/windows/' title='Windows XP' rel='nofollow'>Windows XP</a><p>Did you ever find out why these were detected as new drives?  This scares me as I&#8217;ve had some drive failures lately with WHS and just got UNRAID up and running to avoid issues like this.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- This site's performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Dramatically improve the speed and reliability of your blog!

Learn more about our WordPress Plugins: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk (enhanced) (user agent is rejected)
Database Caching 101/112 queries in 0.101 seconds using disk

Served from: perfora.net @ 2010-03-11 20:35:30 -->