#Ehome infrared receiver needs further installation update#
#Ehome infrared receiver needs further installation trial#
#Ehome infrared receiver needs further installation windows#

#Ehome infrared receiver needs further installation trial#

When the drives have not failed it is a huge waste of time and creates an additional possibility for lost data due to handling and other mistakes when restoring backups.Īnd just to emphasize how un-failed my RAID 5 volume was / is, I was easily able to “recover” the original volume via a partition tool and a set of steps that several other end users developed through trial and error over the years/posts. Of course, this is what has to happen when a RAID volume actually has multiple failed drive members. It has been a great product and it still is but with the amount of data we end users are now keeping, it becomes a huge problem to restore a 'failed' RAID with backups of the data simply because of the size of the arrays and the amount of time it takes to pull the data from where ever it has been backed up to. I have made use of RST in its various forms over may years.

Simply create a RAID 5 volume, initialize the volume, put some data on the volume, shut the system down, remove two of the RAID set’s drives, power up the system and the RAID 5 Volume is now FAILED because two drives are missing. Data is the valuable thing and in this particular case, its side is not being taken.īTW, it is really easy to reproduce this situation. In all design decisions like this, the designer should be taking the side of data. To let RST make the assumption that missing drives have failed, radically reduces RST's ability to provide its primary reason for being, protection of data from a drive failure. There are many, many possibilities for why drives could go missing from a RAID set and they have nothing to do with actual drive failures. This should not mean the RAID set is FAILED though.Ī RAID set should only be FAILED once the 'missing' drives have indeed been determined to have failed and that isn't a feature that RST was written to provide. And if the number that went missing is beyond the ability of the RAID set to continue serving data then the RAID Set can't be accessed. However the drives went missing procedural problem, mistake pulling drives, bug in software, whatever, they went missing. If members of a RAID set go missing, they are indeed missing. So, don't think of this situation as a problem. I even stumbled across a few posts from Intel support people in which the end user’s claims were acknowledged but the support people indicated that Intel's RST development team had not been able to reproduce the situation so no fix was in the works because a problem had not been identified. They too, were pretty certain their drives had not actually failed and all of them were looking for a way to put the drives back into the volume set without going through an entire delete, create, initialize cycle. The next few days I went surfing on the web, and uncovered dozens of other posts, dating as far back as 2006, in which other people have claimed RST (or its prior forms) had dropped more than one drive member out of a RAID volume set.

#Ehome infrared receiver needs further installation update#

I asked the question the way I did because (having some back ground in RAID and disk drives) I was quite certain that in my specific situation, my drives had not failed and no writes had been done to the volume set other than the 'FAILED' status update RST made to the 'RAID meta data', on the remaining drives in the volume set, when it determined the two drives had gone missing. My conclusion is that the inability of the USB Infrared Transceiver device to wake the NUC is at the bios level.Īnd I would argue the higher level point that the RAID volume should not be thought of as FAILED in a situation where drives have gone missing.įirst, know that I do understand that when more drives actually fail than a RAID type can recover from, there is no possible recovery of the data. Also, USB selective suspend setting is disabled in power options.

#Ehome infrared receiver needs further installation windows#

The Windows setting for the USBCIR is Allow this device to wake the computer is enabled, and Allow the computer to turn off this device to save power is disabled. It is as if the port into which the USB Infrared Transceiver is plugged has powered down a short period of time after putting the NUC to sleep. The combination of the Harmony remote and the USB Infrared Transceiver will wake the NUC if executed immediately after putting it to sleep, but not after any length of time has elapsed. The combination of the Harmony remote and the USB Infrared Transceiver puts the NUC to sleep without any problem.

Throughout I have specified that I am trying to get a combination of the Harmony remote and a USB Infrared Transceiver to wake the NUC from sleep. To be clear, I am not concerned about the performance of the inbuilt Infrared Transceiver. The combination of the Harmony remote and USB Infrared Transceiver works perfectly well in every respect except for wake from sleep. It is configured as a Windows MCE device to use the USB Infrared Transceiver I have in the front of the NUC.

There is no issue with the Harmony remote.