Unraid API: Parity Status Inaccuracy

The Mystery of the 'False' Parity Status

Have you ever found yourself staring at your Unraid server's API, expecting a clear picture of your data's safety, only to be met with a baffling "parity_valid": false? If so, you're not alone. This article dives deep into a frustrating bug where the Unraid API, specifically the /api/v1/array endpoint, incorrectly reports that parity is not valid, even when your Unraid UI proudly proclaims "Parity is valid" with zero errors. It’s a discrepancy that can send even the most seasoned Unraid user into a spiral of confusion and unnecessary worry, especially when other systems, like Home Assistant, rely on this accurate status for alerts and monitoring. We’ll explore the symptoms, the impact, and the likely culprits behind this unexpected reporting glitch, offering a clear path towards resolution.

Reproducing the Parity Problem: A Step-by-Step Guide

To truly understand and fix the API parity_valid false issue, it’s crucial to replicate it consistently. The process begins with a properly configured Unraid server that includes a dedicated parity disk. This parity disk is the cornerstone of your data redundancy, ensuring that if one of your data drives fails, you can rebuild the lost data. After setting up this critical component, the next step involves running a parity check. This isn't just a routine task; it's a diagnostic process that verifies the integrity of your parity information. For this bug to manifest, the parity check must complete successfully, reporting absolutely zero errors. This is key because it contrasts directly with the API's erroneous report. Once the parity check is finished and confirmed error-free in the Unraid web interface – where you'll see that reassuring "Parity is valid" message – the final step is to query the /api/v1/array endpoint. This is where the problem rears its head. Instead of reflecting the confirmed valid state, the API response will misleadingly show "parity_valid": false and, to compound the confusion, "num_parity_disks": 0. This stark contradiction between the user interface and the API is the core of the bug we need to address, creating a need for reliable API parity status.

The Troubling Current Behavior: What the API is Actually Saying

When you interact with your Unraid server via its API, you expect a truthful representation of its current state. However, in the case of this bug, the /api/v1/array endpoint serves up a misleading picture. Let's dissect the JSON response that highlights the problem: "state": "STARTED", "used_percent": 31.269608967471385, "free_bytes": 28864228253696, "total_bytes": 41996310249472, "parity_valid": false, "parity_check_status": "", "parity_check_progress": 0, "num_disks": 5, "num_data_disks": 1, "num_parity_disks": 0, "timestamp": "2025-11-16T17:25:12.293045973+10:00". The critical pieces of information here are the highlighted lines. The API incorrectly states that parity is not valid (false) and that there are zero parity disks (0). This is demonstrably false. Your Unraid UI, as we've established, confirms that parity is valid, and the disk configuration (which we'll examine next) clearly shows the presence of a parity disk. This inaccurate reporting means that any automated systems or integrations depending on this API data will operate under a false premise, potentially leading to unnecessary alerts or flawed decision-making. The API parity_valid false status is not just a minor data point; it's a significant indicator of a system not reporting its true state, undermining confidence in the API's overall reliability for monitoring parity status.

The Expected Behavior: Clarity and Accuracy from the API

In an ideal world, the Unraid API would act as a perfect mirror of the server’s actual condition. For the /api/v1/array endpoint, this means accurately reflecting the parity status. When parity is indeed valid and a parity disk is present, the expected JSON response should look something like this: "state": "STARTED", "parity_valid": true, "parity_check_status": "", "parity_check_progress": 0, "num_disks": 5, "num_data_disks": 1, "num_parity_disks": 1, and so on, including the correct timestamp. The key difference lies in those two crucial fields: "parity_valid" should unequivocally be true, and "num_parity_disks" should accurately reflect the number of parity disks configured, which in this scenario is 1. This is not a complex demand; it’s a fundamental requirement for any system meant to provide status information. Achieving this expected behavior means that integrations like Home Assistant will receive accurate data, preventing false alarms about parity failures. It ensures that automated scripts and monitoring tools can trust the information they receive, allowing for proactive management rather than reactive troubleshooting based on faulty data. The goal is to have the API provide the same clear, accurate, and reassuring status that the Unraid web UI offers, especially concerning the vital parity integrity.

The Evidence Trail: Unraid UI vs. API Discrepancy

To solidify the case against the /api/v1/array endpoint’s reporting, we need to present the undeniable evidence. First, let's revisit the Unraid UI. Evidence 1: Unraid UI Shows Parity is Valid. This is the source of truth for many users, and it clearly states: "Parity is valid." It also provides details about the last parity check, confirming its successful completion with 0 errors. Furthermore, it notes the duration of the check and even schedules the next one, all indicative of a healthy parity system. Evidence 2: Disk Configuration Shows Parity Disk Exists. When we query the /api/v1/disks endpoint, which correctly identifies individual disks, we see a clear entry for the parity disk: { "name": "parity", "role": "parity", "status": "DISK_OK" }. This endpoint correctly identifies a disk dedicated to parity and confirms its operational status. Evidence 3: Cross-Reference. This is where the conflict becomes stark. The /api/v1/disks endpoint correctly identifies the parity disk, and the Unraid server's own interface confirms parity is valid with no errors. Yet, the /api/v1/array endpoint, which should aggregate this information, fails miserably by reporting "parity_valid": false and "num_parity_disks": 0. This cross-referencing highlights that the issue isn't with the underlying data's existence or validity but with how the /api/v1/array endpoint processes and presents it. It’s a clear indication that the logic responsible for determining the array's overall parity status within this specific API endpoint is flawed, leading to the API parity_valid false reporting.

The Ripple Effect: High Impact of Inaccurate Parity Status

This seemingly small bug – the "parity_valid": false reporting when parity is actually fine – carries a disproportionately high priority impact. The most immediate and widespread consequence is the generation of false "Array Parity Invalid" alerts in Home Assistant integrations. Many users rely on Home Assistant to consolidate their smart home devices and server statuses, and receiving constant false alarms about parity issues can lead to alert fatigue, causing users to ignore genuine problems when they arise. Beyond Home Assistant, this inaccuracy throws a wrench into incorrect monitoring and alerting in automation systems. Any script or service designed to react to parity status changes will be triggered incorrectly, potentially leading to unnecessary actions or, worse, masking real issues. Users might be led to believe their parity is invalid when it is, in fact, perfectly sound, causing undue stress and potentially prompting them to perform unnecessary troubleshooting steps. This situation erodes loss of trust in API data accuracy. If a user cannot rely on the basic status reported by the API, they will be hesitant to integrate it into critical automation or monitoring workflows. The integrity of the API’s reporting is paramount, and this bug directly undermines that trust, making it difficult to automate management tasks or ensure data safety through programmatic means. The API parity_valid false issue, therefore, isn't just a data anomaly; it's a gateway to operational confusion and a breakdown in system reliability.

Digging Deeper: Root Cause Analysis of the Parity Reporting Flaw

To effectively fix the API parity_valid false problem, we need to pinpoint the root cause within the API's logic. Based on the observed behavior and the evidence gathered, two primary areas appear to be malfunctioning. Firstly, the API seems to be struggling with counting parity disks. The /api/v1/array endpoint isn't correctly identifying or aggregating disks that are assigned the role: "parity" or role: "parity2". While the /api/v1/disks endpoint correctly lists these, the /api/v1/array endpoint fails to incorporate this count into its num_parity_disks field, defaulting it to 0. This indicates a failure in the aggregation logic for determining the number of parity drives present. Secondly, and perhaps more critically, there's an issue with determining parity validity. Instead of consulting the actual status of the parity check and the integrity of the parity data, the API appears to be defaulting the parity_valid flag to false under certain conditions, perhaps when it fails to correctly identify parity disks or read the parity status from its usual sources. It's possible that the API relies on a specific internal flag or file that it's failing to access or interpret correctly, leading to this incorrect false state. The expected behavior would involve the API checking established indicators like the last parity check completion status, error counts, and whether a parity sync operation is currently running, rather than simply assuming parity is invalid.

Charting the Course: Suggested Fix for Accurate Parity Reporting

Rectifying the API parity_valid false issue requires addressing the identified root causes with precise solutions. The suggested fix involves two main components, focusing on accurate disk counting and reliable validity determination. 1. Correctly count parity disks: The logic within the /api/v1/array endpoint needs to be updated to properly identify and count disks designated with role: "parity" or role: "parity2". This count should then be accurately reflected in the num_parity_disks field of the API response. This ensures that the API knows how many parity drives are actually present and operational. 2. Check actual parity status: Instead of defaulting to false, the API must be programmed to query and interpret Unraid's internal state regarding parity. This might involve reading specific status files, such as those found in /var/local/emhttp/ (e.g., var.ini or equivalent files that store array and parity status), or querying the underlying system services that manage parity. 3. Set parity_valid: true conditionally: The parity_valid flag should be set to true only when all the following conditions are met: a) one or more parity disks are correctly identified and present; b) the last completed parity check reported zero errors; and c) no parity sync operation is currently in progress. This ensures that the API reports true only when parity is genuinely valid and the array is in a stable, error-free state. Implementing these steps will restore accuracy to the API's parity reporting, ensuring that users and automated systems can rely on the information provided.

Your Unraid Environment and Key API Interactions

Understanding the context of the API parity_valid false bug also involves recognizing the specific environment in which it occurs and how other API endpoints interact with it. For this issue, we're operating within a standard Unraid server setup. Unraid Version: The specific version of Unraid is crucial, as bugs can be version-specific. While not detailed in the initial report, it's usually visible in screenshots or server diagnostics. API Version: Similarly, using the latest available API version from the repository is assumed, as this is typically where bug fixes are introduced. Parity Configuration: The scenario described involves a typical 1 parity disk setup. However, the bug might extend to dual-parity configurations. Array State: The array is in the STARTED state, meaning it's online and operational, but not actively undergoing a parity check or rebuild at the time of the API query. Last Parity Check: Crucially, the last parity check completed successfully with 0 errors. This is the fact that the API is failing to report correctly. When examining Related Endpoints, we see a clear pattern: ✅ /api/v1/disks - Correctly reports parity disk information. This endpoint serves as a vital piece of evidence, correctly identifying the parity disk with its role and status. It demonstrates that the fundamental data about the parity disk is available within the Unraid system and accessible via the API. ❌ /api/v1/array - Incorrectly reports parity status. This is the endpoint where the problem lies. It fails to correctly aggregate the information available from /api/v1/disks and the system's parity status indicators, leading to the misleading parity_valid and num_parity_disks values. This contrast underscores that the issue is isolated to the logic within the /api/v1/array endpoint.

Conclusion: Restoring Trust in Unraid's API Parity Reporting

The discrepancy where the Unraid API incorrectly reports "parity_valid": false despite a healthy parity status is a significant bug that impacts monitoring, automation, and user confidence. By understanding the reproduction steps, the problematic current behavior, and the clear evidence from the Unraid UI and other API endpoints, we can see that the issue stems from flaws in how the /api/v1/array endpoint counts parity disks and determines their validity. The suggested fixes – accurately counting parity disks and correctly assessing parity status based on system checks and error counts – are vital for restoring accuracy. Ensuring that the API reliably reflects the true state of your Unraid server's parity is essential for maintaining peace of mind and enabling robust data protection strategies. For more information on Unraid's parity system and data integrity, you can consult the official Unraid Documentation.