Hi,
First I must say that I really enjoy using Unraid, I think it is amazing peace of software that solves A LOT of my problems, and I have been searching for it for years.
As the title says, share "media" is set to not use the cache, but files do exist on the cache drive itself. People helped me and on this post explained that this is a linux thing, that occurs if I have some data on "cache-only-share" (cache set to Yes) and I move it over the network to some other "no-cache-only-share" (cache set to "No"), that linux will just rename file and make the data end up on the cache drive, under new share (even though that share cache is set to No).
I understand why is this happening, but for me this is a pretty common use case, f.eks. downloads(cached) and media share(no-cache), and also for backup-cached-network-share where all PCs would backup over network and then another script would move files to backup-non-network-share, protecting data from ransomware and viruses that would delete my backups.
This makes some part of the data ending up on the cache file reducing its space, but even worst it makes data not parity protected. And the worst part is that this is virtually undetectable from unraid unless you know and do look for it specifically (I found out about it using Fix common problems community plugin).
It makes using the "no" for cache practically useless, even worst it makes entire unraid system and server unreliable. I have to use yes for cache drive, keeping data even longer on the cache drive until the mover runs.
Unraid advertises itself as "Unraid is an operating system for personal and small business" and also it says "Stop worrying about losing your data due to storage device failure. Unraid saves your data even if one device goes bad", but in this use case of moving data around this is just not correct, some data (in reality randomly) ends up unprotected. Perhaps make this No cache not an option when cache drive is in use? Or at least show a big red triangle with some explanation as to why is this combination dangerous? Or maybe even make mover do move files to its expected location?
I've come to conclusion from mentioned post that this is rather old and well known case (from the beginning?) but I would really like to hear opinion from some people from Limetech about the issue, as it seems like a very common use case and a serious issue of leaving files unprotected.
Recommended Comments
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.