Leaderboard

New container image now available. It implements the latest CloudBerry Backup version 2.1.0.81.

Application Name: Cloud Commander Application Site: https://cloudcmd.io/ Docker Hub: https://hub.docker.com/r/coderaiser/cloudcmd/ Github: https://github.com/coderaiser/cloudcmd Template-Repository: https://github.com/fanningert/unraid-docker-templates Description: Cloud Commander is an orthodox web file manager with console and editor.

It doesn't matter we haven't specified a /transcode directory in the container, you can add it no problem to the template.

I don't want to disagree that a UPS is very helpful in a place you lose power often, but for me, who loses power an average of maybe once a year, it just isn't economic. I bought one and accidentally "lost power" twice just getting it set up! And it protected me only once before the batteries needed replacing, a cost nearly as high as a new ups. And I never used it again. My experience with data corruption after power outages has been (knock on wood), excellent. Never lost any data. I do have a good surge protector. And I don't tweak certain settings. I have to endure the occasional parity check, but I can live with that at most twice a year. And I weave those into the monthly parity check cycle. So don't lose too much sleep lacking one, unless you are subject to lots more power outages. This is 100% my personal opinion, many will disagree!

Your characterization of the E5640 sounds right - a little more powerful and less energy efficient. I don't understand the recommendation for a 5 amp fuse - I'd look at the factory specs and run whatever Dell recommends. A hardware RAID controller may or may not be useful. First, you generally don't use a hardware RAID controller with unRAID in RAID mode. Instead, it is useful if it can be flashed into IT or JBOD mode, passing individual disks through to unRAID. unRAID is a software RAID implementation that needs access to the individual disks. Some hardware RAID controllers can be used this way, some can't - depends on the model. There are rare cases where you'd actually use a hardware RAID controller in RAID mode, but I'd recommend saving that discussion for another day. By the way - you definitely should run unRAID on a UPS. You are correct that the parity drive needs to be as large as, or larger than, the biggest data disk. You're also correct that 2TB drives aren't a great buy right now... You can copy from one disk share to another disk share, though, if you want to do a two part migration. There are some rules about this - check back if you go that route. There's no reason to use a big flash drive, 4GB or 8GB is fine.

Forced an update to pull down the latest image without any issues. Still using the CloudBerry trial key and Backblaze B2 storage over my 15 mbps (upload) internet connection (Shaw 150 unlimited) Test backup is a 33GB folder on my Unraid with a couple thousand JPEGs Update looks VERY promising!!!! CPU utilization is negligible (5-6% overall) even with encryption enabled -as it should be. Upload speed is maxing out my internet link at a steady 1950+ KB/s (1.95 MB/s) Running for 20 min with little fluctuation in CPU or upload speed Next test will be to see if it stalls after an hour like the previous version. I'll report back when the test finishes... Thanks for the quick turnaround Djoss! BR

The main reason to use BTRFS right now is its RAID capabilities which don't apply to a single unassigned device. UD supports a number of formats, I'd use XFS. I don't have any persistently mounted UDs right now so I can't offer advice on the best way to schedule trims and backups.

That's the docker log. The plex server log is in the config folder

FYI, you can put more than two devices in the cache pool. The standard approach is either more devices in the cache pool or single devices backed up to the array. Unassigned devices don't have redundancy unless you put them behind a hardware RAID controller like an Areca. A disclaimer I've been making a lot recently - I think caching writes to the array is unnecessary most of the time. You might want to think through what you are trying to accomplish, and what advantage you are trying to gain by write-caching. If it turns out you don't really need it, those 1TB SSDs will have a lot more room for Dockers and VMs.

Not sure if it scans unassigned drives, it also didn't warn about it earlier. Not for adding it as 2nd parity. A disk only needs to be cleared (or precleared) if it's going to be added to the array as new data disk, it's not needed for parity or to replace an existing disk.

I had to search here to find it!

I've just tried the drives on a SAS3008 controller (M1215 flashed to 9300-8i P14 IT-mode) and the drives wouldn't show either. I had originally thought it was a SATA150 limitation but discounted it as the WD Raptor was working at this speed, with this in mind I checked over the drives again and the "force SATA150/300" jumper was in place at 150 for all that't weren't detecting on the 3x HBAs. Jumper removed = drives detected, no issues with P20.00.07 FW, only user error! I could have saved a heap of time by being a bit more thorough and less hasty jumping to conclusions.

Parity2 disk andi disk1 have HPA enable, for disk1 it's not a big deal, but it can't be enable for any disk used as parity: Sep 12 00:44:37 Criterion kernel: ata11.00: HPA detected: current 15628044911, native 15628053168 In your case it was most likely done by your gigabyte board and a bios backup feature, you may want to disable that to avoid doing it to any more disks, see here for how to remove HPA: https://forums.lime-technology.com/topic/10229-hpa-aka-why-are-two-identical-drives-different-sizes/ I don't understand why people do that but if you really don't want to show them you'll need to delete them from many more places in the diagnostics besides the SMART reports, note however that it will be much harder for other users trying to help to correctly identify the disks, so you may not get as many responses.