xxxliqu1dxxx

This is Settings \ Global Share Settings in case you are wondering.

You can use disk shares via SMB. You just need to enable that. Make sure you have yes configured there. You may have to stop the array first. And then, try again with SMB.

Hi - sorry if I was not clear, but I would ask if you could test and post your results, this way you can be confident the problem is with uploading to the array, vs uploading to the disk shares. Plus, additional information will be documented for this SHFS issue.

Exactly. You will see the CPU usage will be lower. I just want you to test this to confirm it's the same problem that was mentioned in several other posts - copying to the array causes a lot of shfs problems, which involves unusually high CPU loads. Copying straight to the disk share does not exhibit the same behavior which further reinforces the problem in shfs which I hope limetech will fix one day.

Try copying straight to disk shares to confirm the issue is not present. This seems related to all other shfs tickets logged on this very forum. I've been using disk shares due to this issue.

I got it to work I think... with 0000, not 000. Did 6.9.2 change something and makes it not interpret the UMASK properly?

Done - changed to 000, restarted docker, Ran docker safe new permissions, then did another full image backup... and still no permissions given.

Hi all - since 6.9.2, my backups are created using wrong/no permissions and I have to rely on the "Docker Safe New permissions" thing in Tools to fix it. The permissions the urBackup docker for the folders are set as: d--------- 1 nobody users and the files within: ---------- 1 nobody users I tried changing the UMASK from 000 to 777 and no changes. Other than the update to 6.9.2, and routine docker updates, there were no changes in configuration or anything else (that I am aware of)... Would one of you know what to do in this scenario? Thanks in advance!

Do not expose your NAS to the Internet... first rule... in fact, read the Security section of this forum for more information. And this:

Thanks. If that's indeed the case, I believe limetech should put out a PSA/blog post/announcement and/or a banner on the unraid server itself... or something to prompt users to review their configuration and mitigate these issues... I mean I get suggestions to run BOINC on my server, but would love to know if there's a security misconfiguration which could avoid issues like the ones mentioned here...

Hi JorgeB, I see you posted comments like these in other threads - is this a security vulnerability with the new release 6.9.1? I find it somewhat concerning that "in recent weeks" there have been several hacking attempts and when 6.8.3 was stable there were not as many (or none)? I understand if the server was exposed to external connections, but still concerned with the raise in frequency coinciding with the new release. Any info would be appreciated.

Did you add 6000 to ADDITIONAL_PORTS as well as adding it the "old way"?

Hi shaunmccloud, it would be nice if you could pin point for others following this thread... I am happy your system boots for you, but if others are stuck, it would nice to know if there are correlations... Thanks in advance.

Hi - did you have a chance to identify what could cause the issue?

Hi - was this issue resolved?

Thanks - I am not. I move from disk to disk and avoid this situation.

Hi everyone, just found this thread and amazed by the content - until now, I was not aware you could have disk shares. Using 6.8.3, I just enabled disk shares and I can transfer at pretty much max speed for my hdd (over network), vs user shares which were unbearably slow (crawling speeds). Even outside of SMB, another of my use case was a docker, having /mnt/user/sharename mounted as /media which was crazy slow and when changed to /mnt/disk4/sharename it became max speed of the actual hdd!! Is there an update to this SHFS issue? There seem to be two different issues mentioned in this thread, the SMB one and the FUSE aka SHFS issue? I'd be interested in knowing if newer releases like the latest RC for 6.9 addresses the issue, but have no spare server to try this on. Thanks in advance!

When I do this, it just seems to move instantly... not sure if it did anything... and when I check on the actual disk, it seems the information it still there... What is the proper way to move from share to share, i.e. moving disks if the split level allows for it, or if the inclusion / exclusion prevents a certain disk from having the files? Would moving from share to share re-trigger these rules?

Hi - is this applicable still with 6.8.3? I am experiencing stutters as well, have a similar setup and also running into stutters, with even less load, i.e. just running speedtestcli.exe (from ookla) and it causes stutters... I tried changing the cpu settings in XML, changing cpu pinning, and no noticeable improvements... would there be an updated way to configure Win10 guests, on an unassigned drive SSD? Thanks in advance!

Hi - I had vdisk nightly backups setup with VM running and had to perform a restore. I am not sure if what I did was correct, but with VM shutdown: 1. vdisk still present, clicked restore so it must have overwrote the file. Restore failed checksum and the resulting vdisk.img was not bootable at all. 2. then deleted the vdisk, restored from the second last backup which did not have to overwrite anything, and it worked. I am not sure if the problem was with duplicati restoring on top of an existing file... perhaps it was trying to just update portions of an existing file, instead of overwriting the whole thing... but in any case, I was successful in restoring a second last backup. I would not call it fully reliable... I actually "double backup" with the vm running Urbackup and doing image backups as well... in case my vdisk gets screwed by Duplicati, I can at least restore from within.

Hi - sorry for resurrecting an old thread, but I am having a very similar issue. Creating a VM from scratch, with Q35 did not fix it for me... Could you confirm if there was something else to check? Thanks in advance.

I did the same and resulting in same image... did you find a resolution to your issue? Thanks!

Hi - did you ever find resolution to your issue?

There is so much demand for these cards and not enough in stock anywhere... could be a slimmer chance that the lucky folks buying one are running Unraid and virtualize their hardware. We may have to wait a couple of weeks for market stabilization.

Hi - I have a Ryzen 2700 host with RX 560. I was able to successfully pass it through and I had to run DDU Display Driver Uninstaller in Safe Mode to clean up what Windows installed with Windows Update. Hopefully this works for you. DDU does miracles to clean up the mess in Drivers and allow a fresh install.