theunraidhomeuser

Wow. I think I may have posted this in the wrong forum category? 0 replies, thoughts, comments. mmm. I've actually posted this with the guys at UNTANGLE as I felt network-related stuff may be best suited there. Am currently stuck as my Windows Server 2019 VM won't accept any incoming connections despite port forwarding and lot (!) of troubleshooting. I'll cross-reference the two posts once I find a solution, in case anybody stumbles across my post in the future and has the same challenge..

great, thanks a lot, wasn't aware of the user0 thing and it all makes sense. Script worked well and I also know my way around the CLI but was more reassuring and easier to select the various shares. As a little follow-up, the appdata, system folders should all be CHOWN'ed by root, right?

Current setup: [WAN]---[dedicated Untangle FW Machine]---[LAN]---[UNRAID NAS] Q: I'd like to setup a FTP server over SSH (SFTP) on the UNRAID NAS, to store webserver backups every night. My NAS has 32GB RAM and 6 core AMD RYZEN 5 3600. I was not sure whether it's "better" to spin up a little Ubuntu VM and run a FTP server with a dedicated share or rather use a docker container. Are there any massive pros or cons that you can think of, beyond the ones I list below? My Untangle Firewall would map a custom SFTP port to port 22 of the VM/Docker REQUIREMENTS - setting up a few users (4-5) for different FTP projects - each user can only access their own folder - key-based authentication for some, password for others UBUNTU VM (or other distro like XUBUNTU) + GUI - based, easy to manage + unattended upgrades ensure safety + UFW could be another layer of protection + fail2ban easy to configure + isolation with only access to one shared folder + could be used for other purposes + easy to establish bandwidth limitations if need be + maybe a little simpler to set up KEY authentication for less experienced user - needs more resources than docker DOCKER + needs fewer resources + dedicated to one task and one task only + isolation with only access to one shared folder - much more command-line - I've got less experience with Docker and security implications Any other thoughts or considerations? Thanks everyone!

Hi everyone, I have a NAS with 2 x 14 TB IronWolf and 1 x 512GB NVMe as cache. I deliberately chose NO parity as I backup the VM on a remote storage via rsync every night. So here is my question with shares and drives. When I check the /mnt folder structure, I see: disk1 = 14 TB IronWolf #1 disk2 = 14 TB IronWolf #2 disks = mounted external USB drives (unassigned devices) user = not sure user0 = not sure either A few questions: Q1: My hope was that the 2 x 14 TB drives would be mounted as an array of 1 disk, rather than 2. Is that not the case? Should I worry about that at all or just continue using my SMB mounts that DO show the total available space? I.e. leave everything to unraid and forget about the two disks? Q2: Why are there two user folders? I DO have an unraid user called "user" but that explains only one of the two folders. Also, there are no folders for the other users that I have created. the user sub-dir shows a few SMB shares, excluding the system folders (i.e. only the shares I manually created) the user0 sub-dir shows all shares Sorry if this has been asked a thousand times but searching the forum for things with "user" leads to less than optimal search results... Q3: more related to permissions. As I am using rsync to restore my data as the root user, I understand that all the data in the NAS is now owned by root. Would a simple " chown -R nobody:users /mnt/user/* " be enough to sort this out, or should I apply the SMB directives "force user" and "force group"? That is what I used to do on my ubuntu server and it worked very well. Just not sure that will be messing around with UNRAID too much? I've used the "New Permissions" script on the shares for now, that seemed to have worked o.k. Any concerns as I didn't upgrade from UNRAID 5 but still used it? Thanks everyone!

Guys, I think it's just the kernel that doesn't support the ASUS motherboards. I've got a ROG STRIX B450-I. Temperature sensors are detected by sensors-detect but nothing happens in UNRAID. UNRAID Admins: please have a look to support AMD a bit more! Thanks!

Hi everyone, I managed to spin up a Win 10 VM and pass through the GPU and Audio with the great youtube tutorials of spaceinvader. VM works, GPU was detected, no issues, installed NVIDIA drivers. I then installed Handbrake and HBBatchBeast and ran it on a small folder of video files (5 files, each a few hundred MB). In Handbrake, I created a preset that uses "H.264 NVIDIA" encoding. I then took the .json with the presets and linked to it in the HBBatchBeast app: --preset-import-file "C:\Users\user\Desktop\hbbatchbeast-Windows-v2.1.5\presets.json" -Z "TH" The preset in the JSON is present and is called TH. I found the GPU performance in terms of stress/load to be very low. Does anybody have any idea what I am doing wrong here? In exchange, the CPU performance was too high... I had higher hopes with regards to the GPU helping out with video conversion, aware it's a small GPU (but I'm not in a rush :-). The only thing is that I don't want to destabilize my UNRAID PC with these 100% CPU cycles... Cheers!

you were spot on.... I changed the RSYNC command (went by memory that was my mistake)

oh man... I think I found out what the issue was... my RSYNC was using compression to restore.... That brought the speed down so much... without the -z flag, it's now as fast as it should be!!! Thanks for your help and support, I'll mark this as resolved!

Sorry if I'm being thick, maybe I have a fundamental misunderstanding of what you are trying to say. My challenge: [USB 3.0 HARD DRIVE ]-----usb 3.0 cable-----[UNRAID SERVER] You are proposing: [Desktop]----1Gbit Ethernet----[UNRAID SERVER] Correct? How does one relate to the other? I am talking about previous speed of 220 Megabytes per second, not MBit/s... Network transfer between my Desktop and the UNRAID PC is "normal" as would be expected on a 1GBit network..

because (per my original post), I am discussing and USB 3.0 connection straight to the UNRAID machine, nothing to do with the network..

Hi Johnnie, it's the same enclosure, port and physical machine I used under Ubuntu. Literally nothing changed other than the speed. From the desktop to the array would mean over the network, and that of course will be a lot slower..? don't quite understand that?

Hi everyone, I know this has been asked a couple of times, but I am still not sure I get it. I used to have an UBUNTU 18.04 LTS server with manually configured SMB shares, Webmin etc. I now moved to UNRAID (today). My NAS is an AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen 5 3500 CPU, 32GB RAM and ASUS ROG B450-I motherboard, 2 x brand new 14TB IronWolf SATA drives, 1 (fast!) NVMe 512GB Before moving to UNRAID, I backed up my data in Ubuntu to the external USB 3 drives (I use the ORICO SATA 3.0 HDD Docking Station). Transfer speeds for large files were around 220 MB/s on EXT4 format. Now, I am mounting the same drives with the same external dock and I am getting around 32 MB/s... I saw some people in the forum saying "that's normal, overhead, array, etc.", however my array is essentially "RAID0", no parity disk. Q1: why is this? Is this a caching issue? My thought would have been that using the SSD cache would speed up things. Am I wrong? Q2: how can I restore my data at 200 MB/s to avoid spending weeks? Thanks!

thanks both, that's exactly the info I needed!

Hi everyone, first post, please be nice 🙂 I am just setting up UNRAID and was wondering if I did this correctly per the attached. I don't need parity as critical data will be rsync'ed to an offsite every night. 2 x 14TB mounted as normal array devices 1 x 512 GB NVMe mounted as cache Needless to say, I don't want to waste 512 GB NVMe just for caching the hard drives, I'd like to run a couple of Windows and Linux VMS off it. Q1: per the attached screenshot, is it correct to assign the "domains" share to "Use Cache: ONLY"? Q2: who or what defines how much space on the NVMe is used for caching the NAS hard drives vs space allocated to VMs? I don't think I'll run into any trouble here in terms of space, just want to understand. I would have expected some sort of "max space allocated to caching". Do I need to set up different partitions for that? i.e. a partition for normal caching and another partition for the VMs? Thanks!