Dauser

This guide does work. If you can use the 2 CPU, 4Core allocation, you do not need to make many changes. To speed things up, (qcow type) is mentioned in the high level text, but not the image example if you are just following the picture for configuration. I found the guide to be excellent.

Hi, There has been an update to 1.16.2 https://launcher.mojang.com/v1/objects/c5f6fb23c3876461d46ec380421e42b289789530/server.jar Can you help when able with an updated Docker. Ty

So this tells you that the url is accessible and it is defaulting to a landing page created by the docker. What the most likely cause will be is an incorrect .conf file setting. If you have followed the Space-invader tutorial, then you do need to make changes to the .conf files. My example is for binhex-sonarr You need to change the set $upstream_app to binhex-sonarr. So check the conf files in letsencrypt for the docker you are trying to reach, and ensure that if you are using a binhex fork you make the appropriate changes.

WD20EFAX - SMR WD40EFAX - SMR WD100WFAX - CMR Further explained:

Thank-you firstly for this great tool. I have successfully used it, and have attached the screenshot. Is there a website that these submitted benchmarks are visible? I would like to see if the graphing for my 2TB WD Red are the norm. 2TB WD Red WD20EFAX (Disk 1) 2TB WD Red WD20EFAX (Disk 2) Ever since reading this article : https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/05/western-digital-gets-sued-for-sneaking-smr-disks-into-its-nas-channel/ I became more interested in my 'great purchase' of WD Red EFAX and began to wonder about their long term performance and reliability for NAS. My starting array was the 4TB as parity1 for the 2 x 2TB. When I ran out of room (ty Sonarr), I added a 8TB Ironwolf as parity2 while I moved the 4TB into the array after the parity1 had mirrored to parity2. That is why you will see Parity 2 and no parity1. The 4TB has not shown the same tracking as the 2TB, but its peak/low speeds were worse. 4TB WD Red WD40EFAX 8TB Seagate Ironwolf ST8000VN004 Now the good news is I took the advice in the article, contacted WD support, and I have an RMA now and they will swap the drives to the previous model that does not use SMR. It will be interesting to see the benchmark changes with the incoming new drives. PS: Your introduction post shows a 10TB WD RED WD100EFAX (Disk 1) Which shows none of the performance issues I saw on mine. So I went searching for more information and found this tidbit https://community.synology.com/enu/forum/1/post/127228

If you find you can not access the web UI in chrome due to security, here is the fix 'thisisunsafe'. (no troll) Source: