itimpi

Have you tried running Tool->New Permissions on the share in question?

There is also a good example in the the online documentation accessible via the ‘Manual’ link at the bottom of the GUI or the DOCS link at the top of each forum page.

I would be happy with that. It is probably more accurate, although a slightly more obscure word.

To me that looks good for the Shares setting page. Not 100% sure yet about the Share summary page, but at the moment I cannot think of anything obviously better.

I like this for the drop down values. I would prefer the text for the setting to simply read "Location for new files/directories" (or 'folders' if preferred instead of 'directories' as seems to be the modern trend) as this puts more emphasis for it applying only to new content.

Are you doing things on the WiFi devices where the speed is critical? If not the WiFi on the dlink may be sufficient and it would be by far the easiest to configure and manage.

@cambriancatalyst The diagnostics is a single zip file - if it is showing on your system as lots of files it probably means your browser is (unhelpfully in this case) showing you the contents of the zip. You should post that zip file as it is not practical to work with the files when posted separately.

This is the hardest to summarize in just a few words as it needs to cover both the case of a pool being present and one being used. The idea that occurs to me is to hae the Settings page say "On Pool, Overflow on array" without mentioning mover? That seems the shortest idea I can yet come up with. I have only just got up so I will let the idea percolate a bit more. Maybe after having coffee something will occur to me

OK - I understand that better now. Note I have slightly edited my initial reply as well about the Shares setting page. Perhaps a few more back-snd-forths before we come up with the ideal answer? Maybe we should actively ask some others (e.g. @JorgeB or @Squid) if they have views on this?

I like the idea for the share settings page although perhaps “Location for new files/folders” instead of “Share Location (for new files/directories”” might be a slight improvement? I thought of adding 'Preferred' at the start because the “On Array, move to Pool” implies the file always starts on the array rather than the array acting as an overflow, but not got an immediate thought on improving that wording. Not quite sure what I think about the suggested value for Location on the Shares summary page - let me think about that a bit more In particular the ‘zfs’ entry stands out as a possible anomaly - when exactly does that apply?

With the above configuration your Dlink router is almost certainly blocking inbound connections originating from WiFi devices connected to the Telnus ODT Modem. Any reason you do not use the Wifi of the Dlink router instead as that would be the simplest solution?

Did you also reserve that address for the Unraid server at the router level to stop the router trying to assign the address to a different device?

A 'hot spare' is achievable if you are prepared to have to select at the BIOS level the backup flash drive. You can take advantage of the fact that it is possible to use a label other than UNRAID for the label of the flash drive if you add to the syslinux.cfg file an entry of the following style to the relevant boot entries: label Unraid OS menu default kernel /bzimage append unraidlabel=UNRAID-SPARE initrd=/bzroot and amend the label of the hot spare to match. You then need to schedule copying across periodically the contents of the 'config' folder (ideally minus the key file) from the live drive to the hot spare.

Strictly speaking the value should be "at least the Largest File Size" + safety margin. Using 2x gives a safety margin as drives getting completely full is a bad idea as it might cause file system corruption, and also if you ever need to run File System repair some work space is needed.

Just spotted that. I would suggest also changing the Yes option in the drop-down to read ‘cache’ rather than ‘yes’ (again leaving internal value alone). That is another change I think worthwhile as being a more accurate representation of what that setting does. I can update online documentation to reflect the change in emphasis (since I have access to it), but I will leave in place a reference to the fact the value used prior to 6.12.

I don’t understand 4) ? For me if I have created a ZFS pool and/or it is visible in the GUI then it is selectable for the pool to be used in conjunction with a share. If you are talking about pools that are not visible in the GUI then that is s different issue.

Not sure why any functionality would change in FCP or unBalance as I would leave the internal values visible only to devs unchanged - just alter the displayed ones. It is therefore not a breaking change. I therefore see no reason why the functionality of any existing code would break, although I agree there might be a few cases where the text of messages should then be improved.. This setting is a classic case of one where the functionality is exactly as intended but the presentation of it leads to users regularly misunderstanding it and taking the wrong action. As such it should be treated as a bug that needs correcting if it is practical. It seems to me that changing the displayed title and text of the one of the associated drop down options does not actually break any functionality - it just means that there are places where messages and/or documentation should be updated to reflect the emphasis of ‘Pool’ over ‘Cache’.

That speed is not atypical for writing to the array with default settings and not going via a pool acting as a cache. You did not mention which share you were writing to on the server to see if this is the case. You can normally make writes go faster if using Turbo Write in such a case as described here in the online documentation accessible via the ‘Manual’ link at the bottom of the GUI or the DOCS link at the top of each forum page. You also have your ‘system’ share set to be on the array which can adversely affect performance of docker containers and VMs and they could affect overall transfer speed if active. To rectify this change the Use Cache setting for this share to Prefer; disable the docker and VM services; run mover manually from the Main tab; and when mover finishes re-enable the docker and/or VM services and (optionally) set the Use Cache setting to Only. The Cache’ pool does not have a value set for its Minimum Free Space. This should be set to be more than the largest file you expect to be cached so that Unraid knows when it should stop caching files and go direct to the array. You never want a pool to get completely full as this can lead to file system corruption.

Which drive is the parity drive? Many people would not bother to have an SSD in the array if they also have HD as writing is slowed by the need to update both the HD and parity and the slower of the two will determine write performance. Reading runs at the speed of the drive being read from. You normally want the working files for VMs and/or Docker containers to be on a pool external to the main array for best performance. Such pools can be made redundant by making them multi-drive. There are also plugins available that will periodically backup VMs and or appdata (Docker files) to the array.

Note that if you later set up the share to use a pool for caching purposes the pools have their own Minimum Free Space setting.

You are looking at material that is about 10 years old and refers to Unraid v4, not the current v6. You can get to the current online documentation via the ‘Manual’ link at the bottom of the GUI or the DOCS link at the top of each forum page.

I would strongly recommend this as a good investment if you value your data as unexpected power loss is the most likely thing to cause damage.

Correct. The simple way to look at it is if you have more drives fail than you have parity drives then the data on the failed drives cannot be rebuilt. Data on any non-failed drives would be OK. it is worth pointing out that a ‘disabled’ drive at the Unraid level is not necessarily a failed drive that is completely unusable. it can be just that a write to it failed for some reason so it is no longer in sync with parity. It may well still be possible to get most of the data off such a drive when in data recovery mode.

With 6.12 the terminology will I think be changing to simply refer to a Pool with one of the options being to act as a temporary cache for a share. Technically it has been that way for some time, but for legacy reasons we tend to refer to the pool as the 'cache drive' as a few Unraid releases ago that was the only use for it. With the move to using Unraid more as a application server rather than a pure NAS the pools are typically used to enhance performance of apps or VMs. Also at that time only a single pool was available whereas you can now have up to 30.

The process is documented here in the online documentation accessible via the ‘Manual’ link at the bottom of the GUI or the DOCS link at the top of each forum page.