itimpi

For that to work you would have needed the virtio drivers loaded in the VM. I had a look at the .ova version and that was where I saw that it was expecting SATA and that it did not support UEFI (and thus the need to change to SeaBios for legacy style booting).

I had no problems getting this to run! I did the following when creating the VM: create a new VM and select the Centos option make sure that the Advanced view is selected (at top right) set the BIOS to use SeaBios Set the primary vdisk to use SATA, Manual mode and then set the path to point to the .vmdk file set the network to a bridged connection (br0 in my case) create the VM it will now be running and you can connect to it via the built-in VNC Remote or via a VNC client running on another machine (using the port shown for the running VM). If you want to connect directly to the VM bypassing VNC then you will need to gets its IP address either from your router, or using a scanning application such as Fing, or by doing an ‘ifconfig’ command from a login via VNC.

I do not think that the dynamix.plg file exists any more! Probably a hold-over from the days before dynamix was built into the core unRAID system?

KVM can handle vmdk files directly. The only caveat is that you have to enter the full path to the vmdk when creating the VM as the GUI does not provide a selector for that file type.

Yes. You can install a VNC client on another system and then connect to the VM using the unRAID servers address and the port shown in the GUI. This is independent of what is installed in the VM. I always work this way as i have often had issues getting the browser based VNC to work reliably.

Port 5900 that was mentioned is for a free-standing VNC client. Port 5700 is for the browser based version. I find that the free-standing clients (I personally use RealVNC) are far more reliable and performant than a browser based version.

Click on the drive in the Main tab and that will bring up a dialog that allows you to run the check as one of the items on the dialog.

That looks like a spelling issue. It should be ‘both’ rather than ‘bpth’. It is basically harmless as all that line is trying to do is output a blank line for cosmetic purposes.

This will not be possible. If you try it you can find any way to try and force it you will just end up corrupting the vdisk. You are trying the equivalent to trying to connect the same physical drive to two different physical PCs.

This suggests the USB drive is not mounted (as it should be) at /boot. You can check this by using the ‘df’ command from a console/ssh session to see what (if anything) is mounted as /boot)

It sounds as if you have a top level folder called Downloads on either the cache drive or one of the array drives. A User Share is automatically created for all top level folders on the cache drives or array drives.

Not sure what makes you think this - it definitely shows which disks duplicated files are on! I developed it and used it to identify where I had duplicate files on my own disks. it was developed a long time ago (on unRAID v5 although it also works on v6) before plugins like the File Integrity plugin, so feel free to use that if you prefer.

I am afraid that I am unlikely to add a delete switch as that is too dangerous and could easily result in data loss if you are not very careful. I thought about it when developing the script but then decided against it as I could easily delete the wrong copy if the files are not actually identical at the binary level. The easiest way to handle this would be to output the results to a file and then edit them to make it into a shell script with ‘rm’ commands for the files that are not wanted. Depending on how your duplicates are located you might be able to use a ‘rm -r’ type command on containing directories.

Not quite sure what you mean by this? It looks for duplicates with the same relative path (I.e. the same name) that exist on more than one disk. This can happen if you have been copying files between disks on unRAID and have not deleted the source files. That can be a bit confusing on unRAID as when you look at the User Share Level you will only see one instance. It does NOT look for files with different paths/names that have the same contents if that is what you are looking for.

It is worth pointing out that steps 4 can be done from the GUI by clicking on the drive in the Main tab to get to the relevant dialog without using a SSH session.

This plugin gives you a large list of additional things you can (optionally) install. You have to select from the list which ones you want.

Turn on the help in the GUI - it will explain what each setting means.

I agree that it does not look healthy! SMART always seems to be conservative about failing a disk, so I always assume that if a disk is OK according to SMART it may be OK in real life. If SMART reports it as failing I treat that as meaning urgent action is required.

Make sure that you run the Action to rescan disks. I found that this was necessary to get the extra space seen. I\

I have a feeling this plugin is going to need updating to make it compatible with the latest 6.4 release.

Does the HBA configuration screen have an option for enabling/disabling interrupt 13? Normally disabling that one stops the drives being seen as bootable. Disabling this interrupt is necessary if the motherboard BIOS has a limit on how many bootable devices it can handle. You definitely want all of the unRAID array devices to be treated as not bootable.

I DO understand! You want someone to pay for a and run server which is currently not required for the current I’m-lamentation. Securing a server is a non-trivial task, so I would not be confident in such a server really being secure. If anyone cracked it and got access to unRAID GUI it is a relatively trivial task to use that to access anything on the LAN. VPN is easily secured using encryption and certificates so why is this much different to securing an (unneeded) server. I agree that VPN is a more tempting target to try because of its large user base, but another way of looking at that is that is less likely to have flaws in the first place, and if there are any found there is great incentive to get them patched ASAP

This solution would require the controlr author to be providing a server which the current solution does not (unless I have misunderstood what you are asking for). If a server is required how do you know it is secure? The moment you let ANYTHING from the internet into your LAN there is a potential security risk, but I think the open VPN is one of the lowest risk options, particularly if you set it up to require a certificate to use it at the client end

Just for future reference it is easier to attach the zip file rather than extracting the Individual files.

Have you tried typing \\ip_address into Windows Explorer. That would show if this is a problem about this PC agreeing with unRAID about which machine is acting as the Local Master at the netbios Level.