emrepolat7

I'm considering running Unraid as a VM on Proxmox, mainly to manage Docker containers. I don't plan to use any other Unraid features. However, I have a few concerns and questions regarding how Unraid's reliance on a USB drive might affect Proxmox's High Availability (HA) feature. For some background, I’ve been using Unraid on bare metal for a long time and recently switched to Proxmox. While I enjoy the flexibility of Proxmox, I still miss Unraid’s easy-to-use interface for Docker management. Since Unraid runs from a USB, will this cause issues with Proxmox's HA if the VM needs to be restarted or moved to another node? My understanding is that Proxmox HA might struggle with the USB passthrough. Is there any known workaround or best practice to manage this? For example, would it be feasible to run Unraid from a virtual disk instead, while keeping the USB just for licensing? I'd appreciate any suggestions or guidance from those who have experience with running Unraid in a Proxmox VM, especially when it comes to minimizing potential HA issues. Thanks in advance!

you have to register and use their repository

Yes it works now. Thank you very much.

6.13.0-beta.1

When I checked all the settings, I didn't find any mistakes. When I tried manually, I get the error below. Do you think this could be the problem? root@polser:/usr/local/emhttp/plugins/iscsi-initiator/include# iscsiadm -m discovery -t sendtargets -p 192.168.1.2 iscsiadm: error while loading shared libraries: libcrypto.so.1.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

I can't find what I'm doing wrong?

It's interesting to hear how you've grouped certain services together in a single LXC container for better internal routing and dedicated IP addresses. I see this approach can offer more control and ease of management, especially for services like your DNS stack and HomeAssistant instance where granular control is important. Using LXC containers for certain applications, like AMP, makes sense when you prefer a more VM-like environment and want to easily run Docker within it. Thank you for the answer and sharing your setup and the links to your pre-made container archives.

What do you think is more sensible: setting up an LXC for each app, or creating a Docker container?

I've been a long-time user of Unraid and have generally been satisfied with the update processes in the past. However, I wanted to share my feedback on the recent update process, which I found a bit disconcerting. The idea of redirecting the GUI to an external domain web page during the server update didn't sit well with me. I understand that the files are already being downloaded from an external domain during updates, but I still found this approach unsettling. It felt as if I was being transported outside the comfort of my home, giving me a sense of being in a different environment altogether. I appreciate the continuous efforts to enhance the Unraid experience and understand that changes are sometimes necessary. I just wanted to express my feelings about this particular aspect of the recent update process. Thank you for your attention and understanding.

This worked perfectly for me. https://www.reddit.com/r/MoonlightStreaming/comments/rzpcpc/moonlight_streaming_without_monitor_no_dummy_plug/

Thank you for your prompt reply. I understand your concerns about the dropdown becoming unwieldy with multiple links, and the potential complexities it may introduce to the plugin. I appreciate your perspective on this matter. I thought it would be easy to implement, but from what I've seen, it seems that the request is not as easily implementable as I initially thought. The reason I was looking for support for multiple links is to streamline access to various services that I have installed with docker compose. Thank you for your suggestion and insights. If you have any further recommendations or considerations, I'd be grateful to hear them.

May I request a new feature? The WebUI URL is indeed useful, but currently, it only supports a single link. Could you consider implementing support for multiple links? This would be beneficial as we have installed more than one service. Thank you.

Sometimes I also share the same thoughts as you. I know that Unraid is, in a way, a form of software RAID. However, I don't use this feature and use it in the way SimonF uses it. The only difference is that I use hardware RAID. (Of course, both hardware and software RAID have their pros and cons.) Using HPE Smart Storage, I have created raid 5 logical storage drive. Unraid detected my hard drive as one 8TB logical drive. I have zero problems with installing vm, docker, apps, plugins vs so on. Actually, asking Unraid to remove this feature is completely contrary to the original purpose of Unraid. (A bit funny, but if you remove the RAID part, it will be left with just "UN" in its name 😂) Because all the other features of Unraid (VM, Docker, etc.) are essentially open-source software that can be installed on a plain Linux. But there is a difference, and that is Unraid has beautifully and user-friendly shaped all these features. They have done this in a really successful and commendable way. What I mean is, even if the RAID part of Unraid is removed, I'm sure many people will want to buy it for the convenience it offers. Releasing such a version of Unraid would provide advantages to users. 1) Since this version is essentially composed of many open-source software, it can be sold at a more reasonable price. I'm sure many people would pay for a product that brings together all these features so successfully. 2) You won't need to stop the array to make some changes in Unraid settings. Because currently, you need to stop all VMs and Dockers every time you want to make some changes. 3) As you mentioned, some concepts will be simplified. No such as pools, parity, cache, aray, mover. 4) Maybe a performance increase? I'm not very sure about this, but Unraid is, after all, a kind of software RAID. I'm sure the RAID software is running in the background. Even if we don't use this feature, could removing it result in a performance increase? I wonder about that.

I really like using your plugin with tailscale. Thanks very much for the plugin. Since headscale is almost the self-hosted version of tailscale, I prefer to use headscale instead of tailscale. Are you planning to add this feature? if so, is there any progress for this feature?

is there any option to disable the plugin without uninstall? Sometimes I want to use my graphics card for a VM.