i-chat

honnestly i cant DISagree with this more. if you even start to think about how zfs works and what it does (and how) you would instantly find why larger pools are often "bad ideas TM" on enterprise hardware with ehterprise kind of workloads this is absolutely true, but this WILL come at an unmeasurable cost on system resources. try calculationg parity on (more than) 8 nodes double parity with a core i3 2, or 4, core cpu while also running a few services like plexserv, torrents, nextcloud and maybe a few others? when running zfs with 30 disks or more you are already looking at systems outside of the scope of most desktop cpu i fear. at least with smaller pools you can scedule them one after another untill all of them are done. i would really like to know what 'this opionion is based on, and how you percieved it to work... what in your view is the benefit ... an why / how.

this is the world up-side-down, how do you even think that, anyone should do what YOU want unless they can prove you wrong? wouldn't it be more logical if you had to prove to other people why you are right? honnestly this is just a sad way of trying to make people feel sorry for you, its just guilttripping really... allso i highly doubt that serial numbers can be securely idenified using linux cli tools... at least a tool like LSHW doesnt seem to catch every SN on every HDD or SSD. let me remind you that FREENAS world leading opensource NAS & SAN distribution only 2nd to openfiler, only recently (with version 12), changed policy about booting from USB-drives (mostly raid 0 of of 2 thumbdrives), So regaring to your 'idiotic' you really presume too much if you think that words like that could argue your point in your benifit. there you go, so let me explain, USB-drives by their protocol have a unique idenitfier that unraid uses as a way to protect its revenue for unauthories copies. it is true that some (mostly OEM like hp, lenovo, dell), manufacturers have a similar feature in their bioses that limetech could incorporate but thats only a verry small subset of hardware used by US users. So to make happen what you want, the would not only have to make rigurous changes to that base-installment system, (which admitedly can be done with medium effort), they would also have to re-invent a licensing system based of of some other unique identifier ... this might not be as easy as you think. Now this obviously COULD be done, surly, however what would be the gain. booting from sata to ram-disk is (if at all) only a verry tiny margin faster than from usb to ramdisk. and doesn't actually add much stability either, (you still would not be projected from bad writes due to disk-failure. and if you want to protect against it you would have to add some form of disk-mirroring (raid) kindly defeating the whole UNraid principle. arguably, its possible to boot of of NVME and not use ramdisk at all, making the whole system boot slightly faster and removing some of the complications that come with ramdisks... but this add a bog you your NVME disks, and might negativly impact system stability (or responsiveness when for exampe you are demaing high performance from youre write-cache ... also your reference to windows is wrong, i have been a member of the professional windows comunity for a couple of decenia now, and one of the most debated topic (complaints) agains windows it the fact that by default %alluser profiles% is stored in C:/users and not for example on h(ome):/uses (not even on windows server versions) and the only ever reponse was 'yes but legacy suport would break. all in all the cost of implementing this in my (profesional) opinion doesn't even come close to covering the win.

I’m not very sure on how this works, but by increasing blocksize would that not also mitigate some of the SMR-issues based on what i know, with smr a track will be destroyed if the adjacent track is written and thus has to be re-written. This kind of is why smr is stil oké for linear writes but not for random writes. I would feel that file-system and parity calculation tuning. MAY somewhat mitigate the smr-drawback

the problem with dns-rebinding - (and btw i run openwrt with near-defaults on all my routers and accespoints). is to me that it prevents users to login from other than the home-network. for example the netgear interface i ran on this router before openwrt released a build for it, only leaves a diferent ip range for remotely logged-on users so i would have to do some advanced routing to be able to logon to unraids webinteface ... for now im actually quite confused on how to proceed, a reversed proxy, would be nice for the webinterface and later probably for stuf like: nextcloud, or emby or plex or simular, and maybe even for some other stuf. but how about stuff like sftp or ftp or nfs - in the end id rather have a single cert to rull them all. how do other people

Dear all, A few days ago i started testing unraid for my new fileserver-build as i came across the SSL-encryption setting. so i figured to test it out. the first thing it did was generate a self-signed cert so i went on this form looking and found out that you shouldn't set encryption to yes (but instead) to auto. all of a sudden i get a huge-string of random -numbers.unraid.net adres only after disabling the dns-rebinding feature. now my question is two-fold, 1: why on earth cant this be done without dns-rebinding as any-security-aware person would never disable this feature willingly. instead, i would recoment logging into you router and editing its hosts-file most (if not all) consumer-routers allow you to do so from a web-interface. because now: when clicking on any link from the webinterface sends me to 029reasdjfikpjfafdjapfasjfdpaoijfp.unraid.net resolving to an internal IP, 2 Secondly it would have been nice to have an automated/intergrated LetsEncrypt feature for regular domain names that you can provide for from the interface ... in example it would have left my with the option to: created a: c name record for: home.mydomain.net to: myaccound.duckdns.org conect to my duckdns account login to my router's dhcp/dns section: create a static hostname: home.mydomain.net to 192.168.my.ip and be able to use this both internal AND external. hell - actually now to think of it, during its setup instead of asking people to turn of dns-rebinding-protection you could also send them to a page to explain howto add hostname to the router's hosts file or how to use the windows hosts-file. and use the wanIP as a regular dynDNS - this would have effectively saved me a step.

first of, - yes i did, only to realize it isn't readely availible here in NL, second of all its broadcom based, well lets not start on that, poor network performance with brcm chips, hickery linux drivers (even in stock firmwares), and overall it wil never suport openwrt and so will not get decent firmware updates. and even when looking for a replacement at that pricerange, ?? to compare it against: https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/GC-WBAX200-rev-10#kf intel based wifi AX with aproximately 2gbps on the 5ghz band. for only half that price? the obvious question would be ... did YOU even bother.... but i will refrain from such remarks and so should you! in the end it boils down to this: is wifi worth the trouble, both in development cost and eventual support issues > you say no, (and probably have easy access to cables), > i say yes, (and do not, and furthermore, this topic has been around for years and the ye-arguments have strengthened, and the nae-arguments have weakened. for my part, if unraid was some kind of opensource software i would just have added the required software myself (or pay someone to do it) and maybe even provide build info for others. as it is - limetech can easily add the feature and NOT support it. rather than not having it at all.

after a search i think i overlooked this tread but, you are so wrong.... in another post i explain why. but basicly most (if not all) such devices run outdated mips cpu's that lack pci-e and thus the required bandwidth for gbit or higher speeds both on wifi and on lan side. read more:

im wondering if this would actually work for any 'decent' unraid aplience itself for exaple i was trying it out today on my former mini-itx desktops that i fitted with some spare harddrives. when it got time to get a trial key, nothing! - obviously it had no internet connection and i could not aply for a key. here is what i find after a long scroll through these forums. 1 you shouldn't run a server on wifi, A: why not, as i run heavy duty games as wel as conferencing and remote control software tools on it? 2: wifi is spotty, A: its true that wifi has been hit or miss over the 2 decades or so. but fact of the matter is that about the time that wifi 4 (N) was swapped for wifi 5 (AC) things changed alot for the better with WPA2 (and its linux wpa_suplicants packages) being now mature, after thair introduction in wifi N, and the new 2x2 and 3x3 mimo both speeds and stability became less of any issue. B To make an even bolder statement my wifi running a stable 800mbit at 5ghz ban 32 wifi network on 2x2 mimo with an intel chip hass about 1ms less lagg and about 10% less framedrops on hight-bandwidth protocol tests than its wired counterpart running on cat5 cables and a broadcom nic. i can only emagine what improvements i would have if i upgraded to wifi 6 (Ax) 3: you could run a cable to a 'hacked' wifi range-extender to let it act as bridge for your wifi, A: true, this could in face be done, matter of factly i have done this in the past for a 'smart-tv' that didn't have wifi --- the problems i had with this solution where that the bridge was barely powerfull enought to support youtube streaming in 4k and that the device go hot (really hot) on longer periods of action --- another large drawback is that most such devices are really exspensive or are of utterly inferior quallity. >>> most of the times you'd be lucky to find a device that even has a gbit nic, and if it has one that it is not connected internally to a usb-hub leaving it only a shared 480mbit wide bus (usb2). where'as a decent pci-e 4x4 mimo wifi ax controller could be had for about 65 to 90 and my wifi Ac card is only 45 4: go cabled its faster anyway. A Not all situations allow for a neat cabled solution, for example a rental flat where you cant (are not allowed to) drill for cable. but even if you did manage to lay down some nice cat6e cables, if you follow the news about "home IT" stuff you may have noticed that only just now the first ever true 2,5gbit switch for consumer-use was released in taiwan for aprox 90usd. by a brand called Qnap also known for it storage-solutions. ___ Mind you that its even just an UNMANAGED switch. ____ . B compare this to the gigantic leap that wireless technology has had over the last 10 years from aproximately 300mbit (wifi N ) to more than 1200mbit or even slightly over 2000 for wifi Ac and Ax respectively. In regard to the actual work neaded for a wifi main connection: 1 add wifi drivers to the kernel during build time, ar add them as loadable modules. 2 add wpa_suplicant, 3 add a simple conection wizzard - its been done over and over again and should not give any issues. 4 there is only 'one' tricky part, as wifi bridging is not well-supported. not in the 802.11 protocol no'r in most linux implemetations of any type of lvl 2 bridging. This means that any of your virtual network interface (your virtual machines) can not live in the same network as your other pc's (including the virtual-machine host itself). so connection your VM to the same router as the host will not easely be possible. A: however if you google on the matter there are some ways to trick all parties (computers) in thinking that its atually still done. (google: wifi bridging kvm) B there is also the option of inter-network-routing: meaning that you have to tell your router (and its routing table) that there is a another network with all new ips behind your vm-host's ip-adres. your vm host would than have to act as an osi-model level 3 router. C the least eligant but easiest setup hover is to not try at all and instead use a tunned interface between your vm's and the router as allmost ALL home routers support some sort of vpn-module with settings to let the remote users share the 'home ip range' all your issues would also be solved at the cost of a slight to moderate performance hit. IF you opt for option C however, i would strongly advice you to losen your security setting to near zerro for the encryption-settings. as your vm-host lives on your home-network there is hardly any use (unless you really want to) to add more performance hit to your connections. this is true espeially on the router-side because en- and de-crypting the data from your virtual network connetion is the hardest part for its tiny cpu. Unlike modern intel- and AMD- CPU's most mps-based routerbords do not support hardwarebased AES-decrypting. So far my 2020 'updated' view on wifi can, and should be supported.

To sumarise: i dont pay for pro: The reason I think this is that I am not going to use unraid software raid solution which is the main feature of unraid. As you mentioned, my raid solution is different and I have already paid for that within my hardware. you pay for the entire product, based on the intire system, its updates etc. - its licence states: more than six = higher licence, what you say is: i dont pay my (full) house rent because i dont often use the shower, as i like my GF's house's bathtubb. thats strange. for the rest whas my remark only in case of exeading 6 disk limit ofcourse im stil wondering on how you intend, to incorporate the raid-level-status, diskstatus etc into the management UI or else how to get notified on disk-errors or raid errors etc.

It has been a while since i posted on a linux-related forum or messageboard .. In general you can say that there is allways a tight balance between the 'opensource' thingy and the for-proffit thingy. A lot of people tend to think that opensource 'must' be free and in a sence it is: In example quite strickt and viral atributes ar there on the terms of use on certain parts of the code: - this is how alternative software (like: openwrt, and expenology can exist). BUT as soon as it is your code (and not your contribution to someone-else's code) you may deside on the terms of use. thereby creating a hybrid opensource/closed-source nonprofit/forprofit free/nonfree piece of software. It can lead to verry complicated situations where people get confused about what they are entitled to: but let me say this; even if the viral properties of an opensource software are transmitted to other software also forcing them to be opensource this still ONLY means that the blablabla-verry-complicated machine code has to be public and without restrictions other than the opensource ones. For example: its perfectly legal and widely accepted to publish the sourcecode and sell the binairies (in windows terms provide a code.vbs file and sell the exe file) but free on not free there are certain things to never do: EVER!... 1: Dont try to 'bully' people into giving you a refund .... First of all ask people before hand if a trial version is avail, if there is not ask about refund policies upfront. maybe try to contact support. 2: if you try to involve the law: do it correctly ... there are many websites and offices and even quite a few non-profit legal-advice organisations that are able to help you in getting what you are due: but just never state that you have a right to .... if you dont... its just killing all chances you have with people. 3. dont blame other people for YOUR mistakes.... its really OK to make mistakes (they may cost you $$ but thats part of life (you win some ..... you lose some) and if you are able to admit to what you did wrong and say you are sorry ... and be really polite about it you may end up getting stuf that you arn't entitled to just because people start to like you .... 4: what whas in this topic was really disrespectfull (and in a way my pre-edited message was too) just DONT be disrespectfull and make good if you where before: hence my apoligies for being too direct at first... so to the topic starter i say: ask yourself .... 1: how did you not google and search these forums on if/how your igp-passthrough would work, 2: how did you not do the 'trial license thing first. 3: why is it never your fault 4: and then there is the 'but on windows it works' well if windows works for you, go use it and be happy. Do know however thant the licence of windows 10 forbids the use of it as a machine primairly used for remote access in other words: you may per licence not use windows 10 as a server you need windows server 2019 for that.

Here im specifically NOT speaking about licence-issues this may cause, storage based linux distro's like unraid normally entail that they are in charge of your storage completely. meaning that 'they alocate drives to an aray, manage the agray, and set and check parity. so when you use a thing like hardware raid the whole computere (even the uefi or bios) sees your aray as a single disks. Being the geek that i am i would say that this might actually be a slight loophole in how licencing is enforced: by alowing you to have more hardrives connected as you could end up having x raid 5 volumes instead of just x drives BUT. 1: its kind of cheating and i would recomend to pay for pro regardless. 2: these hardware raid controllers cost you way more than a licence-upgrade anyway, 3: hardware raid has 1 huge drawback over software defined solutions. IF your raid card brakes, you need an exactly identical (sometimes up to the firware revision) card to restore your storage pool. Diferent brands or even diferent models of same brand card often do not fully comply to the same storage-logs formats where you may end with a broken storage pool still. That for background info: Now your question: Yes you will get parity but not from unraid. raid3 and 5 have thair own inbuild parity systems quite the same way as unraid does it but with them its done on the controler-card by a special-purpose controller chip (hence hardware raid) In theory you could even add more disks to your system with other raid contollers and have unraid calculate parity over the total bunch. this would effectivly set you to something quite near raid 35* However the question remains if you'd want non-readable-data-disks in case of failure of one of your raidcards or its raidpools. or when cards get EOL ... who/what monitors the raid5 levels and read errors of your drives if not unraid as it has no way to detect your harddrives directly. * in therms of speed and efficiency the unraid system is mutch like raid 3 (instead of 5) with only one less drawback (readeble data disks)