ironicbadger

When it is published as a final relase. Is that some how different in your experience? A fair question. One Im' pretty sure has been answered long ago but I don't have the time or patience to search for it so yeah, it would be nice for LT to state it again This has been answered. Not liking or believing the answer will not change the answer nor I suspect will a restatement of the answer change anyone's opinion Let's take a wild guess at this shall we ... . I don't like DRM either. Simple solution, don't run Beta or RC releases Apple, Google, Microsoft or Oracle do pull similar stunts ALL THE TIME. And in some cases it ends up on the front page, in other cases it doesn't. You know when it doesn't hit the front page? When they do it on their pre-release channels because everyone knows they don't get to run that forever. Stop creating a false equivalency between LT's policies in the Beta/RC channel vs. the final release channel. It is not shady. It was announced a long time ago. It is stated in every Beta/RC release note, and they have stated they will not screw over their existing paying customers if they decide to institute such a policy in the final release channel. You choosing not to hear or believe that cannot be changed with another restatement. OK. We clearly differ in opinions. But I no longer run unRAID anymore for anything I care about due to ethical differences in what I find acceptable. Who's to say that in future, this kill-switch won't be used to enforce a blanket subscription policy which rendered all existing licenses (for v4, 5, 6) invalid. Just a thought.

I'll feel the way I wish too, thanks. And whether you agree with me or not that's up to you. But it'd sure be good to hear from LT whether my outrage is justified or not.

Asked and answered, it is removed when they issue a final release. At what point is an RC not an RC?! This is madness and have never seen anything like that in the 'real-world'. But please, LT - answer the question(s) posed here. What data are you collecting? (A file by file breakdown will do to begin with) Why do you need to collect it (reasonably?) Can I opt out yet remain an active part of shaping the future of unRAID (i.e. part of the BETA program without allowing a kill-switch on my box?) DRM preventing my box from booting (BETA OR NOT) is UNACCEPTABLE. The fact that there has been no word from LT on this yet is UNACCEPTABLE. Guys, sort out your PR - please! It's a running joke!! If Apple, Google, Microsoft or Oracle pulled a similar stunt it would be front page news. I implore you to at the very least respond to your paying customers ASAP. This is shady stuff, suited more to EA than LT. Please sort it out. Like, yesterday.

I understand this was my fault. I also understand that the limitation of the RC requiring Internet access on boot was well documented. However, as I sit in my new home waiting for my internet to be connected - unable to access my data - I am finding myself getting more annoyed with this "feature". Firstly, I have to ask why was it included in the RC? A RC is a pre release version which has the potential to be a final product. Meaning surely it is almost ready to release. I would imagine all features to be included are in there already and we have already tested them thoroughly through the many beta cycles over a long period of time and we have had no known showstoppers. Secondly, I know this is supposed to stop me from running a version which could result in a loss of data but as I sit here having another wine I'm finding that less and less palatable. You announce it is unstable software anyway and shouldn't be used in production so why should you worry this much about our data. This is our responsibility. Maybe (if you still want to persist with this "feature" - allow us an opt in / opt out in future). If it truley is all about the users and preventing us from running at risk then allow us the ability to accept that risk if we want. It is in fact our risk to own and deal with anyway !!!!! Finally, I do think (if you won't implement something like I suggest) then it's time you removed this little gem from the feature set. All it is doing for me is preventing me from accessing my array. Thankfully my backup strategy allows me access to my data in that I have a duplicate redundant server but that's not the point. #Annoyed Honestly I'd expect this from a big name vendor but not from LT. This is horrible idea and, in my humble opinion, should be removed immediately.

I'd be curious to know whether they include said Idle3 timer also... Can't find anything definitive on "the internet".

Found some 6TB WD Blues at £160 a pop last week, thought I'd take the plunge seeing as Reds are still £200+... Here are my preclear results. I'm pleasantly surprised at their performance levels. ========================================================================1.15 == invoked as: ./preclear_disk.sh -c 3 /dev/sdb == WDCWD60EZRZ-00GZ5B1 WD-WXN000000UPL == Disk /dev/sdb has been successfully precleared == with a starting sector of 1 == Ran 3 cycles == == Using :Read block size = 1000448 Bytes == Last Cycle's Pre Read Time : 14:20:04 (116 MB/s) == Last Cycle's Zeroing time : 12:01:51 (138 MB/s) == Last Cycle's Post Read Time : 26:39:05 (62 MB/s) == Last Cycle's Total Time : 38:41:55 == == Total Elapsed Time 130:27:43 == == Disk Start Temperature: 23C == == Current Disk Temperature: -->43<--C, == ============================================================================ ** Changed attributes in files: /tmp/smart_start_sdb /tmp/smart_finish_sdb ATTRIBUTE NEW_VAL OLD_VAL FAILURE_THRESHOLD STATUS RAW_VALUE Temperature_Celsius = 109 129 0 ok 43 No SMART attributes are FAILING_NOW 0 sectors were pending re-allocation before the start of the preclear. 0 sectors were pending re-allocation after pre-read in cycle 1 of 3. 0 sectors were pending re-allocation after zero of disk in cycle 1 of 3. 0 sectors were pending re-allocation after post-read in cycle 1 of 3. 0 sectors were pending re-allocation after zero of disk in cycle 2 of 3. 0 sectors were pending re-allocation after post-read in cycle 2 of 3. 0 sectors were pending re-allocation after zero of disk in cycle 3 of 3. 0 sectors are pending re-allocation at the end of the preclear, the number of sectors pending re-allocation did not change. 0 sectors had been re-allocated before the start of the preclear. 0 sectors are re-allocated at the end of the preclear, the number of sectors re-allocated did not change. ============================================================================

Here, give this a go. Once it's tested enough by you guys (and my wife) we'll stick the LSIO branding on it. https://hub.docker.com/r/ironicbadger/docker-booksonic/

Official requests go here! Thanks http://feathub.com/linuxserver/linuxserver.github.io

It's not about the money. It's about being free and open. UnRAID is closed source - not that that is neccessarily a bad thing but I am a convert to the FOSS community. I think it's truly amazing and want to remove proprietary software from my life wherever I can. Free as in cost is good but I'll pay for good software. Free as in beer is better.

This community is so balanced in their responses! Love it!! Thanks for all the feedback - and compliments. We're really pushing over at LinuxServer.io to share as much of our collective knowledge as we can both in article and podcast form. unRAID gave me a great start with storage and Linux - I bought a license I now don't use back in the day too. In the end though I am a tinkerer at heart and whilst I refute that the setup I have written about is 'too complex' even for the n00b, I accept that not everyone either has the time or inclination to do it this way. And you know, that's totally fine... I love that I can replicate 99% of unRAIDs functionality using FOSS (the only missing piece being real-time parity). As I've said though for large mainly static datasets, real-time parity isn't really that important. Heck, unRAID even supports a cache drive to make up for it's mediocre write performance penalty induced due to real-time parity. Are those files protected until parity is calculated via the mover script? Nope! It is an important architectural difference between the two platforms but not as big as you might think... I detected a lot of comments aimed at 'grumpy' or 'busdriver'. It's a shame he never followed through on his promised super NAS distro or whatever but we do have his, albeit somewhat unorthodox and obnoxious (at times) methods to thank for where unRAID is today I suspect. Meh - maybe I'm wrong. That's the (ancient) past now anyway. Glad that some of you found this article useful. Feel free to come and join us over at #linuxserver.io for a chat on freenode.

### DISCLAIMER ### My conclusion wasn't unRAID. ==== https://www.linuxserver.io/index.php/2016/02/06/snapraid-mergerfs-docker-the-perfect-home-media-server-2016/

https://www.linuxserver.io/index.php/2016/01/29/podcast-episode-002-docker-buys-unikernels-ansible-2-0-and-unraid-updates/ It's just an RSS feed - no Cupertino crapware required!

Hey guys! Just to let you all know that a few of us from the LinuxServer.io site have started a podcast - we've just released episode 2. The LinuxServer.io podcast covers everything to do with getting the most from your Linux server plus a focus on all things Docker and containerisation! Sometimes general technology and other gadgets will slip into the discussion too. https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/linuxserver.io/id1073473437 Any and all feedback welcome at this stage as we are all new to this! Feel free to suggest topics, ideas for things you'd like to see in the show and more...

I'm getting fed up of the BS from CrashPlan. There has to be a better solution...

Is it? rsync -avzP -e ssh localdir/ user@host:backup_path/dir/ Backup via ssh to a remote box.

Amen. My opinion is that this is the single most important failing of UnRAID and the top reason it is difficult to recommend to others. We keep seeing possible new backup solutions, none of which are ever complete and all of which are command line and have fairly high learning curves. This really needs collaboration at the highest UnRAID level to provide this functionality, but I just don't see any urgency or drive to do so. There are many roll your own backup solutions. You could always contribute to open source yourselves and package these backup methods in an easy to consume method (such as websync). You're always welcome to contribute, however little you know we'll help if you're willing. Some examples of Linux tools almost as old as I am in the mean time... http://linux.die.net/man/1/rsync http://rsnapshot.org/

[1] It means that the information contained in that 'bit' is lost forever. So yes, bad. If a large video file you probably won't notice but if it's a JPG, well look at these examples... http://openpreservation.org/system/files/Bit%20Rot_OPF_0.pdf [4] It's worth noting as well that unRAID requires you to format the drives using unRAID itself. I fell foul of this and unraid gobbled 6 XFS drives from me. I'm an experienced user and this still bit me, so watch out. === My personal recommendation is if you know enough to be asking these questions then you probably know enough to adminster your own server from the command line and not be penned in by all the limitations that 'simplicity' gives you. Not to knock unRAID as it's a decent enough product but it's not free or open source and the same (or better arguably) functionality can be had elsewhere for free. I use SnapRAID myself with mergerfs and am very happy.

Open to offers...

I'm breaking down my old vt-d capable (supports PCI passthrough) system and the parts available are below, ideally sold as a group but can go individually too. All components were used as my main dev system for about a year but have remained unused for about 6 months - I therefore assume they still work as they did then! I'm based in Norwich (UK) but frequently travel to Cambridge and London if that helps with anything. CPU Intel® Core™ i5-3470 Processor (6M Cache, up to 3.60 GHz) £90 (includes original Intel heatsink) Motherboard Micro ATX with IMPI via Intel vPro - confirmed to support vt-d with the above CPU Gigabyte GA-Q77M-D2H £70 (not available anymore but cost around £100 new) RAM 4GB DDR3 Corsair XMS3 (single stick) Corsair CMX4GX3M1A1333C9 £10 - free if you buy the mobo and cpu together PSU CX430M - Missing a whole bunch of cables but I have enough to power the motherboard, cpu and 3 molex connections. Like i said a dev system Corsair CX430M Modular 430w Power Supply £25

I wouldn't know how to determine that even if it was? Create a new one?

Just a punt but is your docker.img file corrupted?

Testing the update right now. Thanks, much apprieciated.

To add my voice to the cacophony, I too am experiencing the 'cannot connect to engine' error message on the splash screen.

This thread is now decommisioned. Please use this instead... http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=42092.0 [Mods please close this thread]