Chokladkakan

Alternatively, if you have unMenu installed, you can use its very handy 'Clean Powerdown' script, which just does all that for you.

Renaming /config/plugins to something else, say /config/plugins-old, should do the trick. That way, when the server starts, it won't find any plugins in the plugin folder to install.

I'll try that and come back to you tomorrow. Thanks for all the help! Edit: I tried the command line approach on a few directories known to be bad. It worked! Thank you dearly, dgaschk.

Thanks, I now have another user to play with! Even so, the permission problems persist. In fact, after having changed to my new user on the HTPC, XBMC doesn't even find all television series, which it did before, even though it wouldn't find all the subsequent season folders. Is there anything else blatantly obvious I could try? I have now changed the users accordingly, however given the privilege trouble the add-ons don't really function now; they can't write to or read from the folders specified in their settings (complete/incomplete/watch for SAB and so forth).

Thanks for the response! A reboot did nothing at all for the first issue, it seems. It is hardly a pressing issue though, since the IP still works. I should also add that, whereas I cannot navigate the shares with \\tower, I may visit tower/ in the browser. As for the information you ask for, I am running 5.0-rc8a according to the main page. You will find the syslog.tgz (though zipped because it was apparently a tad too large for the forum) as provided by the user interface attached to this post. Please ask for any additional information and I'll do my best in providing it! syslog.zip

I write because of two separate (or not, what do I know) problems. Firstly, earlier today the hostname of the unRAID server stopped working, but only on one particular machine. I can access the server by visiting \\tower on a Windows 7 laptop, but not on my Windows 7 desktop computer. I presume, given the disparities in behaviour, that the problem lies in the desktop computer rather than the server, but even so perhaps someone might offer some wisdom! What strikes me as most curious is that I may still access the server from the desktop computer by visiting \\ip.of.server. The second and far more pressing issue has to do with read and write privileges. Specifically, they aren't consistent. All the shares I've created are visible and may be visited. However, at some arbitrary depths down into those shares, I am suddenly told I may not venture further. On my television series share it happens sporadically, in a few subfolders per series (meaning XBMC on my HTPC hardly ever sees all of a series, which is truly annoying), whereas in another share it happens on everything past a depth of 2. To my knowledge absolutely nothing should be locked. All shares and disks are set to public (some hidden, some not). My best guess is that I am navigating the shares as a guest, rather than as a user; I had a similar problem as I installed SAB et al., where SAB couldn't write to its incomplete folder because it wasn't accessible as guest. For that reason I am running the Usenet triple as root (though this doesn't seem like an ideal solution either. More on that in a bit). Given this, I tried looking around for a way to connect to the shares as root, without much luck. Any advise? Also, speaking of root, I seem to be unable to create users. I can visit http://tower/Users/UserAdd?, but upon pressing 'Add' nothing at all happens. Thanks for any and all help.

This seems to be the de-facto print thread on the forums, which is why I revive the thread with problems of my own: I've gone through a few iterations of trouble, but finally managed to get the printer recognised by the server (by using the unMenu package and some sweat and tears). At least I think so, based on the following: When I start the server I get the following message in the log after a while: Server kernel: usblp0: USB Bidirectional printer dev 4 if 0 alt 0 proto 2 vid 0x03F0 pid 0x3D17 I presume this is telling me the printer was found. If I try to print something from another machine in the network, the server logs something akin to the following: Server p9100d[9343]: Connection from 192.168.1.100 port 49369 accepted Server p9100d[9343]: Finished job: 1693 bytes received, 0 bytes sent This is all good, one would think, except absolutely nothing comes out of the printer. I have tried using a few different drivers, namely the ones shipped with the unit, the ones recommended by Windows 7 and the generic text drivers. The results are the same for the lot; none at all. Additionally, while I don't know if it matters in the least, the server occasionally logs the following: Server kernel: usblp0: removed However it quickly (within five seconds at the most) informs me it has found the USB bidirectional printer again, with the very same message referred to at the top of the post. Feel free to share any and all thoughts; I am at a loss. Edit: I have managed to get it working, though not in a conventional manner: I tried using the built in drivers for an HP LaserJet P1006, after which all went swimmingly.

Noted, thank you! Feel free to share some of the reasons; I am eager to learn. Any thoughts on its successor, the MobileLite G3 (the second item on Kingston's readers page)? I understand the speeds due to USB3 will do little but aid start up times, but I thought I might as well ask.

Fair enough! Thanks, Frank1940! The note about the Preclear seems very sensible. I take it (from having read the cache drive guide in which its touched upon) that Preclears are done from within unRAID?

That's good enough for me, thanks! Two reasons: Firstly I would prefer some 'nicer' drive for the sake of peace of mind: I'll feel better knowing SanDisk or equivalent cherry picked the flash rather than some obscure company I've never heard of. Secondly I would want to ensure that the drive hasn't got the trailing zeroes in its GUID, ensuring a swifter transaction if ever I upgrade my unRAID installation. Given this I figured something like a SanDisk Cruzer of some description would fit my needs (they're even recommended my Lime Technology according to the wiki), but most of them seem to have some software preinstalled. Thank you dearly either way! I will mark the thread as [solved] for good measure. Cheers!

Thanks for the swift response! I will have, or can at least procure access to, a second computer when I make the move, yes, so network transfer shouldn't be an obstacle. I wonder though, won't that make the transfer more than a little bit slower? The two drives are currently formatted as NTFS, though if I do transfer the data over the network I suppose that matters little, correct? Is there anything more I ought to keep in mind, and do you reckon my one-extra-drive routine would work as I imagine? Edit: should I worry about the U3 (and similar) nonsense some flash drives bother with?

I currently have roughly five terabytes worth of assorted media stored on two harddrives (2TB and 3TB respectively), without any sort of parity. Now, as I recently came into some money I would like to remedy that and create a proper environment for my data, which brings me to my question: How will I get my current 5TB of data, which currently lies smack-bang on the two drives, to some new unRAID array? Unfortunately I haven't got a separate system to install unRAID on, so I cannot experiment. Currently my thoughts are as follows (without any hands-on knowledge, mind you): [*]Purchase one more 3TB drive (which I would require regardless if I wish to have some sort of parity). [*]Take my two current drives out of the system, install unRAID and configure the new 3TB drive as an array without parity (for now). [*]Connect the old 3TB drive to unRAID via eSATA and transfer all of its media to the new array (whether this is possible I don't know, just brainstorming). [*]Take the now empty 3TB drive and have it become a second drive in the unRAID array, since my data is now secure on the new 3TB drive. [*]Do the same with the 2TB drive (transfer data, format and make it a third array drive). [*]Now, with all disks in the array and all of the data on the disks, simply make one of the disks a parity disk and I'm set. So, as to why I am posting this: is the above a valid train of thought? Is there some better way of achieving my goal that I am not aware of due to not having done it before? Keep in mind that I wish to invest in only one more drive for the moment, if possible. Thanks.