Jump to content

Koolkiwi

Members
  • Content Count

    101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Koolkiwi

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Converted

  • Gender
    Undisclosed
  1. Thanks redia. But that's exactly what I did, when I said I'd "sent a support request last Saturday to ask how I get replacement keys". The copy confirmation auto-reply was from Tom's email address, so I didn't send any further email directly to him (no point adding further to his inbox). However, I've now replied to the support confirmation email, on the assumption it's just been overlooked. Perhaps he will see that email or this forum post. Fingers crossed my suspect backup flash drive hangs on! EDIT: All good... I have now heard back from Tom and sent him the new GUID's for some replacement keys. Looks like it was just an overlooked email issue, something we all suffer from every now and then.
  2. I have a problem. My 4+ year old flash drive failed. Since I paid for a 2 pack license I have managed to get up and running again with my backup flash drive (I strongly recommend everyone buying the 2 pack!), however the second flash drive is in a sorry state, with a burn mark on the end - so I suspect it's failure is imminent. My problem is that the license keys are tied to the GUID's of my old failed and failing flash drives. I've gone out and purchased 2 brand new better quality Sandisk Cruzer Flash Drives, and sent a support request last Saturday to ask how I get replacement keys. However I have had no response, other than the copy confirmation of my email enquiry. Is there another process I need to follow to get support? If my second flash disk fails I will without my unRAID! Aaargh - a very scary prospect!
  3. Hi, I've just come back after a long period running 4.2.4 without any issues. I decided to upgrade to stable 4.5.6 so I'm a little more current. However I seem to have a problem. To conserve power, I intentionally built my unRAID Server without a VGA card. This has been working fine in the past. I do have a spare VGA card that I can install if I ever have an issue that requires me to access the server from the console. However for normal use, I have no VGA card installed (reducing power consumption and heat), and I have no keyboard connected. ie. Just a bare minimum network connected black box. However, after upgrading to 4.5.6, my server will no longer boot-up if I do not have my VGA card installed. Basically, without the VGA card installed I see no disk activity, and I cannot network connect as the ethernet interface has presumably not been initialized at the point the boot appears to fail / freeze. With the VGA card installed all works fine, except I have a toasty hot display card unnecessarily using up power. I'm not sure how to diagnose this, as when the system refuses to start up without a VGA card, I have now way to connect to capture a log to see how w2here the boot process has stopped. Any ideas on what to do next, or what may have changed since 4.2.4 that now requires a VGA card to be present for successful boot? Thanks Greg
  4. Hi Flambot, fellow Kiwi here. I started out using the Seagate 500GB SATA drives, and have just made the jump to 750GB in the form of the WD7500AAKS. What triggered me was the price of the WD7500AAKS dropping below NZ$.50/GB. Still more expensive than you can now get the 500GB drives (per GB), but considering I paid NZ$.50+ per GB for the 6x Seagate 500GB drives I have, I'm a happy camper! Reading the various reviews, the WD7500AAKS appears to perhaps be an even better drive than the Seagate 500GB, in terms of noise level and performance. The only negative comment I saw was the relatively higher start-up current, but if you have a decent Power Supply this shouldn't be any major concern. I bought my first WD7500AAKS a couple of weeks ago and swapped out my parity drive (giving me only a 500GB additional data drive from the old parity), but looking forward to adding the next one with a huge 750GB capacity per drive. Assuming I eventually add another 7 drives to my array, this will equate to an extra 1.75TB over what I would have had with the 500GB drives. I don't have the screen in front of me at the moment, but from memory the 750GB WD was actually more than 150% of the formatted capacity of the Seagate 500GB drives. I can check this later, unless someone else has the numbers.
  5. Thanks for the info Tom. Just to clarify though... is the re-scan button truly gone altogether? Not just in regard to writable user shares? ie. If writing to the existing individual drive shares will it also no longer be necessary to "re-scan"? And if so (which is fantastic by the way), I assume the automated process will not reset the user shares network connections like the current "re-scan" button does. ie. So you could be watching a movie (uninterrupted), while completing a write to the unRAID server?
  6. Refer my post over here (with reference link): http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=571.msg3710#msg3710 ie. AHCI has full driver support for SATA features such as NCQ, instead of emulating SATA as a PATA drive. What performance benefit for unRAID is (if any) I have not tried to test, but possibly more significant in terms of hardware support. ie. The single fully functional AHCI driver will likely work with any AHCI compatible controller (eg. The jMicron). Also can't answer the formatting question, although I would not have thought this would affect the existing data on the drive? Can anyone else chime in here?
  7. Thanks for the clarification Tom. I overlooked the kernel change, which of course is a significant change. I would also agree that moving to a later kernel to pick up related bug fixes is a very good move, ahead of adding new features. I would much prefer new features are added to as stable a base as possible, rather than building on wobbly foundations! John: Please have patience, we are all awaiting these new features, I'm sure Tom will release 4.2beta when it is good and ready.
  8. Hi Joe. Just thought I would add my views on the points you raise. I can see what you mean by the version numbering and lack of a beta release, but I would add that this 4.1 release is really no different to the 4.0 final release process in this regard. ie. If you refer to the change log there were 2 changes made between the last 4.0beta release and the subsequent release that was labelled 4.0 final (so what would have happened if there were issues introduced by these 2 'final release' changes?). Ideally a beta release process should continue until there are no reported issues from 'beta' testing, such that the 'final' stable release has only the version number changed from the last beta compile (ie. so no new issues can possibly be introduced). With regard to version numbering, I agree that the change of a minor version number is necessary for these subtle changes to an already released 4.0 final. However, the issue should really be that the more substantial feature enhancements of both 'security' and 'writable user shares' do really warrant a more significant version number increment than just the equivalent release increment used for the subtle changes that produced this 4.1 release increment? Personally, I would have considered the current release as more of a 4.0.1 release, with the 'security' and 'writable shares' additions still being considered a 4.1 release increment. Apologies for rambling Tom, but also being a software developer you tend to focus on these sorts of things.
  9. Hi Tom. You certainly had me rushing over to the forum when I saw the 4.1 thread, thinking security beta yippee! But a big thank you for a very welcome release to provide the 16 drive support for our 6+2 SATA Motherboards. PS: I'm still very keen to know if you are configuring the MD1500 machines for AHCI mode on the SATA ports, as I have done with my P5B-E setup? ie. I don't think I have seen any official comment on whether this is now the preferred / recommended config.
  10. Agreed! Very nice choice of components Tom! I didn't even know about the Asus P5B-VM DO variant motherboard. This is the first VM motherboard I have seen with 6x SATA ICH8DO + 2x JMicron SATA. One step up from the P5B-E that I used, as it comes in a smaller form-factor, includes the on-board video, and uses Intel GigaLAN. Same initial question as Joe... assume you now have 15 (or 16 with eSATA) max drive support available? Also, curious if you are configuring these machines for AHCI mode on the SATA ports, as I have done with my P5B-E setup. Great to see you have also thought to offer a rack mount option, I can see that this will be very popular for business use. Now you just need to get the security implemented, and you will have a huge potential market open up for SMB customers. NB: Also spotted that you have sourced a lime colored USB flash drive! Now, since I live in New Zealand, I'll need to check local parts availability to build my own MD1500, to avoid the killer freight costs to ship one of these pre-built! edit: Hmmm... the international freight on the 'lighter weight' MD1500/LL actually isn't tooo horrific. I just need to fill up my existing unraid server so I can justify an MD1500/LL as my second unraid solution.
  11. Since Tom mentioned he was looking at MediaWiki (hows this progressing Tom?), I thought I would mention that the XBox Media Center wiki is nicely done, and is also based on MediaWiki: http://www.xboxmediacenter.com/wiki Tom, this might provide some ideas for how best to setup an official unRAID wiki section of your website?
  12. Entirely over to you. Personally, I only add a new drive when my last drive is nearly full. This is mainly to spread the cost of my unRAID Server, but also to take advantage of falling HDD prices (since building the Server 2 months ago, that last 500GB drive I bought was $50 cheaper than the first one I bought). I figure at my current rate I am adding a drive a month, so I guess I'll be building a second unRAID server in about a year. A related observation is that the top priority unRAID development seems to be writable Shares. At first I thought this was a good idea, but in practice I prefer to write data to a specific drive (via a hidden write share), and make my 'User Shares' read-only for other home users to access. The thought of writing a DVD folder backup via writable users shares, and having different files withing the folder ending up on different drives does not appeal to me. I would prefer to dictate which drive I am putting each collection of related files onto (so they are all in one place). As I fill up each drive before moving onto the next, this is not an inconvenience. It probably comes down to what you are using unRAID for, but in my view there does not appear to be any real need for Writable User Shares for the primary intended unRAID purpose of a media archive storage server. My vote would probably therefore go to adding Security as the top priority. ie. So we could password protect selected folder shares etc. and also individual select which folders were published or hidden.
  13. Thanks, but as already noted in my post above:
  14. Hmmm... this post seems to be related to this question: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=505.msg4266#msg4266
  15. For what it's worth, I rip the whole DVD to hard drive, using either DVD Decryptor or AnyDVD, and then using PowerDVD to playback by just pointing to the 'movie from hard drive folder' option to playback exactly as the original disc would have. I then pack my DVD's away in a box to save shelf space and preserve them! Given the relatively low cost of storage these days, a typical DVD is only about 7GB, meaning you can fit about 70 on a 500GB drive. So your 700 DVD's would consume about 10 drives (11 with parity). Or to put it another way, given that there are also many DVD's that are less than 7GB, a full 500GB based 14 drive unRAID server, could hold around 1000 full DVD images. The other way to put this DVD storage space in context, is that newer High Definition content takes up significantly more space than even a full DVD image. Even a recorded HDTV movie is typically a 10-12GB+ transport stream file, and if you were thinking of future HD DVD / BD, then you are looking at 20-25GB or even ~45GB per movie!