lars

thx for your response mate. i am aware that xbmcbuntu is a streamlined os. my main concern, based on the post i used as a starting point, is more in terms of not getting 'hung up' on special need cases as plugins for the unraid web gui, but instead offering the 'average user' (including me ) an easy way to get a vm on the start. from there one can install ALL the needed/ wanted programs fairly painless. i am sure the community here will offer in no time all kind of 'special need' packages. but, to keep unraid in the ranks of an easy to use nas/ media storage alternative with extended possibilities i think it needs to focus on the 'average user's' capabilities. if the use of unraid to it's full capabilities requires a to steep learning curve, you drive ppl away from using it. with other words, you want to create an environment for new users to be set up with a functioning unraid/ vm environment in an easy way. from there they can install all of their favorite 'extensions' painlessly. kind of it was with the unraid/ plugin way, but with the much safer, potentially more stable for the whole system opportunities xen offers. like in my case, i don't mind the xbmc option at all - it is sth i would use. but at the same time i have good use (for various reasons) for subsonic. which would be the second vm installed by me. subsonic for unraid dev is on a stall this days. so to be able to use it, i would want a linux (my pref.) etc. os install without streamlining for a specific app. this os should be (ideally) install-able from the gui without major research from my end. same would be true for many other uses. i hope i made my reasoning for an unmodified os install from the web gui a little more clear. cheers, L

IMHO I think this move is counter-productive to unRAID. Adding VM support is great, but if you're competing with your QNAS, Synology and etc out there then the average home user just wants a simple plugin system where he can find a repository and just click install. From what I am reading, VMs are a long way from that simplicity. Instead of making the home NAS+Apps server segment more open to unRAID, you seem to be shutting it down. unRAID still needs a solid plugin framework for it be a player in the SOHO market. Maybe nicinabox's tools are the answer, or maybe it's Docker. Dunno. How about if there is a plugin manager and one of your options is "Install XBMCbuntu in a VM"? hi all! i just getting myself started on the whole xen story. reading alot, here on the forum as well as at the xen website. have to say, my head is kinda spinning ! i am more the hardware guy, that's all cool. when it comes to the software part, well i have to study, ask questions, research..... i am still confident i will get my head wrapped around the whole xen story finally. but i would agree with some ppl here, saying it is rather beyond 'average user' knowledge. and there we get to: "How about if there is a plugin manager and one of your options is "Install XBMCbuntu in a VM"?" - there i think you get lost in specific use cases again. the better thing would be: how about install ubuntu (just as example) from the plugin mgr? shouldn't it be easy, once the vm is installed to install any kind of apps in it? if i am wrong there, plz correct me! but that's my understanding of the matter so far. so, the way should be: from unraid gui - install ubuntu or windows or centos etc (maybe with more packages to load) to a working vm. and from there users can install whatever software they want. just a thought, as said before, i still try to figure out the whole xen possibilities. thx for your time and patience, lars

just came across this thread rite now. since there was some demand for 2 port sata cards, i thought i put up my experience with IO Crest 2 Port SATA III PCI-Express x1 Card (SY-PEX40039) cards. using 2 of them at the moment. actually for nearly a year now. so far no probs at all - and for less than $20 a piece hard to beat. performance (not thoroughly tested) is completely ok for day to day use - i guess on parity checks etc. it could be better. but thats really not my main concern. have to watch the cash more, not the benchmarks on secondary issues. has a 4 of 5 stars from me. dropped them in, they work (better than expected), no probs with multiple ones....

download went just fine (about 30sec) even here in jamaica. installing 2morrow... have to get off the computer and get some sleep. cheers, L

first of all, i don't know it would be still valid... second, if you are not able to do a simple google search for it - you really don't deserve it i mean, really... google it! can't find it? you must be one of the mentally challenged netusers and should pay full price! don't take it as an insult.... but..... greetz. L

it is actually pretty good explained in the wiki, what happens if you use shares. if shares ould be off you would be still able to check on the contents of each drive. GUI - folders for each drive... sorry, with your link i (or anybody else) can look at your settings m8! thats your internal (your home network link). you would have to add a screenshot of it. anyway, my guess (i am by far not an expert here) is you are using the "waterfall" (high -water) setting. so do i. nothing wrong with it! but basically that means, one drive is filled to a certain percentage it starts to write files to another drive. all stays within the share and file structure within that share. in "share view" all should look just normal as a folder structure. it is just 'spread out' over several hdd's, according to your share config/ settings. if you want to keep things on one hdd you need to alter your share settings or disable them completely to use a straight forward hdd by hdd approach. once again i suggest spending some time with the wiki. some of the concepts in there need a little time and relaxation to wrap your head around. was the same for me not so long ago. but end of the day, nobody can really make you understanding this basic concepts. throw everybody out, put some good music on, for god sake - have a reefer, re-read this sections carefully and let it sink in! you have a server with 15hdd's - it is about high time to understand the basic principles to set them up to your advantage m8!!! cheers, L

reading to the whole thread, first of all - sorry for your loss. i know how it feels lessons learned should be: if you change a modular psu, you disconnect on the receiving end (hdd, mobo, etc), leave cables connected to psu and take it out. put far away! than new psu in and rewire with provided cables. only exception, replace psu with same model (sometimes model series - research required!) - you disconnect on psu, new one in and reconnect. as for the backup theories, if you actually have all the dvd's/ br-disks etc. - thats your backup. i really dont see a point in having another set of hdd's as backup in your case (it's a lot of cash as well) plus hdd's dont get better by sitting around unused. i went away from this kind of backup a while ago. used to have hdd backups sitting for extended time periods around (well backup!), when i connected them to install, they had issues to even spin up! generally hdd's dont seem to take extended periods of inactivity to well. just my 2c by experience. you had also the super GAU (well thats german for Grösster Anzunehmender Unfall = Biggest Assumable Incident). i run 2 unraid server, one is my "production" server, number 2 my more or less identical backup/ sandbox. means one is on stable versions, number two gets used for testing new versions etc. of unraid while basically mirroring the server 1 contents. one is sitting right here in the basement, the other one at our beach house. so kinda great setup with reasonable rebuild capacity on each site plus remote location backup. i still look forward to the potential 2+ parity drive option for the next unraid version. it will keep one more at ease. than again in your case it would have done more or less jacksh*t. anyway, for the money you where looking at for drive recovery services - you could have a second backup unraid server running from the beginning m8 something to think about for the future.... greetz, L

first of all i recommend reading up on unraid configuration in the wiki (http://lime-technology.com/wiki/index.php/UnRAID_Wiki). second, you would have to provide a little information about your current setup for anybody to help you. like do you use shares etc. cheers, L

ahh, finally we have a 5.0 without the rc!!! nice job m8! it was time... or we could have suffered to more rc's like 5rc69a in 2020 runs nice and stable on my main server, the backup server i still fiddling around with subsonic and any version after rc15a anyway, great job m8!!!! now take a break and afterwards lets shoot for 5.0-64

basically what i said, give us a solid v5. i understand the documentation part and agree. being at 5rc16c and running solid should make a final, without further tinkering around. stop the insanity now, document it and thats it. works for me so far solid with 12 storage drives. only prob i had lately was a subsonic glitch, thats the plugin guys prob to sort out, not tom's. i basically say, stop scr**ing around, finish v5 and lets move on to much needed new stuff - like 64bit, multiple parity drives etc.... incorporate the good features of sf in the new version properly from the beginning. with 6rc1 we will start a new long development, allowing for all this playing around. i got myself into unraid instead of flexraid, free nas and the likes because it looked like a booming community with a straight forward development towards better, safer, flexible storage. at the moment i am not so sure if the focus on this principles got a little lost. i run my server in order to keep my data save, not to salivate about gui's. thats a nice side-feature. maybe for some ppl it is more about the: i installed it first on my server with no data and made it work.... or the opposite - i installed it, it doesnt work with my 99 plugins.... tom, it works! all was fine! finalize and move on! regards, L ps: sorry for the blow-up!!!

generally a big thumbs up for all the work on unraid, but... -was it really necessary to start the sf - unraid merge at this point? we looked finally at sth that could have been THE v5! now the whole hassle starts again to fix the 6439 million probs resulting from the gui merge!!!! i mean, really??? why not just release v5 and keep that for v6? i see the potential advantages and so on. i thought we are going towards a 64bit version with the next evolution stage. i assume it will be even more cr*p to sort out from 5rc16c-SF evolution and it's now needed fixes to the next 6rc1-64 stage incl sf. dont get me wrong, i like unraid for my media server, i appreciate sf for the extended funktionality, BUT at the moment it seems we are looking (close to a final stable version) at new unneeded experiments! therefore poss. dragging out the actual advancement to new really exciting features even longer. really, just stop this madness (let the system software for the sake of system software fanboys daddle around for a while on there own) and move on!!!! get working on v6 with 64bit support, integrated sf features. hell, take a week or two to work the basics out and go from there! at the moment it is no progress at all - unraid looks a little cuter, the sf functions dont work for a good part. FOCUS! pull a f***ing line and say that is v5! we are moving on to new exiting versions. the other guys are not sleeping on unraid-like systems, more focused this days and on the way to pull ahead in advanced features! my 2c greets, L

dude, it never helps anybody else to finally post sth like "i got it working" or "finally sorted it out" etc... just post what you actually did with sth like "now it's working" / or simply post your solution and set the thread to 'solved' extremely annoying to pump ppl's brains and once it works not letting anybody know what did it! bad etiquette. cheers, L

anyway, still wondering about others having this prob. i still do for that reason still on 15a at the moment. cheers, L

you trying to disks or shares? had my screw-ups with shares and wrong settings early on with unraid... guess not reading all the wiki stuff . anyway, plz clarify. makes a difference! cheers, L

i don't expect unraid to be updated/ changed based on the subsonic issue m8! i was just wondering if it is just me affected. since it looks like an issue writing data to the cache drive (at least for subsonic), maybe others experience the same prob with different apps and so on. for that the subsonic thread would be the wrong place, wouldnt it!? harder to find ppl that may experience similar issues with other apps/ ext. you need to come from your hostile negative trip mate . i offered to install all the stuff again, to get data on the issue. i am aware (even if i am sure not the only subsonic user) that unraid will not be modified to my personal liking! i am not posting here to complain senselessly, but to address a potential issue. maybe others with subsonic plug-in and rc16c have no prob at all (would be good to know - i would have to do even more research whats wrong on my server), maybe others with diff. plug-ins have the same problem (tells it is loaded and installed, but no writing to cache drive at all...), many options.... you could have just said have plug-in x, y, z installed - running rc16c - no problem. that would be helpful mate. or tell meto send log whatever, file whatever (i am not a unraid or slackware wizzard) to get a better idea... anyway, no bad feelings. i am sure you look at your share of bs complaints and so on.... and it kinda s*cks. i will get later on into the (this days not very active - yes i actually checked this time before i posted ) subsonic specific threads and see what might be new. but my request was not just subsonic specific, more general question if ppl see probs with plug-ins and 16c. so i hope youre not offended, all is good from my end... respect, L

to detail it a little more, it seemed like no data was written to the subsonic directory on the cache drive. but during startup the server claimed subsonic as successfully started. even under 16b some weird behavior was noted. like showing new versions in the header bar, which is switched off does not appear under 15a. over the weekend i am happy and willing to install each version again (15a, 16b & 16c) for log files, if that helps. tonite i have to run out in a couple minutes and have no time for that. so let me know. is the least i can do to help. greetz. L

ok, got a earlier minor issue fixed by upgrading from 16b to 16c. the server was running just fine with 16c, but suddenly subsonic (jangjong4.7) would be not anymore available under rc16c. it was running without probs on 16b. when checking it did not cvreate any directories on the cache disk. reverted back to 15a, all back to normal. tried also 16b again shortly, no prob with subsonic again. so i assume, whatever other changes were made between 16b and 16c are affecting (at least) subsonic to the non-operational point. sf seems to be fine. thats the only apps/ extensions i run on this server, others might be affected as well. any feedback of others experiencing the same prob would be nice + tom would get an idea what went against the wall (if it is not only my server) with this rc. greetz, L

ok that did it. thx again for fast reply and semi-patience greetz, L

ok thx for the fast reply!!!! sorry that i didn't even check the new version d/l and release thread first. just upgraded to 16b last night and was not really expecting a new rc by today anyway, will upgrade to it in a short while and see what happens. thx, L

hi, thanx for all the efforts bringing unraid5 towards a final version! anyway, sth i noticed since installing 16b - one of my user shares includes 6 hdd's totaling 17tb. now up to 15a it showed roughly 8.5tb as free. since installing 16b it shows 2.5tb as free. basically ignoring 2 hdd's completely (both of them are completely empty at this point - maybe thats the reason?) showing only the combined free space of the already used drives. the drives are part of the user share and accessible. wondering if that is some glitch in 16b!? thats actually the matter in the web-gui as well as the properties of my desktop shortcut properties. anybody else noticed that/ or is it just me) regards, L

+1 for jbartlett's and dgaschk's tips!!! also, it helps immensely to kinda analyze your prob in the first place and afterwards post, instead of #1: im freaking out..., #2: just noticed..., #3: noticed also... .... nobody can really help you that way, you running more chances ppl get annoyed and ignore your posts. i can see freaking out when you see all drives unassigned. but keep your pants on! you just upgraded the unraid software, shit might be happen... nothing is lost yet! send a complete as poss. problem description. and give it a little time for ppl to respond. always backup your old usb-stick completely!!! makes it easy to reverse stuff happen during upgrades! also keep in mind, all 5.xx releases are still 'release candidates' - that's better than beta, but not perfect. potential probs are a real possibility. if you wanna play it save, you should stay with the stable version. also, if you don't have the luxury of a 'sandbox' unraid server - give it a day or two to see what others with that luxury (or the daredevil attitude) have to say about potential issues with a new release! being at rc15a it generally should be pretty save, if you have a huge (not otherwise backed up) media library... you playing with fire and should realize the potential consequences. happy it all worked out for you, was just my general 2 cents regards, Lars

that was it, thanks!!!

hi all, short question about moving directories with command line. i basically need to move some files and directories from a array drive which is not part of a user share into a user share. now, trying that with mv /dir/ subdir /share/dir i get a error saying share is not a directory. i understand the logic behind it, but what is the "secret" command to make it happen? thx in advance, L

have to agree that a 3tb hdd as cache is complete overkill - unless you move enormous amounts of data every day. rather set your mover to kick in more often, use a 250gb or 500gb hdd you might have collecting dust and add the 3tb to your data array! my 2c, L

may i suggest you spend some time (which would be way more helpful on other matters) to just 're-create' a 'vintage' gui for yourself and the huge community demanding this particular feature!? i personally give a damn how the gui looks, as long as it is logical and covers the needs. generally i don't see it!!! well, once it is all set up and running fine... i don't see that for weeks on end. if i see it (means usually changes or probs) i give another damn how it looks, but once again, need a logical interface to sort my prob. as far as i am concerned it could be in green on red unaligned info by lines and check boxes/ textfields, as long as it brings a advantage in usability. the best unraid server is the one that is set up, disappears in a closet (or like in my case the basement) and is only seen to add drives/ other hardware while running rock solid and do what it is supposed to do... store and serve all kinds of data while being reasonable secure concerning hardware issues. 64bit will be a nice evolution, going along with technology in general and open up new possibilities for hardware and software in terms of speed, added features & hardware etc. i personally look forward to it. not expecting to much initially but in the longer run (with third party plugins) it should allow for all kind of emerging technologies (without the 'vintage' gui for me personally ) L