IMTheNachoMan
Members-
Posts
140 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Store
Gallery
Bug Reports
Documentation
Landing
Everything posted by IMTheNachoMan
-
Yes. I get that. But I'm saying there are folks like me that would appreciate a super slim version that doesn't even have references/code for the other stuff. It boots, auto mounts disks to standard mount points, and that's it. No storage management. Just containers + VMs. But, now that I think about it, I'm thinking this might require more than a few code changes to unRAID core....
-
unRAID is quite powerful. The more I use it and the more I read about other products, the more I see how uniquely positioned unRAID is. While unRAID is primarely meant for storage, I think there is a good use-case for a version of unRAID that isn't heavy on storage features but still retains containers + VM feature (with passthrough capabilities). Imagine you wanted a server to run containers + VMs on. Say it has disk for storage. Right now you don't have a lot of good options: Proxmox containers are LXC and many Docker containers won't work out of the box You could install Linux directly but then you have to manage the OS like updates, securing, etc... You don't have these problems with unRAID. Yes, I know you can just use unRAID as-is but all the array stuff would be unnecessary bulk for this use-case. It would be cool if there was a version of unRAID that didn't have the array features, but still had everything else. Just a thought. I feel like if a version of unRAID like this existed, it might be a promising option for folks who don't need/want all the storage features.
-
Unraid tweaks for Media server performance?
IMTheNachoMan replied to casperse's topic in User Customizations
I feel like RAM transcoding was popular when HDDs were more prevalent? -
Were you able to get this to work? I am thinking of getting a P400 for passthrough to a Windows 10 VM and I'm trying to figure out if it'll work.
-
I have an HP ProDesk 600 G4 SFF I use for unRAID. It has an i5-8500 and 32 GB RAM. It does not have an external GPU -- I am using the integrated UHD Graphics 630. Right now I am running a few containers. One of them is Plex and I use the Intel Quick Sync of the GPU/UHD for HW transcoding. I want to use the machine as a primary desktop running Windows 10 for online surfing, bills, some light HTML/JS/CSS development. I'm not gaming on it. I know I can pass through the GPU but then will HW transcoding for Plex still work? Or is there a way to get my desired configuration working without an external GPU?
-
One configuration mistake, or some issue, and you could write gigs to a log file. It depends on the log file. You generally never want to write logs to a boot folder/partition/drive.
-
My unRAID box has 2x ethernet ports that are passed through to a pfSense VM. One port is for WAN and connected to my FIOS ONT One port is for LAN and connected to a switch Everything works as expected. But I can't figure out how to connect to unRAID through my network? I assume I need to create some kind of virtual NIC connecting the unRAID host and the pfSense VM but I'm not sure how to do that?
-
Logs can take up a lot of space and hammer a lot of writes -- which isn't great for a USB stick. My scripts make a copy of the latest log files, as I need them, to my storage.
-
I see. So what you're telling me is I am an idiot. So sorry. Thank you!
-
I did read the help. The way I interpreted: Available notifications = the different things you can get notifications for Notification entity = the types of notifications you want for the different things you can get notifications for So how do I configure it to give me array status notifications only if there was an error/failure. Does that make sense?
-
-
I am trying to configure notifications such that I only get array status notifications for warnings/alerts/errors/failures/issues/etc. I don't want the green notice ones. How can I do that? In my screenshot, I have `Array status` to on but I have `notices` disabled under `Notification entity`. But that does not seem to work. I'm not sure what I am missing.
-
Is anyone running a persistant rclone Web GUI in Unraid?
IMTheNachoMan replied to IMTheNachoMan's topic in General Support
I created a Docker container for it but it has some issues. https://github.com/imthenachoman/unraid-templates/issues/2 -
Feedback: Use new thread for each Docker container issue
IMTheNachoMan replied to IMTheNachoMan's topic in Forum Feedback
And that is fine -- that it works for you. I was sharing feedback that it doesn't work for me. And I'm nothing special or unique. If it doesn't work for me then there are other folks like me that it doesn't work for. I understand if nobody wants to make the change because there aren't enough folks like me -- that's just how it is when you're in the minority group. But I wanted to raise the feedback so others who feel like me can chime in -- that would give a true sense of what majority vs minority opinion. -
Feedback: Use new thread for each Docker container issue
IMTheNachoMan replied to IMTheNachoMan's topic in Forum Feedback
Fair. But I also think the current way results in less members willing to help out where they can cause they have to figure out what comment goes to what in a multi-page thread. I will be honest, I personally can probably help a lot of folks with some of the questions they have but I don't have time to read through multiple pages to see who said what, why, etc... The way other support forums do it, from what I've seen, is by using tags or prefixing post titles using some standard so you can filter on what you care about. Or is it possible to create sub-sub forums specific for each Docker conainer? Or take Docker container support off of Unraid forums and to their GitHub repo or something? GitHub issues kinda makes more sense to me anyway. -
Feedback: Use new thread for each Docker container issue
IMTheNachoMan replied to IMTheNachoMan's topic in Forum Feedback
Could just use tags or container name as prefix for submission title? I think the issue is that Unraid forums are probably not the best place to manage support threads.