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....

Remove all the array aspects of the web UI. Remove any of the associated array jobs like mover and what not -- like removed from the configs and files in the OS. I know I could disable these myself but my thought is a light weight version of unRAID would take care of it all.

Yes, I know. I feel like I didn't do a good job of explaining. I know you can do what I'm explaining with unRAID. But I still feel there is a use for a cleaner configuration. Just a managed Linux installation with a webUI and with container and VM support. IMHO

Yes. I know. But I still think there would be use/demand for a version that just mounts disks as normal disks, no pools, parity, cache, etc. I know you can disable all that but folks like me wouldn't mind a "cleaner" setup.

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.

No. The more I read, the more I realized how many complications can arise and I didn't want that stress. But I did read that you basically create virtual NICs in the VM.

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.

Thanks. I guess I need to get a PSU too now. Fun times. Thanks for your help.

Oh. I'm not sure what all that means. So I shouldn't get an AMD GPU?

So I have to buy a VGA card. Now to find an inexpensive low profile DisplayPort video card that works with unRAID for passing through to a Windows 10 VM. I haven't had to buy a VGA card in 20+ years.

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?

This could work but I feel like there must be a way to create a virtual NIC in unraid that plugs into a virtual NIC on the VM.

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!

Ah. So I can disable "Array status" in "Available notifications" and as long as I still have "Warnings" and "Alerts" enabled under "Notification entity" then I will get notifications for array issues?

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?

The plugin is showing errors were found but there is nothing there. Not sure what is wrong?

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.

I created a Docker container for it but it has some issues. https://github.com/imthenachoman/unraid-templates/issues/2

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.

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.

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.