gubbgnutten

Looks like Disk 1 was formatted (mkfs.xfs on Jun 15 10:36:56), i.e. an empty file system written. Pretty sure that was not part of the guide...

All fixed Thanks! Sounds promising I'll be away from my server for quite some time, but given that your WebUI snippets looked extremely familiar I'm sure it is solved now.

Updated, rescanned, still get the warning. Running 6.2.0-beta21, CrashPlan probably added while running 6.1.9 if that matters. The syslog is much neater now in this version. Could be even neater if it handled special characters though, "unRaid's built in FTP server is running" looks a bit webby and out of place. Edit: To clarify, what is in the syslog is ampersand#39;

Really... I installed crashplan to test that... I'll look further Edit. Did you guys rescan? Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk Rescanned and even rebooted and rescanned.

Awesome! I really appreciate your work and your major contributions to the community I am now able to ignore the FTP Server warning, and the pop-up makes perfect sense, yay! The Docker webUI warning is still there, though (as noted by MyKroFt while typing this). From the syslog it looks like the differences lie in a leading space before http and two & uses (confirmed with template xmls): The webUI the author specified is http://[iP]:[PORT:4280]/vnc.html?autoconnect=true&host=[iP]&port=[PORT:4280] and the webUI you are using is http://[iP]:[PORT:4280]/vnc.html?autoconnect=true&host=[iP]&port=[PORT:4280].

No pop-up generated for the FTP Server warning, thanks for looking into it. Identical behaviour (or lack thereof) for me in Safari and Chrome. I normally use AdBlock in Safari but set to be disabled for the unRAID web UI, and I have also tried disabling it completely. Please let me know if there is anything I can test or log to assist. When clicking on the "Ignore Warning" button, the console in Chrome outputs the error FixProblems:1 Uncaught SyntaxError: Unexpected token ILLEGAL ...and in Safari: SyntaxError: Unexpected EOF (anonymous function) FixProblems:1 As for consistency: Clicking the "Ignore Warning" button for my Docker webUI warning generates a pop-up with a big fat label "Ignore Error?" and in the regular text there is "Are you sure you want to ignore this error:". Had a quick look at the code over lunch and I think I know what's going on with no pop-up and that error. And far as the font size on the pop up, one is the title and the other is a description. Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk Sounds promising. Yes, it is quite obvious that one is the title and the other one part of the description. But they both use the word "error" in the pop-up even though it was a warning that is to be ignored...

No pop-up generated for the FTP Server warning, thanks for looking into it. Identical behaviour (or lack thereof) for me in Safari and Chrome. I normally use AdBlock in Safari but set to be disabled for the unRAID web UI, and I have also tried disabling it completely. Please let me know if there is anything I can test or log to assist. When clicking on the "Ignore Warning" button, the console in Chrome outputs the error FixProblems:1 Uncaught SyntaxError: Unexpected token ILLEGAL ...and in Safari: SyntaxError: Unexpected EOF (anonymous function) FixProblems:1 As for consistency: Clicking the "Ignore Warning" button for my Docker webUI warning generates a pop-up with a big fat label "Ignore Error?" and in the regular text there is "Are you sure you want to ignore this error:".

Looks like a false positive... IIRC the template has instead of & in it & and I'll have to account for that. Nothing changes on the screen when you ignore any error. But, the next time it runs a scan (or if you manually run rescan), it will move it down to the ignored section (thinking about changing how the ignore button works however) The only real thing that ignore does is it won't trigger any notifications for it. I'll have to look at the FTP code, as IIRC it shouldn't give that error if you don't have any valid users set up. Thanks for looking into it, this will be an immensely useful plugin. I do have a valid FTP user set up, hence "as expected" for the warning. The problem is that I can't ignore the warning... I really meant that nothing at all* happens when I click the "Ignore Warning" button for the FTP Server error. The warning is still there on a rescan, as well as after a reboot and rescan. Given that the "Ignore Warning" button for the Docker webUI warning produces a popup asking me if I'm sure I want to ignore it, I would expect the FTP Server "Ignore Warning" button to produce a similar popup as well. It would also be nice to have some consistency regarding "Warning" and "Error". Things can get really confusing if something is first listed as a warning and then suddenly is regarded an error. Edit: Case in point - I didn't even manage to stay consistent within this post * Aside from the button turning green when the mouse hovers over it and visualising presses like any other clicked button in the UI.

Confused member of the "ton of people" group reporting in from 6.2.0-beta21, getting a warning about my gfjardim/crashplan docker webUI that I might be too blind to make sense of The webUI the author specified is http://[iP]:[PORT:4280]/vnc.html?autoconnect=true&host=[iP]&port=[PORT:4280] and the webUI you are using is http://[iP]:[PORT:4280]/vnc.html?autoconnect=true&host=[iP]&port=[PORT:4280]. Additionally I get a warning for using the built in FTP server (as expected). The server is not exposed to the outside world, no ports forwarded/DMZ, so I want to ignore the warning but unfortunately I can't figure out how to do that. Pushing the "Ignore Warning" button won't do anything at all for the FTP server warning, neither in Safari nor in Chrome. The corresponding button for the Docker warning on the other hand brings up an "Ignore Error?" dialogue, so at least some ignore buttons react

Are you sure it was unRAID and not some plugin?

I've used the Synology DS2415+ and DS1815+ very effectively with Macintoshes for broadcast quality editing in my professional life. They are surprisingly good. I wasn't bashing prebuilt NAS units, I was saying that I find it unlikely that they handle a particular situation both unRAID and FreeNAS failed to handle. All prebuilt NAS units I'm aware of use the same open source components as everyone else for the relevant parts...

Try option 2 before option 3 if it comes to that. If FreeNAS has the same problem as you experience on unRAID, it is highly unlikely that a prebuilt NAS would fare any better...

If you find something that works, I hope you let us know what it is. Maybe we can figure out the difference and what makes it work then for future users.

If I had a syslog, i would have posted it... the server has rebooted since this issue happened... this is why I posted the 2 SMART reports... Well, sorry for not being a qualified mind reader. I'm working on it, but I'm starting to think that the course is not completely legit At least you now know that you should try to grab diagnostics (not only the syslog) before rebooting if you encounter problems in the future. Good luck with the troubleshooting.

See Need help? Read me first! and post diagnostics.

Windows doesn't know anything about the actual remote file system on the server, it relies on information passed to it over the network connection. Could be a problem in Samba, in Windows and/or with the SMB specification, haven't bothered to investigate. But yes, all good then.

That would, at least for me, be the most convenient way to check. If I wanted to check the disk usage of the Pictures folder in the Personal share to compare it against numbers from Windows, i would run: du -h -s /mnt/user/Personal/Pictures/ For those of us who prefer sane SI units rather than irrelevant base 2 units, replace -h with --si. For more information about options, run: du --help

Yeah, I don't want to back up to a cloud subscription service, but rather another NAS. Can rsync be set up with a GUI interface in a docker app, or is the standard way to set it up as a bash script using cron for scheduling? If both NAS can run crashplan you don't need the cloud subscription service, you can backup NAS to NAS. Granted, a rsync solution would make the files directly accessible on the other NAS without going through crashplan' software.

No panic, it is most likely just the reporting that is wrong. The numbers are perfectly in line with a common Samba/Windows problem. Pretty sure a check directly on the server would result in more reasonable numbers. Any particular reason for 6.1.6?

Sounds like a great idea, will be interesting to follow. No time to test it right now, though...

If there is a next time, grab diagnostics before rebooting (or shutting down).

Those are attempts to gain access through SSH and Telnet. You really should put the server behind a firewall without any ports forwarded to it from the Internet.

The complete zip would be convenient.

I think you should start your own thread. And, no, your idea would not work.

Can I just run the repair tool without rebuilding? Just thought - let's say I copy over a not-so-important file and the drive drops - presumably would cause an error prompt. Then I notice a disk has gone unmountable. Since I know the lost file isn't that important, should I simply run the repar tool instead of waiting for 2 days worth of slow rebuild? There is no need to rebuild a disk before attempting file system repair, file system repairs can be made to emulated disks. Keep in mind that rebuilding a disk won't repair the file system, it will just recreate the emulated disk identically on a physical disk. If the disk is unmountable before the rebuild, it will be unmountable after the rebuild. Regarding your thought, the short answer is "No!". Repairing the file system on the unmountable disk might bring that one back, but the disabled disk is still out of sync with the array and needs, as you have been told, to be rebuilt. In all seriousness, if a disk gets disabled when you write to it and another one goes unmountable, you most likely have hardware problems that will make you lose data whatever you do...