xokia

Anyone know if any utilities exist that work with UPS backup batteries? Unraid parity dislikes just about everything but it really hates being shut down abruptly. Most of these Cyberpower backups have a USB cable that connects to the PC they are connected to. Which will then tell the PC to gracefully shut down during a power outage. Any such support exist in unraid apps?

/mnt/user/appdata/nextcloud/nginx/site-confs/default.conf add_header X-Robots-Tag "noindex, nofollow, nosnippet, nofollow" always; I also have it in the swag nginx container Any clue why I still get this?

Kinda curious was the option to eliminate the lower tiers and just sell pro licenses at the prior pricing model considered? If I just think of OS costs. New pricing structure has unraid costing more then WIN11. We are all kinda guessing here as we do not know the percentage of customers are at which version of unraid. But could the problem have been solved moving everyone up?

Not sure I understand the ZFS direction either. But maybe the see demand from somewhere they think will bring in the dollars.

Might help if they implemented an actual cache drive. For unraid with the new pricing structure folks are going to expect features JMO. Which to date they have been fairly slow at rolling out. Maybe that improves, but if they think it will business as usual I think they are in for a rude awakening. There are going to be the die hard fans that unraid can do no wrong. But if we are actually honest with ourselves new pricing is going to cause a serious eval of whether a home user thinks the features provided justify the added cost. It would be a no for me. And nothing against unraid its fairly decent software. The fragility of parity and no real cache drive support are concerns in my book that would have me weighing other options.

Your examples are providing new content every month. Patches while important do not rise to that level JMO. A patch is a fix to a hole that never should have existed. Unraid feature wise that is something an individual user would need to decide. If new features have come out I am unaware of them. I think the last major feature was ZFS support which I do not use. I do not know how much unraid is used in the commercial environment. To me it doesnt seem like it is feature rich enough to be popular in the commercial market. Seems more of a consumer grade product but maybe I am wrong. I do not see people complaining. Just folks that are current customers expressing if they would be a customer under the new pricing scheme. Whether the new pricing scheme is successful or not only time will tell. I wish the unraid team nothing but success.

This is what drives folks to open source software (but maybe not sell a perpetual license to begin with?). From a business perspective I get it. These folks do work to provide updates. No one wants to work for free. I guess we will see how it goes. I'll be building another system in the next month or so but after discovering this thread it wont be unraid. And not a hit against unraid but I'd rather bite the bullet and just switch early. You are discussing how a company chooses to categorize its products. The customer doesn't care how YOU categorize it. The customer cares how it affects their bottom line. If it has a reoccurring fee its a subscription. You can try and convince your customer until you are blue in the face its not a subscription. Most likely they will just get annoyed with you and move on.

Slice it any way you want its a subscription. Other SW venders have a similar model, updates end and your SW still works you just no longer get improvements. I know for sure I wouldn't even have messed with unraid. I wont mention who I would have gone with as that is a bit tacky on a vendors page. But there are other "freeware" options out there that are just as capable. I was running one of them and was overall happy. I switched because I thought there was an issue with at the time a 13900 running on their SW. The linux kernel was newer on unraid. Turned out to be a HW issue (motherboard) that for some reason ran slightly better on unraid but did eventually pop up under unraid. I could have gone back after discovering the real issue but was overall happy with the forum support on unraid. And I dont mind supporting decent SW development. Subscriptions are just a no go for me though. They can quickly get out of hand once you start adding them all up. Plus I am allergic to subscription models 😄

One of the reasons some of us moved to home labs, to avoid cloud based subscriptions fees. I'll throw my $.02 in as a user for under a year. At the new pricing model I likely would NOT have been a customer. I purchased a pro license when only needing the lower tier license (currently have 5 drives) just to support the folks making the SW. I however would have purchased none of the licenses if it required an annual fee. I am allergic to subscription based models. The proof will be in the pudding. Either new customers will flee or grumble and accept it. Maybe with the new pricing model they can afford to implement a real cache drive? Maybe some ECC protection on parity so it doesn't dump the parity drive on error? Currently failures tend to be catastrophic to parity which weakens the value of the feature JMO.

Going to bump this one. I know unraid is not a firewall but you are telling folks to go buy a cheap router as the solution? Cheap routers have vulnerabilities. Heck even expensive ones do. Just curious of how you folks think sticking a router in front of unraid is providing the needed security? If you forward any ports from the router to unraid then unraid is at risk. It would be nice if Unraid had some kind of protection or monitoring capability. Any docker/VM suggestions?

Changed the board the parity drive is attached to from a JMB 582 to a JMB 585 that has a heat sink attached. Will see if that fixes the issue. Should know in a month or two.

I'd be fine with any solution that helped debug.

Sorry since you are an unraid "moderator" assumed maybe incorrectly you were part of the unraid team. I am rebuilding the parity. This issue isnt something that shows up in a day or two. Tha last parity failure was almost a month ago so I'd need to leave syslog running. I haven't found a reliable way to do that long term.

No unfortunately you folks only have that set so it can only go to the OS drive and that tends to corrupt the OS drive so I no longer do that. It would be awesome if you folks enabled that so you could send the syslog to a separate USB drive. I would leave it always set.

I believe the parity disk is attached to an IO crest 582 board if that matters. I ordered a JMB585 with heatsink. Not sure that matters. Should be here Thursday, its something to try I guess since I am getting random failures. Its always the parity drive that fails. These are relatively new 20TB seagate exos drives (around 6 months old)

I actually have that already installed

ok so this is the second time parity has failed with unraid. Nothing apparent was wrong no error indicators. What I noticed was when I went to go write to one of my drives it said it was locked and writing was not possible. So I reset the system. It reboots and says parity disabled. 1 day prior it ran a parity check and everything was good. In fact it still says parity valid. Howver parity is obviously not valid since the parity disc is disabled. Smart check doesn't show anything out of the ordinary. There should have been no writes to any of these drives when the failure happened as everything is cached on a 1TB SSD and only writes to the drives when 60% full. ST20000NM007D-20240312-2049.txt

ummmmm.......... if its in the log file did the OS not write out the error to the log file? OR maybe what you are inferring here is the underlining Linux kernel is writing the error message. And all "unraid" knows is some error occurred. I would think some sub routine would be useful here. Pause array, self diagnostic, output results of diagnostic determine if offlining array is appropriate and then give some message with the results of that diagnostic.

Why not include the information in the log in the error message is the question? Why must the user dig into the logs? The OS created the error message the OS knows the information. Give the user a meaningful message (I know this is easier said then done). I would think some error threshold had to be met before off lining a drive. One write fails offline a drive is the solution? How does that help me? I would think multiple attempts would be tried so the OS is sure that its dealing with a real fault. It seems to easy to kick a drive out of the array. Maybe some routine that pauses the array on error to prevent further writes, does some basic self test. If it detects additional faults offline a drive. Give the user the results of that self diagnostic? Restore array with drive disabled to keep uptime. IDK but seems like some improvements could be made here. Yes I tried enabling array with drive deselected then stop the array again and re-add the "disabled" drive it still stated disabled. Only after clearing the drive could I get it back into the array.

Yes I read it, it still doesnt explain to me why it believes my parity failed. Why must one go digging for the error? You flash a notification that parity failed. Why not include the reason unraid believes the drive failed into the error message you are flashing on the screen? For me unassigning and reassigning the parity drive did absolutely nothing it still refused to rebuild parity. I could not force the parity drive back into the array. It would always say drive disabled. I had to take the drive offline clear the drive then reattach the drive and parity finally restarted. I changed nothing on the system. Non of the drives are showing any sign of a drive failure. SMART check shows nothing on any of the drives. Reads/Write appear to be working fine at normal speeds of 200MB/s. Also unclear to me why disabling the parity drive is the correct solution for a parity error. Would you not want to try and restart parity if you detected an error? If you detect some error threshold then disable a drive? I'm not seeing what benefit off lining a drive solved.

Why cant we have useful error messages? I got a message parity device disabled. No other meaningful information given and it refuses to re-enable. Assuming a parity error is detected why is the correct thing to do is to disable parity instead of re-doing parity? Honestly very frustrating. Running SMART reveals no errors and no CRC I tried creating a new configuration. Copying the prior config. Still refuses to re-enable parity.

aware of the different ways to log. To log locally you have to do "trickery" and cause unnecessary network thrash. To mirror to flash you run into the problem I just mentioned. The log can corrupt your OS. Just offering a suggestion to make logging more user friendly and useful. Log to flash should have an option to log to a secondary flash device so corruption of the OS USB does not occur. Logging locally should not require "trickery" it should be a supported feature JMO.

my system updated to 6.12.6 yesterday and now randomly crashed and rebooted today. Was up for 120 days prior to that which was a manual reset. I know you folks reset the log files on reboot. Instead of syslog server tracing to the same USB as the OS (this can be problematic if during the crash something gets corrupted, your usb can become unbootable) would be really useful if we had an option to log to a separate USB device. I would just leave the USB stick in and let it write and rewrite that USB. If it went bad from to many writes just swap a new one in.

Issue I ran into with mover tuning. When all my disks are spinning and nothing is really going on I will click "move now" to manually move files off my cache drive. I have "move now follows plug-in filter" set to no normally if I do not move thing manually I have it set to move things when the cache drive reaches 60% However when I clicked "move now" nothing was happening. I had to move the threshold to 0% then click "move now" to get things moving So it would appear the tool isn't following the rule move now follows plug-in filter = no