xemaco

Hello Unraid Community, I'm currently using the davfs2 filesystem plugin to mount a remote WebDAV server on my Unraid system, aiming to transfer files between local and remote NAS devices. However, I'm encountering several issues that I hope someone can help with: Plugin Loss After Power Restart: After a system reboot (Unraid 7.2.0), the plugin is lost and I have to manually reinstall it. No Transfer Progress/Speed Display: Although the WebDAV mount works without issues, when transferring files (whether through the WebUI file manager or using terminal tools like rclone or rsync), no transfer progress or speed is displayed even though I had added the parameter like --progress. This makes it hard to track the progress of large file transfers. Transfer Interruptions for Large Files: When transferring large files, the transfer gets interrupted after a certain period, causing issues with the process. Is there a better way to achieve this file transfer between remote NAS devices on Unraid, or are there any solutions to fix these issues? Thank you in advance for your help!

Hi everyone, I have a question regarding hard-link behavior in Unraid (v7.1.4) when using /mnt/user paths with media scrapers such as Nastools. 📂 Current setup/mnt/diskX/影视/电影 is for pt download path,My real media storage path is like:（影视 and Media are the sharing folders， and Split Level = Automatically split only the top 2 diretory levels as required） /mnt/diskX/影视/电影/movie_name.mkv or /mnt/diskX/影视/电影/movie_name/movie_name.mkvScraping tools will create a hard link like: /mnt/diskX/Media/Movie/movie_name/movie_name.mkv This works, but it means every time I add a new disk, I need to add another individual path mapping in the container. That‘s inconvenient. ✅ What I want to doInstead of mapping every single /mnt/diskX path, I want to just map: /mnt/user/影视 : /NAS/影视 /mnt/user/Media : /NAS/Media or more simple, just /mnt/user : /NASSo the scraper sees: /NAS/影视/电影/movie_name.mkv or /NAS/影视/电影/movie_name/movie_name.mkv → hard-linked to /NAS/Media/Movie/movie_name/movie_name.mkv ❓ My questionsWill the hard link always be placed on the same disk as the source file? Example: Real file is on: /mnt/disk2/影视/电影/movie_name.mkv in docker ,it is /NAS/影视/电影/movie_name.mkv If I create a hard link through /mnt/user, will the link always go to: /mnt/disk2/Media/Movie/movie_name/movie_name.mkv in docker , it is /NAS/Media/Movie/movie_name/movie_name.mkv and never accidentally land on a different disk? In other words — does the FUSE /mnt/user layer guarantee hard links stay on the same physical disk as the source file? Moving files that contain both original + hard links In Unraid 7.1.4, if I use Unbalance or the built-in file manager to move a folder between differen disks that contains both the source file and its hard link: Does Unraid keep the hard-link relationship? Does the moved data still consume disk space only once? If there's a setting to preserve hard links during move, where is it? (I remember seeing a related option a long time ago but can't find it now.) 🧰 EnvironmentUnraid 7.1.4 XFS array disks Nastools (hard-link mode) Thanks in advance! 🙏 Any clarification would be really appreciated.

Hi Unraid Community, I'm encountering a frustrating issue where I cannot save share settings because of Chinese character names, even though I'm not using ZFS anywhere in my system. Error Message: The notification beside the share name: Share name contains invalid characters for ZFS use My Environment: Unraid Version:7.1.4 Cache Pool: Btrfs (RAID 1) - No ZFS Array Disks: XFS - No ZFS No ZFS pools or filesystems anywhere The Problem: I have shares with Chinese names like: 影视 (means "Media") 电影 (means "Movies") 剧集 (means "TV Shows") When I try to modify ANY settings for these shares (Split level, Minimum free space, Included/Excluded disks, Allocation method), the save fails with the ZFS character validation error. English-named shares work perfectly fine Why I Need Chinese Names: Family members use the system and recognize Chinese names better Media organization is culturally specific Works perfectly fine technically (when it doesn't block saves) Thank you in advance for any insights or solutions! As shown above, any settings I modify won't take effect after clicking Apply and just revert back to the original state. My current solution is to create an English-named share in the same location, apply and save all the configurations there, then transfer these settings to the Chinese share via this English share. But it is not convenient and how to fix this issue

nice，than you very much!!

I have a question regarding mounting Unraid array disks outside of Unraid. Setup: Unraid 7.1.4 Pro Several array disks: most are 512e, one disk is 4Kn Disk filesystem: XFS Debian 13 / Ubuntu 22.04 Live ISO tested Trying to mount the 4Kn disk: mount -t xfs -o nouuid,ro /dev/sdh1 /mnt/disk8 or mount /dev/sdh1 /mnt/disk8 Problem: For all the four 512e disks, mounting works fine including rw For the 4Kn disk, mounting fails with: mount: /mnt/disk8: mount(2) system call failed: Function not implemented （ubuntu） mount:/mnt/disk8:fsconfig()failed:Function not implemented.dmesg(1)may have more information after failed mount system call (debian) However, this disk works fine in the Unraid 7.1.4 array. I even tried rebuilding the array normally to clear and reformat this disk, but the problem persists. I just want to transfer some data in a Live CD environment because data transfer within Unraid consumes a lot of CPU. Question: Is there any way to safely mount a 4Kn Unraid array disk on a Linux Live system for data recovery or inspection? Or is it only possible to mount it within Unraid using the OS / Unassigned Devices plugin? Any tips to safely access data without risking the array? Thank you for any advice or insights!

thank you very much. so clear and kind

thank you very much

Hi, I’m planning to migrate my NAS from Synology to Unraid. My current drives are: 4 × 22TB SATA drives + 1 × 18TB SATA drive (data disks) 2 × 22TB SAS drives (intended as parity disks) I have a few questions: Can SAS drives be used as parity for SATA data drives in Unraid? Even though all drives are nominally 22TB, could there be slight differences in usable sector count? If a SAS drive has fewer usable sectors than the 22TB SATA drives, would it be rejected as a parity disk? In other words, does Unraid require the parity drive to have the largest sector count, even if the data disks are far from full? Would using a larger parity drive, e.g., 24TB, be safer to avoid issues? Thanks for any advice!

Can the 4kn and 512e disks be mixing used in the array with parity ?

thank you very much

thanks

Hi all, I have a question about how Unraid handles hard links when rebuilding a failed data disk from parity. Here’s my understanding so far: - In Unraid, each data disk uses its own file system (XFS/Btrfs/ReiserFS). - Parity is used to reconstruct the entire contents of a failed disk sector by sector. - Hard links exist only within the same disk, since they rely on the file system’s inode structure. My concern: If one data disk fails and is rebuilt using parity, will the hard links that existed on that disk still be preserved correctly? In other words, does the rebuild process restore the file system metadata (inodes) so that the hard links remain intact, or would the linked files be duplicated and end up taking double the storage space? This is very important to me because my NAS is mainly used for PT downloading, where a large number of video resources rely on hard links for renaming in order to be properly scraped by media software, while still keeping the original files intact for seeding. I have not yet purchased Unraid OS because I cannot confirm this issue. Currently, I am using another free NAS system without any form of data protection. However, as my data volume grows, I am starting to consider data security more seriously. Based on my use case, I believe Unraid would be the most suitable system for my NAS, striking the right balance between data protection and storage cost efficiency. If Unraid cannot preserve hard links during a rebuild and instead restores them as duplicate files taking extra space, could you also confirm whether RAID5 behaves the same way in such a scenario? Thanks in advance for clarifying!

I already know that up to two hard drives can be used as verification disks, and I know that space of parity disk must be larger than any disk in the array. I am confused whether the total capacity of two verification disks is greater than that of other individual hard drives, or whether each verification disk needs to have a larger capacity than other hard drives? Thank you