Facsimile8512

No clue if it is an actual issue in the latest update and the warning is just a leftover, but I ran the recommended command "sysctl vm.overcommit_memory=1" in unraid's main terminal and that seems to have done something, well applied whatever this actually means. The warning though is still a warning and seems to stay around from the beginning, it doesn't actually verify if it is something that needs to be done on installed PC. I am not sure if my data is not large enough or what, but I'm not really seeing any benefits from Redis, in fact I think it made response worse, but it does get rid of that security warning in the overview. Not sure if I will keep it around since so far it just seems like unnecessary utilization of resources, even though it does seem like minor utilization.

I am clearly not intelligent here, github mentions environment variables are supposed to go into yaml, is there another place I'm supposed to place them, like config.php? What's the installation process? I suspect the way I'm doing it is probably not the way is expected in the guide. This is what I ran to install it: docker run rcdailey/nextcloud-cronjob This sees that no docker image exists and pulls it to install. This does not allow me to edit any configuration though prior to running it. Maybe I'm missing some docker command to configure the variables? Thank you for helping me troubleshoot this.

Is there a guide on how to properly install the nextcloud-cronjob container on unraid? I tried running it, which pulled it and installed it, but there's no way it seems to actually configure it with a yaml file. Are we supposed to be installing it different way?

I do not believe that this has been answered yet. If you limit your user share to a certain drive or drives, there doesn't seem to be actually any measurable power efficiency gains. This becomes less of power efficiency and more of proper way of setting up a server.

Is it best to assign specific drives to user shares when they are needed for plugins or it doesn’t matter for power consumption, therefore, disk shares are better for power consumption when shared over network or it matters if plugin is directed to a user share vs disk share as well? Should creation of user shares be avoided in general when trying to conserve power? I guess I’m still confused if there’s any difference by creating a user share that goes to a specific drive only vs using directly that specific drive for plugins and network access?

Power efficiency is a popular topic clearly, I am trying to follow this news post: https://unraid.net/blog/energy-efficient-server Which also leads to this post: I haven't been able to find an answer though as to why disk shares are more efficient over user shares, what does avoids FUSE overhead mean? If you set up a user share that only uses one drive, would it be the same as using disk shares? Also I'm not sure if using user shares can be avoided entirely since appdata is necessary. Also, I'm sorry if I should have added a comment to the old post instead of writing this one.