Jump to content


Community Developer
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Report Comments posted by bonienl

  1. 19 minutes ago, cobhc said:

    Really hoping that the 5.8 kernel makes it into a release not too far down the line

    Kernel 5.8 is expected in second half of August, history has also shown not to jump immediately on a new kernel (better wait a couple of revisions to iron out regression errors)


  2. 5 hours ago, xl3b4n0nx said:

    Would it be possible to create two cache pools and tier them with this setup? 500GB NVMe to a 2TB SATA to the UnRAID array.

    With the multiple pools implementation you have the ability to set a different "cache" device for each user share.


    This allows complete segregation of data streams. For example docker containers could be set to use a different pool (cache) device as the regular shares on the array, and prevent interference when moving data.


    Basically there is no limitation in creating additional pool devices and use them for dedicated purposes.


  3. 3 minutes ago, The_Mountain said:

    Will there be other options besides raid1? raid0? raid10? 

    For the pool devices you have the option to select SINGLE, RAID0, RAID1, RAID10, RAID5 and RAID6

    Some of the above options are only selectable when enough devices exist in the pool to support the mode.

  4. > I am happy to admit it could either be Revit or Unraid at fault.


    It could be (and usually is) a configuration mismatch.


    > I've tried those suggestions on the Arch server,


    My suggestions are for the Unraid server.

    Especially the MTU size, because my suspicion is the current MTU size on your Unraid server of 1986 bytes is causing the behaviour you see.


  5. This issue really should have been opened under general support. This isn't a bug.


    > Are there some settings we can try?


    - Under network settings disable bonding and set a MTU size of 1500 bytes

    - I also recommend you disable the setting "Host access to custom networks" (see Docker settings)




  6. 8 minutes ago, jsebright said:

    Could it be the orders were different (2,4,8,10 vs 2,8,4,10 ?)

    That's indeed the issue. The automatic check generates a list in sequence for comparison.

    When you clear and re-appy then the settings themselves will also be in the correct sequence.

    • Thanks 1

  7. According to your diagnostics, the system has been started with


    A check is done if in syslinux.cfg the same setting is present under the "default" section, if not the banner is displayed.


    Do you manually change the boot menu selection when starting the system?