zulu153

This 7.3.0 was issued on 12 May. On 21 May 7.2.7 was issued. 7.2.7 contains updates that to sections the were after made after the 12 May - e.g for different CME or higher numerical Docker version so items not fixed in 7.3.0. By conventional versioning nomenclature a higher numerical version (once at "stable" release or later) can be presumed by the user to contain all updates contained in numerically lower versions. This was not the case here. Does this mean that there will be a very soon to be released 7.3.1 to include all of the fixes contained in 7.2.7? This matters to me because my licence happened to expire between 12 May and the 21 May and I, thinking that LimeTech follow conventional numbering downloaded 7.3.0 but will not be allowed to download 7.3.1. This to me summaries that security patch vs features improvement debate around licensed software. IMHO the vendor needs to make a clear distinction before purchase by the customer. 7.3.1 will clearly be a "catch-up" of security issues that should have been patched in 7.3.0 as evidenced by the fact that LimeTech issued a lower version upgrade to patch these security issues. To me LimeTech need to either follow convention or change their licensing to allow security only updates. Personally I think they should ethically only be the latter - putting the customer in a position of having to decide is a security update is worth paying for a new licence is not exactly the customer focus that most customers want - in my experience, and I pre-date Toms entry into the business by a few years. One has to be honest and accept that "security updates" is a euphemism for actually errors in the original programming (bugs) that have only been found recently. The concept that computer programs should be knowingly released with "bugs" from unchecked code was pioneered by Bill Gates - the customers may as well get value from the programs sooner with bugs than later with no bugs. A completely valid concept. But he committed to fix bugs for free for the life of the product (perpetual). Of course later management of Microsoft pushed for and forced though a concept of "program life" following on from the pioneering work of Adobe in this regard. The ethics of fairness - "an honest days work for an honest days pay" come into play when judging these concepts and the ethics of people that implementing them. Tom, IMHO LimeTech need to perform better than they did in May 2026. You should know this and have trained your successors properly.

I am not sure that you ever developed and answer to your speed/backup question. The only solution that I came across using version 7 out of the box - create a cache pool of 2 (even number) equally sized m2 disks built as RAID1 If you want even more speed use more disks and use striping (parallel streaming). Store all your high speed access required files there WITHOUT back up to the array which is protected by PARITY backup not RAID backup. Think of it this way. UNRAID despite its name offers both RAID and PARITY technology for data serving and security. PARITY is slower at serving but maximizes usable secured disk space. RAID (if configured in parallel disk flows) is faster at service but generally halves the storage space available from a group of disks. UnRaid allows you to create groups of disks (they call "pools" or "arrays" to try and differentiate between the backup technology used) that can achieve both serving speed and maximization of disk space usage.

Could someone add to the FAQ on the pool boot a list of the benefits of moving to this method. A do understand that it provides the "new and shiny" trinket experience to some of us; but what else? It still seems to me as a solution (as explained by SI1) in search of a problem. I would just like to know what problem(s) the developers felt that this solutions would solve, since I am a newby to unraid and could have problems I don't even know about - I certainly so no problems with my booting experience.

A new user from 2025. Yes, I always found it odd that Lime sells Unraid as an OS for secure and private self-hosting but at the same time hosts its discussions on other hosts whose privacy and security they cannot attest to. They don't believe in their own product? In my use it seems to live up to all of their marketing claims - or is it that I have not (yet) created an environment where it fails? Are they not telling me about some weakness or backdoor that they know exists.

Correct me if I am wrong. The only purpose of the flash boot drive is to hold the OS and license until it is loaded into RAM to run; thereafter is sits doing nothing until the next reboot. Since one hardly ever reboots a server (otherwise it would not really be a server), the flash drive basically does nothing for most of its life. And the MTBF becomes infinite. I am not sure why some Lime staff (the ones who wrote the blog) feel that flash is unreliable: it makes me question their technical competence and makes me wonder why I should trust my server to their software. Hopefully the ones putting out the Blog are not the ones programming UnRaid. Please confirm what product I bought.