NLS

I hope 6.11 to 6.12 transparently migrates everything like always. With all these fundamental changes, I wonder if 6.12 is the correct versioning. I can easily be named 6.20. I am still confused on a few things: 1) Functionality of UNRAID WITHOUT using the new ZFS features. We are not loosing anything or getting forced to re-create anything? 2) Functionality of UNRAID WITH new ZFS features AND ability to migrate easily (we need extra disks?). 3) Primary/Secondary storage vs. Array and Cache... I am still confused which is which and if anything really changes aside of the names (AND things really migrating the old to new).

So I have this installed on my UNRAID since late 2022 and was working fine, did a few tests ok. I wanted to try it out today, it is updated already to latest version 0.11.12... When I click to queue a test, immediately get 500 error. Any ideas?

Me? I don't have anything to do with the thread being what it is and you attacking it and not accepting what it is. I am not even taking sides, I gave you more right than most, but you cannot accept something not done the way you want it. Damn... you construct your own imaginary world around you. At least the posts are there for people to read. Do it alone, not going to be dragged down by your toxic waste, I am off, I have better things to do - go talk with the OP of the thread to make it the way you like it or do whetever tf you want. (unclicking follow topic - at least you had it your way, more people will probably unsubscribe this thread - not because of morse code after all, but because if your sh*t)

@Lolight you are steadily but surely losing any kind of point you originally had. Being an *ss never helps. Even when talking to *sses (as you seemingly believe).

First of all, it is Morse code, not Moore's Code, not Moore's Law. Second, "that other thread" is this thread apparently. So, you are in the wrong place, not them. So you can create a new thread for non-morse content and 6.12 (that you populate yourself, since I don't think you can do much without actual content), or wait for an official 6.12 thread. That's what I got from reading the whole thing. "Making them a thread" ("...to keep playing") was not too polite btw. Do I like the morse code thing myself? No. Do I care about such a thread existing (or bother me)? No. Is "since 6.10" a long time? No, but anyway. When we will be in version 8.22, they will brag about this being "since 6.10" I guess.

Just a note to everybody. I believe the very rough statistic of 4 likes against morse and 1 like fore, is an indicator. Just saying. Sometimes our own creation (the thread in this context) does not "belong" to us any more when it grows. Yes "whoever likes it stays, whoever doesn't, bye bye" but, just saying. That said I don't care too much. if there was an official thread about the betas, less people would react.

I also suggest Crafty 4 for EVERYBODY. Way way better experience.

Ah, a reason that I won't be able to use it. I just have 32GB and with VM etc. I can hardly "afford" this. BTW I don't really understand how someone has 126GB RAM (and not 128GB).

I am not. And this is getting tiresome.

Yeah good for you.

I prefer to wait for the release this time around.

I hope for detailed guides with the new release. (which should probably NOT be named 6.12)

I am here just to follow the thread - my only post in this thread will probably be this one. I wanted ZFS for a long time, although just to be an "option", a "feature of the system" (as not having ZFS actually has left unRAID out of many discussions of NAS systems - which is unfair to unRAID and I am sure Tom is aware of this happening). The only thing I really care about as a long time user and customer is - ...deduplication (because by the nature of the data I keep - emulation data - I do have many duplicates), - ...transparent compression-decompression officially supported (not "under-the-hood" tricks), - ...have a "self-healing" FS on my data disks, not just the cache, and all these WITHOUT losing - ...the ability to have various size disks, - ...able to replace one by one disk with larger size, - ...easy recovery even when I go OVER the limits of RAID4 that unRAID practically is (i.e. I want to be able to recover the files from the healthy disks even if two disks die with a single parity). Can I have those things when ZFS is incorporated to unRAID? (or some other way?) I don't really care if the underlying FS is ZFS or whateverFS, as long as I get those and not lose the current benefits of unRAID. Keep evolving!

good to see the cogs moving

Thank you! Very interesting. So it is probably a viable solution to get more space. Hope it gets evaluated by UNRAID team and gets actual GUI support.

I was actually going to "attack" @lackingdev that in his first post questioned the people that actually maintain the "well being" of UNRAID plugin crowd. BUT he is right. Seems that @jonp actually did make an update 16 days ago supposedly FOR 6.11. Maybe the plugin need to be re-evaluated? And why didn't the author of this plugin himself comment?

OK will do what I ask in the next update it "hits" the container. I don't quite understood the reasoning behind not letting the container run if an update fails. I am talking if an update DOWNLOAD fails (then the "old" version is untouched and working) - then why not let it just run? If a download is broken and there is no mechanism to just (re)try to finish the download, then don't extract (there is a test for gz to check if the archive is ok), so it won't break the existing install. In my case the download was there (and downloaded by the system, not by me) and it was complete. But for some reason the update system never used it and reported the error. Anyway, I guess we'll see what happens next time.

Yes I restarted the container several times. Always same message (and no GUI coming up). In fact, this container (and several others) are usually stopped and I only start them when I need them. When I found that .16 was already there, I extracted it manually over the other files and this updated it. No errors in the extraction. Next container restart it verified I am running latest version, so the container worked fine. BTW... keeping the container offline because it (thought it) failed to update to latest version, is bad practice by itself. Its should allow the container to run, even if it failed to update it.

But I already showed you my folder contents and .16.tar.gz was in there... I didn't put it there. The system did. I used that one to extract (so it wasn't a broken download). So the report that it fails to download was wrong. (is there no check that it is already downloaded?)

After the last update (or last few? Not sure), the web GUI changed (nicer icons) but I have this issue (broken icons): ...any ideas?

like that EDIT: Note that I used to use this container. It did work in the past. I didn't touch it, except possible updates. EDIT #2: What if I manually extract 0.18.16 and drop it over the existing? EDIT #3: I did what I say above and it worked. Wonder what will happen in next update though. "Something went wrong" is not very informative, as it seems to BE able to download .16, but doesn't extract it. Could it be a security issue?

I have an issue with UnMiNeD... It reports: ---Version Check--- ---Version missmatch, installed v0.18.14 0.18.16, downloading and installing latest v0.18.16...--- ---Something went wrong, can't download uNmINeD-GUI, putting container in sleep mode--- ...and doesn't work. I guess it needs an update?

Well obviously something is wrong... (I now set it to "no", saved and then back to "yes" and saved again in case something got "stuck"?) EDIT: Tried the above and rebooted. AGAIN server started with the array offline and just needed me to click "start array". This is weird and serious. One change I did a couple of days ago was this. I edited my syslinux config (using UNRAID GUI), and modified two entries: label Unraid OS kernel /bzimage append initrd=/bzroot nvme_core.default_ps_max_latency_us=0 label Unraid OS GUI Mode menu default kernel /bzimage append initrd=/bzroot,/bzroot-gui nvme_core.default_ps_max_latency_us=0 ...because of a firmware issue with my M.2 cache. (I added nvme_core.default_ps_max_latency_us=0) But I don't see how this could be related... EDIT #2: HOLD THE PRESS! Cancel the above edit. The "turn setting off and then on and reboot" actually fixed the hiccup. The problem right above was because some disk cable was needed reseating. In less words: System somehow mixed up the array auto start setting, after my last updates and edits. It displayed "auto start yes" but did not autostart. I switched to "auto start no", "apply", then back to "auto start yes" and "apply" and this seems to have reset the setting fine.

No encrypted drives. quasar-ultima-diagnostics-20221129-0002.zip