SSD

Love it! I've been looking for a small, portable build, and this looks pretty awesome. Looking forward to internal pictures as well.

Look at NoMachine vs SplashTop.

I didn't have to do this. I have an entry for my server in my Windows machine's hosts file and not having any issues.

The controller card of most of the HBAs recommended on the forums have SFF-8087 connectors - not SFF-8470. And I'll mention those forward breakout cables (SFF-8087 to SATA) are often available at MonoPrice much cheaper than elsewhere.

One of my servers is called shark (for my Sharkoon case). Works nicely with white theme.

I've had this happen also. But I believe that KVM can flawlessly suspend any running VM. I haven't done it a ton of times, but have done at last 5 times, and each time worked perfectly. I confirmed that DLing files resumed when VM was resumed. Thanks for the pointer to this script. I searched community applications and didn't find anything. Here is the link for anyone searching. Seems it will stop, and even force stop, a running VM. But has no logic to suspend a VM. Might be a simple change.

Certainly if the risk exceeds the benefit I would agree. Can you give a problematic use case so I can better understand the risks you see? I think with the hibernation, the risk is very low. Maybe if you are in the middle of doing a ROM update, or in the middle of downloading a file via HTTP or FTP (which would probably timeout and not resume when the VM is resumed) you could have issues. But DLs from torrents and nzbget type tools (I think these are the most common for large file download for most users) should resume just fine. And if you consider this would enable much more frequent backups than most people do (my last backup from in February as I was taking a fresh backup today for a specific purpose) which would put the user in a much better position if a corruption occurred in the VM image. I'm not clear that a snapshot is what is really needed here. Not the same as a backup.

Even if there was a need for a second Windows 10 license - if one had a spare license, or was willing to purchase an OEM license (which can be had pretty inexpensively), instructions to go from VM to physical, maintaining all (most) installed apps, that might be very helpful. Something like Acronis might help. It has a way to do a backup/restore to dissimilar hardware. And if you could get the VM install restored onto the physical disk, you could follow this video to get it dual booting as a VM also. I had another need that might make for a useful video although it might need a new plugin (@Squid). I would like is to be able to schedule a backup of my VM image, e.g., monthly. And unRAID would shutdown (or maybe just suspend) the VM, compress the image file, and store it to a defined path on an array disk or user share, and when done start the VM back up. If the VM were suspended, it should come up exactly as it was when the VM was taken down, and not lose data in open apps. Not sure a backup of a suspended VM would be easy to restore. Might need a suspend file to be backed up as well as the .img file for it to restore cleanly in the future? Could schedule during overnight hours and it could run very stealthily - user should not even realize it ran.

Love it! Is there a way to take a backup of an existing VM that is not running on a passthrough physical disk, restore it to the physical disk, and make this magic happen without loosing all the installed apps and configurations from the current VM? Since a lot of people already have a Win10 VM configured, this would be very helpful and avoid relicensing Windows and other components. Maybe a future video??

Obviously no solution is going to meet everyone's needs. But I offer the following points for your consideration: 1 - At its heart, unRAID is a NAS server. It will protect an extremely large array (over 300T with unlimited license) from most single (or dual if dual parities are installed) failures. This is real-time protection, which is continuously updated as files are added/changed/deleted. Disks can be of arbitrary / mixed sizes. Many here on the forum found the core NAS features alone (before docker, VM, or dual parity features existed) to be well worth the cost of admission for unRAID. 2 - Opening your server to remote access represents a security exposure. There are VPN solutions available for unRAID to enable this feature, but do require some effort and understanding to get fully enabled. But there are other options that work for most users that do not require VPN. Consider Teamviewer (free for personal use) which provides secure remote access to a Windows box (VM or physical). Once connected, it is like you are sitting at home at that computer and on your network. It is very easy to access the array, and transfer files. Plex (free with Plex license) has a remote access feature that allows media to be accessed remotely. These two remote access features are very easy to configure even for the least technical user, and support the lion's share of use cases for those interested in gaining secure remote access to their server without getting into setting up VPN. 3 - If you look at the cost of a QNAP or Synology solution to support 30 disks, you will be spending a lot of money if it is even possible. I just looked at a server that supports only 8 3.5" disks at a cost of $1200. It includes a low power CPU inadequate for anything processing intensive. These are all-in-one hardware/software solutions, so license is embedded in the cost. It is part of the purchase price of a server upgrade. An unRAID server can be built very economically. All it takes is a basic computer, a $50 controller card, a couple of drive cages, and an unRAID license to have a robust setup for 10 drives. An unRAID server of the size and power of the $1200 unit mentioned could be set up for 1/3 of that cost, or even less. A $1200 unRAID server would be a very powerful unRAID server, or come populated with drives. 4 - The unRAID license is a one time cost, and easily moved to an upgraded server as storage needs and/or more horsepower are needed. The licenses are also upgradable to higher capacity without repurchase. No unRAID user has ever had to pay for an upgrade to gain access to new features - even with the adding of Docker, VM, dual parity, and disk counts increasing (for full license, the max disks have increased from 12 to 30 since I have owned). And when you consider the cost of the license against the hardware and drive costs in setting up a server, the cost is a very very small percentage. The ability to protect against drive failures at the cost of a single drive, means the most economical redundancy available. 5 - With the inclusion of VMs, many users are able to virtualize their workstation(s), gaming rig, media player and other physical machines to all run as VMs on their unRAID server. This is a very attractive feature for many, myself included. I am typing this into my Windows VM running on my 12 core i9 unRAID server with KVM hardware passthrough. And this is also supporting Plex which can transcode (even processing intensive 10 bit/4k HEVC video in software), with only about 30% load. Oh - and this is running on my unRAID full license that I bought in 2007 and have never needed to upgrade through 3 major server rebuilds and countless upgrades. Certainly there are other NAS options in the marketplace, but I consider unRAID to be the most compelling platform available today. It provides parity protection, low entry cost, wide hardware compatibility, mixed drive sizes, perpetual license, and access to an expanding set of Docker apps for most every purpose under the sun. VM feature is robust and easy to access for folding multiple physical machines into VMs running on the server. You may find lower learning curves on the all-in-one solutions, but the training wheels come at a high price and are very limiting. One final comments on the forum support. A conscientious set of very knowledgeable users, virtually all volunteers except the 3 LimeTech employees who rarely engage in day to day issues unless an email is sent to LimeTech directly, provide a high level of support to users with questions or problems. Complaints like yours are exceedingly rare and quickly rectified if someone is getting frustrated and posts in the forums. You are certainly welcome to go elsewhere - but hope this helps explain the unRAID value prop as compared to other offerings. Best of luck! (@ssdindex - UnRaid vs QNAP / Synology?)

May 1 BackBlaze report. Drives are getting more reliable in general. Seagate continues to be the favorite brand. https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-stats-for-q1-2018/

In theory - a sector goes bad and drive reallocates it, using one of the spare sectors that the drive holds in reserve. The bad sector is never used again. All is good. But in practice, this is rarely observed. Typically a single drive reallocation is only a symptom of a larger problem that will keep getting worse. I've had a few drives with a small number of reallocated sectors that never got worse. But this was in my very early years with unRAID - drives were IDE and probably ~250G - 300G. Since then I personally have not had any reallocated sectors until drives were 6+ years old and rapidly got worse. You can post diagnostics and Johnnie may be able to see something. An extended smart test is probably in order.

Are you able to share any information based on your current inventory?

I do agree with the video above in the sense that it is good to have high volume long term data on your drives that are most like the environment in which you will have them. But unfortunately we can't arrange such a study. But even if BackBlaze is not exactly your use case, it does provide a laboratory that exposes all drives to a pretty consistent "average" usage pattern over time. Would you expect enterprise drives to do better? Yes, you might. Desktops worse? Yes, you might. But what if you are finding some desktop drives that perform as well or better than Enterprise. Would the BackBlaze study help you find just gems in the market? YES. So while you might say Seagate should not be penalized for having desktop drives that are pretty crappy for enterprise use, other manufacturers might be complimented for selling a product that is over engineered and works well for both. And in thinking about the use case of BackBlaze - are we really that different? Our media drives tend to get filled up rather quickly. Once full, deletes are rare, but do occur. And occasionally repurposed and refilled. BackBlaze is filling drives rather quickly with lower volume updates. They have client turnover and deleting their data only to replace it with new customer data is happening at some level. Our disks are often spun down when not being accessed. BackBlaze data is mostly backups that may sit unaccessed for long periods or forever. We run our parity checks that BackBlaze problably doesn't do. But overall I really don't think we are so different. Maybe for the video above, someone that plans to install Windows on a 3T spinner in a gaming case would have a very different use case. But we unRAIDers, I think it is pretty similar. I have had best luck with Hitachi and HGST drives (and maybe I'll throw in the Toshiba's that were acquired from Hitachi). The Seagates during the 2T-4T years were the worst of the worst for me. I lost several and swore off of them. Recent 8T WD RED and Seagate SMR purchases are not old enough to comment. But so far so good. I still think BackBlaze data is valuable if used properly. And they would have you buying HGST and steering clear of Seagates - very consistent with my personal experience. If an idiot savant comes up with the right answer, you have to give him credit, even if you don't agree or understand his method!

Was trying to get airsonic working with my Sonus Connect, but no luck. I found this on Reddit: I quoted some of that below. I followed the github link, but could not find the referenced file inside the docker to make this patch. My intended use is strictly behind my firewall, so security concerns not a big concern. Any help appreciated! - SSD From Reddit: "The underlying problem is that the sonos api has a major security vulnerability ... ... With that said, one could easily make the sonos work again in theory with the existing airsonic code with a one line patch. Simply add '/ws/**' to the list here https://github.com/airsonic/airsonic/blob/17915d908152aafcbda5693da190e14158ff064c/airsonic-main/src/main/java/org/airsonic/player/security/GlobalSecurityConfig.java#L128. To be clear, this change has not been made in the actual source because it allows anyone to access the sonos api. However if you don't have airsonic exposed over the internet, you may not care. I'm really sorry for breaking it, but I can't in clear conscience go back to what it was before knowing that lots of people have airsonic exposed."

Thanks @bonienl Important to finish your business in the tab before switching!

If I open a custom tab, the page is empty and the web page opens. That is perfect. Then I click on the unRAID main tab and it shows. Then I click on the custom tab again. It is empty and the page reloads, rather than just displaying the same static content it displayed the last time I was there. The page I am using can take quite a few seconds to refresh. I'd just prefer it preserve the page as it was before I left.

Squid - The page seems to refresh every time you navigate to the tab. Is there an option that the web page state can be preserved? Thanks!

Thanks for taking the time to post this guide! I haven't tested it myself, but it looks detailed and comprehensive! (#ssdindex - GPU Passthru Guide for overcoming Error 43)

Not that I have seen. When the VM is stopped, the screen is blank / no signal.

Can you confirm the USB label is "UNRAID"?

@jpeltoniemi - Writes to the parity protected array are pretty slow. And involve accesses to both the disk involved and the parity disk. Each is required to do a block read followed by a block write of the same block. This means a full revolution of the slower of parity and the data disk. It is a decided write penalty. As @trurl mentioned, there is no existing feature in unRAID to leverage your elegant read-caching paradigm. I can't say with certainty if a duplicate file existed in the same user share on cache as on a disk in the array, that unRAID would use the one on cache or not.

Actually the array is a pretty poor choice for running apps or games. Normally users are utilizing the cache drive (often used more as an.application drive / virtual disk image) for such purposes. The array tends to hold large media files with few if any interactive writes. UnRaid also supports unassigned disks, meaning not in the array or cache. They can be spinners or SSDs and used for various purposes that typically involve a lot of interactive disk writes.

Thanks wgstarks! Wow! @Squid- any way to prevent this from happening so frequently. It was generating a line every 2 or 3 seconds for days. The server spontaneously rebooted and these started logging. I was out of town.

My server rebooted and I got this error: Feb 21 14:23:10 tower root: error: /plugins/unassigned.devices/UnassignedDevices.php: wrong csrf_token I was out of town and this has been generated every few seconds for days. There are over 80,000 rows. Can you please help explain the issue so that I can repair? There are two remote SMB mounts that would not work - the server they reference is offline. Could that be the problem? Thanks!