gwl

Hi, was there any solution to this? When I console in to try and manually sudo install, the sudo command is not found. cheers, gwl

Following this topic, as I'm encountering the same problem with my sites too. I can't recall when this started for me, but from Oct sounds about right. I also use NPM. Using Let's Encrypt, with or without a DNS Challenge and/or a scheme of http or https, has the same outcome of a "Deceptive site ahead". Could it be something to do with Let's Encrypt? Or perhaps DuckDNS? I am not sure how to create the Custom Certificate, so perhaps that's an avenue to explore? Cheers, gwl

Well done @ich777 for attending to the Nvidia-Driver problem so promptly, saving myself (and I'm sure countless others) the disruption/interruption this would have caused. I appreciate everyone's hard work in compiling this. A great Unraid community here. Cheers, gwl

Hi, I had experienced similar problems when it was updating Plex to a later version. What you are seeing in the log is Plex updating. You won't see the GUI until it has successfully completed that step. When I used the variable, VERSION with a value of 0.9.14 or something like that,it then worked for me. If you put in the 0.9.12.xxxx where xxxx is the number of the version you are upgrading from, that should backdate your install to what was working previously for you. I think the version I was having problems with was when it was updating to 0.9.16...IIRC. Although I did get Needo's Plex to work on an earlier version, I have since migrated over to the LinuxServer version of Plex without too much hassle. So my advice, if you can get it working on an earlier version, use that and then wait for a much more stable version...but be prepared to reinstall a few times to check from time to time if the latest version is working. I never waited to determine the reasons why it kept failing. Alternatively, try another container for Plex. LimeTech's is officially supported but does not presently include the PlexPass version. Cheers, gwl

Mmm, ok. So yeah, I guess it didn't matter which core was used, but the key to the upgrade for those of us stuck on 10130 was to use a single core... Glad it helped. gwl

Out of curiosity, which cpu core did you use? Instead of using 0, I set mine to 1 of my available 0-7. I'm just wondering whether if there was some correlation to the cpu core selected? Interesting, or rather, curious why it worked with a single cpu core eh? gwl

A bit of an update, for those monitoring... Not sure exactly why it worked, but today my 10130 has been upgraded to 10240, and I confirmed it was still activated. I don't see anywhere any indications it is build 10240, but the Activation screen does say Windows 10 Pro. There is no text on the desktop like there was for 10130 telling me that I am using build 10240. This morning I did start the upgrade process manually again through the Windows Update, and after it had finished the download I came back to walk through the install to try to further capture any useful bits of information that might have helped in solving the upgrade problem I've been encountering. But to my surprise, the upgrade worked this time! One thing I did change on the VM side of things was to use CPUSet 1 instead of CPUSet 0 or multiple CPUs. I had changed that setting a few days ago, and I don't think that was the trigger for my success tonight because I think I recall it failing an automated install since the change. Anyway, perhaps others may want to try again now and see whether there was perhaps something MS had done on top of their 10240 build to get things moving again. Cheers, gwl

I have the same updating problem on 10130 as well...and I also have a X10 Supermicro board. Build 10130 is Activated, and I've tried a number of ways to resolve this but so far without any success. My attempts at updating include running setup from a 10162 iso, running Windows Update (which last night recognised build 10240 present and proceeded to install but failed), repair options etc. I am not keen to do a clean install from an ISO as MS seem to no longer be activating keys through this method of install...only upgrades from activated installs will get you the latest build. I wonder if this may potentially mean not being able to update to the final Win10 from a 10130 base build. Has anyone been able to resolve this from their 10130 install that had been experiencing similar update problems? Or do we simply resign to having to wait for the retail release? cheers, gwl

Nope, you don't. But not sure why it matters as it isn't hurting anything to be there, right? Down the track, I was thinking about if I was to set up a thin client for my better half to use, having these additional drives may cause confusion. So it was really about keeping it nice and clean...to remove potential hassle of "Oops, what did I just do?" ;-) For the OS installation and for VirtIO drivers, it is necessary, but for other software, what's wrong double-clicking an ISO file over SMB in Windows and mounting it that way? Not sure what you'd gain by mounting it as part of the VM as a virtual CD-ROM. Again, I was thinking a bit randomly at the time and whether there was anything to advantageously use this approach from a media (dvd/bluray) perspective. (Presently, I use Plex to watch my movies through an AppleTV but a PVR to search for and load DVD ISOs when I want to watch Extras...) I guess you're right, nothing to gain except the overhead. I'm just one to regularly see [and learn] if there are better ways of doing things. They should spin down just fine (they do for me). That said, not sure if Win10 is any different. Shouldn't be, but who knows, right? Yes, I've taken note they spin down for me as well. Glad it got you going! So am I! I'm an end user of Windows VMs at work, and to get this working at home, opens up some opportunities to simplify things at home by reducing hardware requirements, and to keep my family end-users setups all better maintained. Needless to say the creation of the VMs through the GUI (Thanks bonienl and LT team!) has made this more accessible and much simpler to achieve. cheers, gwl

Thought I might chime in on this one as I too have recently (two nights ago) installed Windows10 as a VM using JonP's guide. The install went well and I used the stable drivers as opposed to the latest...so far so good, and I am not passing through any hardware. A couple of things I had to investigate further were: 1) the registry key addition others have mentioned to allow you to see Unraid SMB shares; 2) I created an Unraid user same as my login to Win10 [which I now think might not have been necessary] 3) had to set the network permissions correctly to allow RDP access from another pc/iPad on the network. Question still not sure about... 4) Do we have to leave the virtual drive (E:\) for the virtio-win drivers connected? 5) Can the same process for adding the virtio drivers to create a virtual cd drive be used to also mount a dvd or bluray as a virtual cd? I don't know exactly how long but it took a while (minutes/hour??) for the Unraid Tower to show up on the Win10 network. It definitely wasn't instant after I had made the above changes. For those that have troubles, be sure to check the network settings etc and try a logout/login to see if any of your changes take effect. I recall in one of JonP's videos he explained for users to expect VNC to be more static-y than when using RDP. So I've been experimenting with RDP to Win10 through the iPad. Having not used Win8 yet, I am presently exploring/playing with the new interface of Win10. Taking a little while to get used to, but I am sure I will adjust. What I am not sure about is how to know if I have properly assigned enough RAM and CPU to the VM? For my purposes right now, I am just testing Win10 out, so I will try modifying the RAM allocated and also the assigned CPUs and experiment. Another question... with the Win 10 VM running, if I have mapped some drives to network locations (Unraid shares of course) will the Unraid disks remain active or will they go into standby mode eventually? Anyway, thanks for the guide JonP. It was clear enough to give me the direction necessary to install Win10. Cheers, gwl

Yes, This was all I have had to do as well. I was applying this edit/save approach while in RC1 and still have to do it for each docker container in RC2. I won't be able to update to RC3 for a few days yet, and also am not able to reboot either until then, so I won't be able to perform any additional tests. cheers, gwl

I'll pipe in on the ratio topic... As much as I want to attain a ratio > 1 for all files, my d/l and u/l speeds, 380Kb/s & 100Kb/s, (along with my ISP plan's monthly limit) would prohibit this from being achieved in a reasonable time frame. I'm sure (hope?) there are others like me where the above restrictions mean you are more of a leecher than a seeder. However, it doesn't mean that I wouldn't become a seeder, it would just take some time to achieve a ratio > X, and 'opening' hours would also be restricted as would my u/l speeds. Otherwise I'll take the no cookies option... :'( Food for thought from a peer. cheers, gwl

Well apparently you're downloading is so good it goes above and beyond 100%! [emoji6] That is odd to say the least. Has it happened with any other containers? No, my other containers did not show the extraordinary stat during their updates. cheers, gwl

Hi, I encountered a minor Docker tab GUI issue while updating a Docker container. When pulling a fs layer, [in the attached jpg] the stats showed an impressive percentage in the downloading information. The container downladed fine in the end, but thought it worth the mention for you to be aware of. FoldingAtHome was the first docker I had updated after updating unRAID to beta 15 (from 14b). My other dockers did not have this percentage display problem during their updates. cheers, gwl

@limetech Minor thing in the Archived Notifications tab. I've gone to delete the notifications I had received but am unable to delete the last one. Not sure if it is because this last notification is a warning or not...(in my case, my ssd cache drive has 2 reallocated sectors.) Is it intentional for this type of warning notification to stick around for tracking purposes and will be removable once the status changes again (ie. fixed or got worse.)? cheers, gwl