gwl

Members
  • Content Count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About gwl

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Converted

  • Gender
    Undisclosed
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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 th
  5. 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
  6. 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 p
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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 optio
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. @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
  13. For what it's worth to anyone else is having a similar problem to me not being able to load the WebGUI for Folding@Home, I was not able to figure why I couldn't start the WebGUI using Firefox but it worked fine when using Chrome. Lesson learned ... experiment with different web browsers. My versions for each browser at this time are: Firefox v35.0.1 Chrome Version 40.0.2214.111 m cheers, gwl
  14. I'll put up my hand too as this was something I experienced a day or so ago when I was ready to reformat my drives (in beta 7), but I soon realised it was my mistake of making a few disk share setting changes while the array was still active. I wanted to remove a disk from those allocated to the user shares before I proceeded to transfer data and reformat the drive etc. This was to prevent any potential conflict to the disks I was working with at the time. As others have said, all was fine again after a restart of the array, but I am now more mindful whether anything (eg docker) is accessi
  15. Was this in reference to my prior post? If so, I am happily plodding away using beta6, and right now just learning more about btrfs. cheers, gwl Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk