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

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

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

This post is more for LT's information and beta testing problem report purposes than myself needing any response. My upgrade experience from beta5a to beta6 is fine now, but to get it running, I did run into a problem when booting the first time with beta6 into Xen. Below are the steps I took that produced the problem. I haven't been able to reproduce it. I don't know if anything was at all coincidental or not, but better to report it than not as this is beta testing... Before upgrading, I stopped all arch VMs, and took a backup copy of the flash share. I copied across 4 beta6 files (xen, bzimage, bzroot and readme.txt) from my windows box (via explorer) to the unRaid usb (which is internally connected to my SuperMicro X10-SL7 m/b). Note: this was how I had upgraded in the past from beta3 onwards. I stopped the array and shutdown unRaid and restarted via IPMI minutes later. In IPMI's KVM console window I saw the boot process running along and did not see anything noticeably wrong through to the login prompt. Initially, I was not able to get access into the WebGUI for unRaid, even after a minute or two. At the console login, I logged in as root and it went immediately to a shell prompt instead of asking for root's password, which was odd because I had set a password for root. I accepted the password could have been reset as potentially possible given that I was upgrading, but still took note of it. I checked /mnt and did not have any disks or shares present. And even my /boot was empty! Weird! I know, I should captured more information at the time, but I was thinking let's get back into 5a first and confirm all drives/shares/everything is as it should be. I shutdown the server (and powered off at wall) and this time, I pulled the internal usb from the m/b and inserted it into the windows pc's usb slot and copied back beta5a's 4 files I had backed up. However, I recopied beta6 files back again to the usb overwriting the beta5a backup copies I had just done. With the usb back in the same port on the SM board, I booted up via IPMI again and was soon at unRaid's console login prompt again. This time, when I logged in as root, I was asked for the password. And then once logged in, /mnt had the disks mounted and the shares were all present. The WebGUI also loaded successfully showing beta6 status. Anyway, all is back on track now and more playing testing to be had. It was an experience I thought best to share in the hope it is helpful if others encounter something similar. Or perhaps something wrong happened when initially copying the files to \\tower\flash? cheers, gwl

I see, well that tells me what I need to know provided that you booted Xen when you first setup the drives. Seems to be more of a problem with my 9201, hopefully a new kernel fixes the problem. @Bonzi (and for others awareness), Not really sure if this will provide you with any more clues to your problem as I haven't gone back to search what exactly your problem was with LSI and this version of unRaid, but I thought I may as well provide my recent LSI experience for the records. In summary, I recently added a LSI 9201-16i HBA card to my X10-SL7 motherboard and quite surprisingly did not encounter one problem at all after transferring my existing hard drives. I was expecting the worst but had zero installation issues with this card to the X10-SL7 and booting successfully back into unRaid as if nothing had changed. I am still on beta 4. I had already filled the x10-sl7 lsi ports with WD hard drives and was ready to shift them to the LSI 9201-16i card. All I had to was as simple as ensuring the mover script had completed it's process, before shutting down the array and shutting down the server. Inserted the HBA card, disconnected the onboard sata ports and cables to the HDDs and reattached them with new breakout cables to the HBA card. Powered up and went into BIOS to check the card was being recognised etc, but didn't have to change any setting. Upon booting into unRaid/Xen, all of my hard drives had been allocated to their correct disk position, including the parity. I now don't have any hard drive connected to the motherboard's LSI. I presently have two drives attached on the HBA card being precleared using Joe's 1.14 version of the script, as I had done with all of my other hard drives. I haven't experienced any problem with his 1.14 script version either except that if I reboot unRaid, the preclear status is lost for that drive. But I don't think that's been a problem when eventually adding the drive to the array because formatting through the webGUI was pretty straightforward. I have not yet tried his 1.15 version of the script but will do so once the current preclears have finished. Anyway, like I said, not sure if this will help you or confuse the matter more. Apologies in advance. cheers, gwl

I've found a reasonable image size of 52x52 pixels to be fair when resizing/customising images for the displayed domain icon. Another one for that rainy day....for convenience (and laziness), is it possible to integrate the downsizing of icon images automatically within the webGUI code? cheers, gwl cheers, gwl

One might assume [if the logic of the version checker works this way]: version 2014.03.28 < version 2014.04.03 < version 2014.04.03.xx but then that might make an '*ss' out of 'u' and 'me'. I don't like to make too many assumptions. cheers, gwl

Thanks. The above is a good basic example where your new webGUI plugin update will be of benefit. Glad to read as at v6beta4, waiting for the next core release is a thing of the past before these minor bugs, and more importantly any major GUI enhancements are made available. cheers, gwl Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'd like to make one small suggestion for the Cerberus gui . I'm only a new user to unRaid, perhaps why for now I don't mind using the standard gui, however, I love the alternative simplicity Cerberus offers while presenting enough detail to warrant further investigation as required. Some great work and presentable ideas. I really like having the Cache, Parity and Flash icons up the top summarising the relevant information and how well the submenu buttons of "Attention Required, All Disks, Non-Array and Options" also works by giving count status of errors or drives/disks etc. This then got me thinking that one more icon could be added to the 3 'main' (although not everyone uses cache and at times a parity disk) disk icons. My thought was to have one more representing the Active Array, which then gets highlighted red for for attention required or a subtle green for all ok, or whatever colour theme you decide to apply. Kind of like what the submenu buttons offer when you drill down into them, but the icon would be the summary of just the Active Array. I found the icon display as used for the flash, cache and parity, easy on the eye. Perhaps I overlooked something and didn't see it clearly enough, however, having total size and available space, avg temp, amongst other Active Array stats etc could be a nice addition as a snapshot of unRaid's active array. There will always be ideas and areas for improvement from others, but at least you can gather them all and determine what and when to do them. So take what you will from everyone's input here, as I think you are doing a great job to date. cheers, gwl

Hi, I have a quick enhancement/suggestion for when creating users to run a quick validity check on the proposed username to ensure it satisfies the criteria. I tried using a capital first letter for the username, and wondered for a little while why the username had not been added. I realised after a while (from the webgui's help mind you) the username must be lower case only. A quick validity check when clicking "Add User" would have helped me a little. I use the above example to highlight there may be some other selections/inputs throughout the webGui where validity checks could throw up some useful hints when there are basic user naivety or selection/input problems afoot. ps. This was in 6.0-beta3 cheers, gwl

Hi, Although minor, I thought I'd let you know of something visually wrong in the webGui for 6.0-beta3. I suspect it is more cosmetic than anything else, as they are certainly no show-stopper. Attached is a screenshot showing the device status of my parity disk. You will notice next to the parity disk there is a dot (dark red) indicating the disk is spun-down, however I have not installed a parity disk yet. I haven't installed one in any of my testing so far as I am copying a large amount of data across the network onto the data disks. I would have expected to see the similar grey dot as for Disk 1, Disk 3, and Disk 4 indicating the No Disk Present. In my testing/playing of UnRaid 6 beta 3, I wanted to explore a bit as this is my first time using it. So Disk1, 3, and 4 are indicated now as not installed because (I believe) I had installed drives to these disks and later on removed them. I am wondering too whether these 'Not installed' disks should be visible at all, as I had removed the drives from service some time ago. However, I do think it is important to keep the parity disk device status visible at all times as this is a core component to UnRaid (even if unused!). A minor thing or two to check out for those brain freeze times you get when solving more important bugs. cheers, gwl