abs0lut.zer0

the one thing that has been asked has not been answered so allow me... i REALLY don't think unRAID has stagnated if anything the forum has attracted a lot of new users and there has been quite a lot more posts and activity lately... dunno where the stats are for the overall site but that how it seems to me...[nm found it and it does appear that i am almost correct]

just my 2 cents my unRAID is working fine and it's doing what was said on the box .... so i'm happy atm and all is well with my v5 box.. (the issues with the various hardware configurations is a issue with any software out there as not everything is guaranteed to work,BUT i believe they are trying to fix the issues) i also used to have the same view about the naming convention of unRAID as 5.0BETAsometing BUT it works FINE and does what it's supposed to so i don't really have an issue.

so just for info sake if rc5 works fine do we stay with it or do we get additional features or performance by upgrading to the latest rc6test2 ? Thanks

it is exactly like i was told what type of hardware do you have, the reason is my hardware was not on the 'watch list' and i have been running v5 .x betas for a loong time now and no data loss or any type of problems... so if you hardware is sound i would say v5 is GOOD to go.... it's still better than ANYTHING out there IMO....

Good thing i did not trust my data to this tech.. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/28/windows_8_storage_spaces/

The circumstance which I encountered has been fixed - that of renaming a file on one disk in the user share to be the same as the name of a file on another disk in the user share. The only way it should be possible to get duplicates is to place a file in a user share and then place another copy of the file in the user share directory, but accessed as a disk share. There is little that can be done to prevent this. Any other mechanism could be considered as a bug. Are you able to reproduce the duplicate 'issue' at will - do you know the circumstances which cause it? If so, Tom will tell you how to enable debugging so that he can trace the problem within the unRAID code. well i have never done that as i only user total commander in windows or /mnt/user with mc i never touch the separate disks... ?

I thought that only happened if the duplicate files are all in the same user share? If you want to keep security copies like this, surely it would make sense for the copies to be on a totally different disk share (a drive not involved in the user share) with, perhaps, a different directory tree (to help eliminate confusion when dealing with the copies). i too am still getting this under the latest test .... i thought the duplicate issue was supposed to fixed in the beta's ?

Klondike bar?

Sorry my mistake am asking about 5.0rc5 so the parity issue does not exist anymore

best thing download the latest test2... check network card and raid controllers work make a 3 disk array copy data back and forth do a parity check see if it's fast enough for you simulate bad disk and then your answer shall come i think ....

if unRAID is doing a data-rebuild to a bigger disk can you copy new data to the shares ?? can i delete anything from the shares ?

Could be to your advantage if you to try the latest one if you don't want to find that YOUR particular system has a previously undetected and unreported problem when version 5.0 is released . makes sense, thanks

so it is best to be on the latest test then ?

http://www.neowin.net/news/a-hard-disk-that-lasts-10-million-years anybody...anybody !!! :o

ooohhh yesss please... !! just wish hdd's like this where affordable in SA..

Hey all I am using this mount -t ntfs-3g -o umask=111,dmask=000 /dev/sd*1 /mnt/user/usb/ .. i got this from here http://lime-technology.com/wiki/index.php/Mounting_an_external_USB_drive_having_an_existing_NTFS_file_system_in_READ/WRITE_mode_to_transport_files_from/to_unRaid_server#Newer_Versions_of_unRAID and i am using it properly as i can see the drive and copy the problem i have IF i copy from a windows machine to the unRAID box from the usb it lets me delete the file no problem as the permissions is nobody/users.. if i use the usb connected to the unraid box and use mc to do the copy then the permissions is root/root and i have to delete through telnet session.. ? am i doing something wrong with permissions ? .. any guidance please.. just for interest the snap plugin gave me mixed results no sure why it would work and then not so trying the cli....

+2 +3

+1 it's actually quite amazing the good job xbmc does with the scrapping ....

ZFS love to put this out there for a number of reasons.... but i do believe the unequal size drive usage of unRAID beats all the other reasons hands down.....

+1 this happens to me quite a bit not sure why ? Read here. That issue is probably not what accounts for most "duplicates". Usually duplicates are caused by accessing storage both via disk shares and user shares. For example, suppose you have: disk1/Movies disk2/Movies and the corresponding user share: Movies If you navigate to disk1/Movies and cause a file to get created there (say, .ds_store), and also navigate to disk2/Movies, and the same file name gets created, well now there's a duplicate reported when you navigate to Movies. if i say for definite my system is ONLY accessed via user shares? just asking ?

+1 this happens to me quite a bit not sure why ?

+1

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=20612.msg182945#msg182945 from this message onwards in this post bit rot is discussed... i just want to make a post where we can bring it out and discuss it, it is always something that i don't really fully understand and the implications are quite severe. i know that over time no disk access causes it besides all the factors that i have read here.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rot there are some people who use md5 check sums and some other exotic means to try avoid it, is there anything that is easily done, as the a fore mentioned solutions are really impractical i think as they take vast amounts of time this is not a comparison by any means because unRAID is unique ... i would like to ask how zfs claims that it does not occur this problem thanks to any

thank you guys for taking the time to make our unRAID experience better... ;D ;D ;D

does this take the usb stick os out of the equation, that has always been a selling point for me... ?