lionelhutz

I have a Trendnet camera and I used to have it setup to record stills to the server. It is an older model and used FTP but it still worked fine and was fairly easy to setup. Samba should be even easier. I hope they got better though. I found the motion detection rather useless. It seemed that once I set it sensitive enough that it would pick up a person moving in front then it would start constantly recording pictures without anything in the frame. Also, if you expect to put an indoor camera in a window pointing outside then don't expect the performance to be too great. Turn off the IR because it will just glare off the window. Sun glare on the window will also cause washout or loss of picture. Being close to the glass itself can also degrade the image. I tried it with a few cameras and it just doesn't work vey well. Unfortunately, good outdoor cameras are pricy. Finally, expect the IR on the camera to be next to useless. If you need night vision then you'll need some extra IR lights or a decent level of real lights for the camera to have a good recording.

Very true Gary, if you want to remove the parity forever. But if the intent is to put it back after testing then it doesn't really matter that the red-ball and missing parity drive indicators exist during the testing. And it saves having to re-assign all the data drives.

Geeze, I'm not going to pretend to be a lawyer. Tom calls it copyrighted and I'm have no intention of take any actions to dispute that, so I accept that's how it is. If someone else wants the source code for emhttp released because they believe it should be available then they can go chase LimeTech via email or laywers and get the source code released.

I actually tested writing some files lately and I was seeing speeds reaching close to 60MBps so your speed is good. Just an FYI, you should never have to rebuild an unRAID array from scratch just because you want to change the drives around. You could change data disk assignments, break the array into multiple arrays or even take the data disks from 2 arrays and combine them into one and you would never have to start from scratch and re-load the data onto the data disks. After you do any of that, you'd have to allow parity to build but you don't have to start over with your data.

It depends on what you are referring to. Anyone can use the md driver as they see fit any way they want. It started with a GNU license which means the changes by Tom can't be copyrighted and also that he must release the source code. And the source code is in the distribution. Anyone can use it to create new storage OS with the same parity protected array capability as unRAID. At that point, it is no longer unRAID, it is something else. The interface, emhttp, was created by Tom from scratch. He has every right to license and put conditions on that software. Being copyrighted software, no-one else has the right to re-package and distribute emhttp in any manner just because they feel like it.

So basically you're just against evolution? Just because that's what unRAID was at the time you purchased it, that's what it should always remain? The classic version of unRAID will still exist, you can continue using that. Did I post that? In the future it will be whatever LimeTech releases. If that future is a more capable distribution then that's what it is. Only LimeTech can decide. There is no need for anyone to post a big rants about what they believe unRAID should be. The LimeTech website is very clear on what it is. "unRAID® is an embedded Network Attached Storage (NAS) server operating system." There is nothing on the LimeTech site where you buy the software which says you get a full distribution, virtualization cababilities or anything else that this fork would give you. So, why complain about the software you bought not being capable of a whole bunch of things which it never claimed to be when you purchased it. And just because I'm not happy with what I purchased doesn't mean I have the right to create a new version and roll the unRAID elements (emhttp basically) into it without the companies position. It's certainly not ethical to use the company forum for any discusssions about rolling your own storage distribution which doesn't include unRAID (again emhttp basically). There is no evolution being discussed by grumpy. A revolution is being planned. The repeated calls to "respond now and bow to my demands or I'm going to go off and build a competing product" threats should have made that perfectly clear by now.

LOL, I paid for a package that goes on a USB and operates as a file server. I didn't pay for a full distribution. I didn't pay for packages. I didn't pay for a kernel with all the drivers, features and functions included. The file system is not read only. You can write to it just fine. It's just not persistant during a power-cycle.

My boss gives me raises.... I wanted you to post the truth. You've finally made your true intentions more then clear. Good luck with your new software development efforts. It sure takes a lot of audacity to be on a forum of a commercial company posting about plans to create a new competing product.

Nope. I am releasing a totally opensourced version with my own emhttp that people are free to use, add on too, make it better, etc. The truth comes out. To paraphrase, "If you don't get the answers you want and demand from LimeTech by the end of the week you're releasing your own fork". Or simply "I'm releasing my own fork" one of the two. And I'm the asshat for posting that those wanting to develop their own fork need to go somewhere else? HAAAAAAhaaaaaahaaaa. Thanks for my daily laugh.

When I came to use unRAID in 2008 I could find evidence of how slowly the releases were at times and also it was clear the support forum was user based and not the official support channel simply by reading the forum. Either you accept that is how it will be and pay your money and use the product or you don't. If yo don't, then you go somewhere else. Who dives in blindly with software or a product without reading some of the history on any message board to know what to expect in the future? 2+ years for a Kernel ungrade - that was an unRAID upgrade. Long and drawn out, but it wasn't simply a kernel upgrade. 3+ years for 64-bit - The plan to release that was posted some time last year so how can it be a 3 year wait already?

So, your plan to "prove me wrong" is to demand a response in your favour by threatening to release a distribution which includes unRAID without permission to redistribute unRAID from LimeTech?

There have been a few cases in the past with power supplies causing pending sectors to appear on WD drives. I recall it being Antec, but still that could be what's happening. After replacing the power supply all the pending sectors just went away. Your log is indicating media errors, not SATA link errors.

Yes, sorry, it seems your post slipped in there.

Yet you didn't post one PM from January, let alone this proof message, lol. And you're taking my shit? Try reading your posts. lol

I get it. You don't under the simple concept of private messages being private. It's OK, no need to keep ranting about it

LOL, I'll just let people read your posts and clearly see how you're breaching the private trust of Tom by posting his personal messages.

What you posted is quite fine and it does allow you to copy apps to the array without breaking anything in the setup.

The limetech quote above does not seem to be on the forum. Was it part of the deleted thread? I'm surprised the forum let's people delete other people's posts. Nope, private email being thrown in my face to prove I'm wrong. It was a message sent privately by Tom so it should never have been made public. It also reads very much like Tom wants to at least oversee his version of a fork. Still nothing in writing turning any unRAID project over to someone else.

WRONG AGAIN! See above! Wow. Please go back and read how I defined a fork. Read it. Comprehend it. Let what I wrote sink in. I did it so it would be clear what I meant when I wrote fork to avoid ambiguity on the subject. Please tell me how a new independent unrelated storage solution will in any way benefit LimeTech.

Tom is aware of the fork discussion and participated in the now-removed thread and (to me) seemed interested in the discussion. So it stands to reason that Tom doesn't think that the discussion shouldn't be on his forums. You too need to read my definition of fork. Tom showed interest in a collaborative effort, not a fork as I defined it.

I posted that if anyone wants to work on a fork then they need to do it somewhere else and I even defined fork to be clear on the meaning of the word. Obviously, you have a problem comprehending what you read.

But your blog pointing to this thread does set public expectations. Are there not certain expectations spelled out in your donation blog?

Ironic; There's nothing wrong with what you are attempting to do in this thread, except you got carried away on the announcement of soon having a release without first having approval to distribute emhttp in your package. When you allowed donations you should have made some statements on what might happen. Without approval to distribute emhttp you shouldn't be releasing any Arch unRAID iso. Also, if the iso doesn't happen then what is next? All the talk of forking with a new forum and replacing emhttp certainly makes it appear there aren't any long term plans to include Limetech if/once the fork gains momentum and that doesn't read well. Also, the fact people were pushing for you to accept donations for a fork is an indicator that certain people would like to see that happen. An actual fork, not a LimeTech collaboration. It's rather obvious from posts in the other thread and your comments about no response in 3 weeks that there really isn't any ongoing discussion with Tom happening so the story that background communications were happening is rather weak. Glad to see you now say waiting instead of "in talks", which is where things really are. Your "friend" in this endeavor now making a long post about benefits has missed the point (yet again). The question is not what it will do or how it's a benefit, the question is of ethics.

Geeze, how hard is it to understand a simple concept? If you want to post guides and work towards making it simple for someone to use unRAID in a full distribution then have at it. Include Tom if he's willing and you want to or simply don't. Obviously, there will be advantages to doing so for certain people. Notice I didn't write making a new full distribution including the unRAID part. That could be a possibility. I haven't seen an answer on that being allowed or not. If you want to discuss a software fork, raise support money and talk about replacing emhttp then you should take it elsewhere. Fork discussions have no place here. But then I guess people don't understand what fork means. Maybe this will help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29 "In software engineering, a project fork happens when developers take a copy of source code from one software package and start independent development on it, creating a distinct piece of software." Since the ones posting about forking have no affiliation with LimeTech this means completely new 100% independent development. Starting with what can be used from unRAID (no emhttp) and developing something without any future involvement of LimeTech. Can you get it now?

You should be fine. If you're on unRAID 5.0 then it should recognize the drives on the new hardware and boot as if nothing happened. If yo 're on 4.7 then you'd need to re-assign the drives. In either case do a print screen of the main web page showing the drive assignments just in case.