Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

30 Good

About tr0910

  • Rank
    Advanced Member


  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I see @bonienl already has Wireguard support linked to his huge dynamix thread with all his other plugins. I'll leave this here for now. http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=36543.0
  2. Thanks to @bonienl @ljm42 @NAS and of course @limetech we now have wireguard implementation on unRaid. Talk about it here.
  3. Ok, seems like we need to set up a Wireguard thread for 6.8 to siphon off the comments from here. I'm sure @limetech wants this to only capture the issues with 6.8rc1 Creating one now....
  4. Looking forward to Wireguard comments. Thanks @limetech @bonienl@ljm42 @NAS for a new VPN option.
  5. I've never suspected this but do you have any proof of it happening? Sent from my chisel, carved into granite
  6. tr0910


    Once the beta is finished, can we expect a normal release of 6.7.3 ? Sent from my chisel, carved into granite
  7. I replaced the dual PSU in mine with a single standard atx quiet Platinum rated PSU. This made a huge difference in noise. A bit of work as it's not drop in. I never touched the fan wall as that would have only made a minor improvement. Regarding the low power CPU, don't waste your time on that. Especially if the low power version costs more. At idle they are about the same, they just don't have the headroom. Why pay more for slower. Your disks during parity checks are where most of the heat will come from Sent from my chisel, carved into granite
  8. What would we add to have it also grab LUKS headers from unassigned disks mounted? Correction, it seems to already do unassigned disks. Awesome...
  9. @dlandon I never meant to suggest you were responsible for this issue. At one time I heard that @limetech planned to integrate Unassigned Devices (UD) into the core product. Perhaps this has been pushed out. Heroes like yourself bear way too much burden from us greedy users. (please, just one more tiny change to UD.... LOL) Still the bottom line persists. As I said earlier, (more of us are using the product in ways that the original security design never intended) and this results in demands for tightening up the security of the core product. This is not a bad thing, but it does consume resources of our hero volunteers, and from Limetech. I was only wanting to raise this issue while we were all paying attention. I have been able to work with what we have for UD encryption. I admit that now I use UD for more than I used to, and this results in me passing encrypted UD disks between servers. Provided you accept the limitations, it works.
  10. unRaid has never been sold as a secure OS that should be exposed directly to the internet. However more and more of us are using the product in ways that the original security design never intended. I don't share the panic regarding plain text passwords in /root that has been discussed here recently, however now that we are all paying attention, let me explain something that is a larger concern. When unRaid introduced LUKS encrypted disks for the array, I immediately implemented on one server that could benefit from increased security. I have been running encrypted disks without problem since that time. This server also has a number of unassigned disks that are connected and disconnected from the server. Thanks to @dlandon we managed to get unassigned devices to support LUKS drives as well. But there is one huge problem. The unassigned devices require that all disks use the array LUKS password or keyfile. This is not good especially when we move disks from server to server. You can only use LUKS encrypted unassigned disks if the array already has at least one disk encrypted. And this password/keyfile must be the same on all servers where the disk is plugged into. This should be looked at if further enhancements are being made to the encrypted file system.
  11. Have used unRaid since 2010 using 1gb RAM servers on 4.47 with 1tb drives. Currently have 6 Pro licenses. But each Pro license can do so much more these days that some of the licenses are sitting quietly as spares for future use. The last few years has seen some real moves forward with the capabilities. VM's and dockers are awesome. And the fact that unRaid can support multi-CPU server hardware with 512gb or more RAM makes each PRO license go a long ways. unRaid, you're all grown up now...
  12. Awesome Sent from my chisel, carved into granite
  13. 1-3 covered by UnRaid with Dockers and plugins and VMs. Remote access is also possible however secure solutions to 100% access require research and care. There is no single switch to turn this on. Parity will protect you from drive failure, but not from user error, theft, fire or water damage. Backups are still required for important data. UnRaid is a data downloaders dream and media consumption tool. Sent from my chisel, carved into granite
  14. You may have been fooled by caching. My dual Xeon 2670 with 96gb ram will show wildly different write speeds depending on ram available. The first 50-75gb is being written to the ram cache and happens at a much faster speed. Also a write to a non array drive will happen significantly faster than an array drive where parity needs to be calculated. Overall I can't say I notice my encrypted drives being any slower to write than my non encrypted drives. There must be some slow down but on my system it isn't noticed. Sent from my chisel, carved into granite
  15. Yes Enterprise equipment is best. Buying last generation castoffs is highly recommended. Buying new today without the benefit of Dell like buying power is going to cost more than most will want to spend. Finding the right castoffs is the challenge. Servethehome forums are a good place to find the details on the hardware hitting the market Sent from my chisel, carved into granite