tr0910

I'm not really disappointed in the performance with btrfs. I may just reformat and run this drive as zfs and let that be it.

Awesome. My apologies for missing this. Just to confirm, this only works with typed passwords, not a keyfile correct?

Thanks @dlandon. I love UD and had used it to mount VM's on a UD SSD. Having multiple cache pools now, I can leave UD for my temporary disks rather than using it for mission critical VM use. Still UD never broke on me. Thanks for your support, and especially your adding encryption support to UD. Some day it would be nice to have multiple encryption key support so we could mount a disk with UD that had a different encryption key than the current array.

Just learning ZFS, so pardon the dumb questions about l2arc. Can you describe your device setup for this? And how you are using it? Presently I have my VMs on a single SATA SSD cache drive using btrfs. I don't have NVMe slots on this Intel 2600cp2 MB so I won't be able to go full speed, but I have 64gb ECC RAM installed. How should I configure zfs for best VM performance assuming that I move my VMs from btrfs cache drive to some kind of zfs pool. Will ZFS provide a burst of speed to my aging hardware?

I'm playing with it on a test server on 6.9.0 b22. It installed and created a simple test pool so far.

Is there a version of the ZFS plugin that works with 6.9.0 beta22? Installing from Community App gets the one that works with 6.8.3 Unsupported kernel detected! ZFS not installed! - Please follow this post https://forums.unraid.net/topic/41333-zfs-plugin-for-unraid/ and reinstall the plugin when this version of unRAID is supported

So the new multi-cache pool nibbles away at UD territory. Is the plan to continue this direction rather than include UD as part of native unRaid as was originally mentioned several years ago? Loving the possibility of ZFS being included in base unRaid, as it seems to be getting more and more love.

Tom just hinted a roadmap for storage that might include ZFS as a native filesystem in the 6.9.0 beta 22 release notes. A future release will include support for multiple "unRAID array" pools. We are also considering zfs support. I have been playing around with the ZFS plugin, and have been fascinated with the possibilities. The multiple cache pools included in beta22, and multiple unRaid array pools promised for a future release all are linked to keeping unRaid relevant. We have a few more years before SSD will be cheaper per TB than spinning disks. I would expect both SSD and mechanical drives to continue to decrease in price per TB in the foreseeable future. What it would take to eliminate mechanical drives is a disruptive technology or a new "Dark Age" to be thrust upon us. If that happens, more than hard drives will become paperweights.

Support here in the forum is great for people using unRaid in typical data hoarding for movies, audio using auto downloaders and media servers However, you will find support to be very limited to fringe use cases such as ZFS. Support here for Windows VMs is broad and good. There isn't as much experience with Linux VMs, but don't let that dissuade you from proceeding as the base software is solid. I've been using the product since 2009.

If you are on the same LAN, no complicated SSH keys are needed. I was backing up over the same LAN for years beginning with unraid version 5 way back in 2011 just by NFS mounting the drives from the other server and using rsync as follows. mkdir /mnt/t2disk1 mount -t nfs tower2:/mnt/disk1/ /mnt/t2disk1 rsync -av --stats --progress /mnt/t2disk1 /mnt/disk1/ >> /mnt/disk1/disk1.log I would do this for each disk, and rsync would backup the servers in unbelieveable speed. There were 250,000 files per disk, and the process over gbit ethernet would be finished in about 60 seconds per disk, provided there were no changes to the disk. This works good for disk to disk rsync where you are on the same LAN, and you are sure the connection is safe. Not so good if you want to go from user share to user share.

You either have a MB USB port defective, a rogue app or script that is writing to the USB flash drive, or a bad USB thumb drive. Non of these things involves unRaid. The fact that you have replaced several makes me think it might be one of the first 2. Sent from my chisel, carved into granite

I can still report this working well from USA to China. No VPN is used once the system is set up and running. It is all SSH from one server to another. An always on raspberry PI is used if you need to start a remote server via IPMI. I hope we get somebody to curate this topic an make it easier to implement. Thanks to @ken-ji for helping us all. Finally, it would be great if something like this could be available via the gui as plug and play someday.

There sure is interest in a good write up of the snapshot feature. Command line is ok. What about snapshots of important data directories on the array? Is this the same? Sent from my chisel, carved into granite

Your existing key is the only way to get your data back. As long as you didn't reformat the drive you should be ok Something does look wrong though. The disk should be showing already padlocked. Both your disks show unlocked. Are you sure you didn't select an encrypted disk to be parity? Which disk serial number was encrypted?

Started with a duct-taped throw away old AMD PC with 1gb RAM back about 10 years ago, and today have several Xeon 2670 based systems with 128GB ram in 4U rackmounts. Things have changed for the better. In 10 years the only drama has been several HD failures rebuilt from parity, and numerous HD dropouts related to questionable SATA cabling and a bad power supply. With the server hardware in place now, the SATA dropouts are no longer an issue. HD failures continue to be contained very nicely and now the Docker and VM's mean that once in a while I can even stress a beefy server. ECC memory and dual redundant power supplies on the server hardware is a nice benefit, but honestly, the better quality of the server hardware means that nothing fails anymore.

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

Thanks to @bonienl @ljm42 @NAS and of course @limetech we now have wireguard implementation on unRaid. Talk about it here.

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....

Looking forward to Wireguard comments. Thanks @limetech @bonienl@ljm42 @NAS for a new VPN option.

I've never suspected this but do you have any proof of it happening? Sent from my chisel, carved into granite

Once the beta is finished, can we expect a normal release of 6.7.3 ? Sent from my chisel, carved into granite

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

What would we add to have it also grab LUKS headers from unassigned disks mounted? Correction, it seems to already do unassigned disks. Awesome...

@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.

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.