-
Posts
16148 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
65
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Store
Gallery
Bug Reports
Documentation
Landing
Report Comments posted by JonathanM
-
-
When is the additional check evaluated? Only when an attempt is made to change the status from NO to YES?
What happens if the share config is manually manipulated?
What happens if an exclusive access share has content added to another pool? Does the check happen every time an exclusive : YES share is mounted? If so, when content is added to the share folder on a "foreign" pool, is the content then made available when the array is stopped and restarted forcing exclusive to NO?
-
Quote
Exclusive shares
If Primary storage for a share is a pool and Secondary storage is set to "none", then we can set up a bind-mount in /mnt/user/ directly to the pool share directory. (An additional check is made to ensure the share also does not exist on any other volumes.) There is a new status flag, 'Exclusive access' which is set to 'Yes' when a bind-mount is in place; and, 'No' otherwise. Exclusive shares are also indicated on the Shares page.
Quick clarification please, for the minority of us that have leveraged "only" and "no" in unconventional ways, i.e. to access all the content of both the array and pool but NOT automatically move things around, manually moving things as needed, does the "additional check" force exclusive access to NO, and continue to work as before showing a fuse mount of array and pool content?
I just want to be sure before I get a nasty surprise where most of my VM's suddenly lose their images. I currently have domains set to cache:only, so new VM's get created on the pool, but if I don't plan to use the VM very often I'll manually move the vdisk to the array, and move it back if I need to.
-
https://forums.unraid.net/topic/92285-new-use-cache-option/?do=findComment&comment=854925
I've been advocating for this change for a few years now.
-
3
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, luzfcb said:
Great. I asked the question because there is no information about Memtest86+ in the Release Notes for 6.12.0-rc1 and 6.12.0-rc2Yeah, probably because there really isn't any updated info, it is what it is.
What I'd LIKE to see is a way to have the end user download the files, and copy them to the USB stick, with a custom boot option. A talented developer could probably come up with a plugin to do it, but since you can't run it without rebooting anyway, the extra steps of downloading the new version and making a memtest USB stick isn't really that huge of a deal. Developing and supporting a plugin that alters the Unraid USB stick like that is probably too much work and risk for too little benefit.
-
58 minutes ago, luzfcb said:
Will the Unraid 6.12 also update the Memtest86+ version to the latest version available?
It already includes the latest version that is licensed for 3rd party redistribution.
Newer versions must be directly downloaded from the original website.
-
-
22 minutes ago, Andiroo2 said:
complete wipe and reformat?
This.
-
17 minutes ago, Kilrah said:
Not that I can see from making a "normal" test VM and removing if from command line with the --nvram switch, no error.
Don't know if it will help make it a thing, but could you do a short feature request to at least put it on the radar? Seems like it should be just a quick addition to the GUI.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Kilrah said:
virsh undefine --nvram MacinaboxCatalina
Maybe unraid could add it to the "remove vm" command.
Would there be any harm in using the -nvram switch on a VM that didn't "need" it?
-
I've never seen a correlation made to explain why it effects some and not others.
-
macvlan causes crashes for some
-
15 minutes ago, Jclendineng said:
if you have all the same sizes and can do zfs I would think it would be a definite upgrade?
Just keep in mind if you want to upsize the zfs pool I think it's a little more complicated than just adding a single disk, unlike the parity pool.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Hellomynameisleo said:
Why can't I update unraid to version 6.12? It says up to date and even when I go into plugins and install manually it says "plugin: not reinstalling same version", I'm currently still on version 6.11.5 of unraid
What version is listed on the "Next" branch? 6.12 isn't stable yet.
-
Please post in the proper area, this is not an Unraid bug.
-
Yes, this is an issue. Obviously it's not a high priority one.
Rationale is that by default any multi drive pool IS protected, and it takes a deliberate action to change that, and if you select RAID0 or single, you will know that the pool no longer is protected.
It still needs to be fixed though.
-
-
That's a known issue, any RAID multi drive pool is shown as protected, regardless of RAID level.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Garbonzo said:
I thought I had read 6.11 was out of beta, but I may have misread that... anyway, I am probably going to sit revisiting rc5 out this time, and try again if there is a rc6+ prior to release.
-
1 hour ago, dopeytree said:
Unraid is full of bugs
To be fair, most of the issues we see here on the forums isn't technically limetech's software. In your AMD example, the best limetech can do is pick the least buggy version of the drivers provided. When they update to the latest driver from third parties, who knows how it will play out. If you document the issue and it's solvable by rolling back the AMD code, that's what will happen. Hopefully all these sorts of issues get caught early in the rc cycle and get ironed out of the full release.
-
1
-
-
Changed Status to Closed
Changed Priority to Other
-
-
-
-
12 hours ago, feraay said:
I guess would be a lot easier if we stop mixing problems with each other only because the outcome is the same
This sums up probably 95% of the me too posts in this whole forum, not just this thread.
-
1
-
1
-
Unraid OS version 6.12.0-rc4.1 available
-
-
-
-
-
in Prereleases
Posted
So content manually added to the sharename folders on a foreign pool will be hidden until the array is restarted?
That's fine, I just wanted to confirm the behaviour so we can help people who will inevitably have a container writing to the wrong location.