jameson_uk

I had been away from Unraid for a while but I managed to remind myself so given this was a top search result I am adding here for next time I need the info.... BIND_MGT is not needed anymore (indeed doesn't seem to do anything). Since 6.12, in the network settings there is an option to exclude interfaces from listening. Setting the VLAN interface to exclude has sorted it so it is only listening on eth0 again. Doesn't seem ideal to have to exclude interfaces rather than specify which ones you want to use but it works.

Is this broken in 7? I didn't have Unraid for a while then I got new hardware and I have now added Docker back. I have enabled a VLAN under eth0 and even with BIND_MGT set to yes the management UI is available on the VLAN address

A year or so ago I replace my Unraid setup with a mini PC as I was primarily using the Unraid box as a home lab and not really using any of the actual NAS.... This is all setup but I find myself wanting to setup storage again, particularly for Frigate recordings. I have got a Terramaster F4-424 pretty cheap so I have moved over the 4 x2TB drives I had in the old machine and re-setup the array. The old machine had a 2.5" SSD which was setup as a cache drive but was only used to store data for docker containers so that wasn't migrated but there are two nvmw slots. My use for this Unraid box is going to be just NAS / media server. I will run Plex on here but all the other stuff I was running I will leave on the N100 based machine (which I will backup to the NAS). So looking for advice and options on the best way to balance things (I am primarily interested in power efficiency and data resilience). The Terramaster draws about 11w when all the drives are spun down and is currently drawing ~ 25w with parity and one drive and about ~35w with partity and two drives spun up. So from a power point of view, nvmes aren't particularly going to increase these figures so that would be best but a single cache drive is going to leave data unprotected until the moves pushs it to the array. Writing direct to the array obviously means I get some level of redunancy (I only have a single parity drive) but that uses the most power and increases noise (although the Terramaster is really quiet so that isn't a particular concern). I have set Frigate to only store motion so it is not going to churn through TB a day but is going to be writing regularly to the NAS over the course of the day. How do I reconcile all of this. I guess I want to have Plex store all it's config on the cache drive but I am wary of getting frigate to write to the cache drive as it would leave the data unprotected. Wondering whether I should create a mirrored cache pool and store Plex docker config and frigate recording or whether there is a better approach

I am currrently running an old Gen 7 HP Microserver that has 4 x 2 TB drives and a 500GB SSD cache drive. This is now starting to show its age and I was just wondering about upgrade options. One main consideration is the aging GT710 GPU I have in therre for Plex decoding. I would love to be able to shift to an iGPU (I am not interested in 4k and the like and is mainly for H.264 108i0p content) As I guess, as with others, the ubiquity of streaming services has meant my use as a true NAS device has somewhat deminished and the main use of my server now is for running docker containers (Hoime Assistant, Pihole, Zigbee2MQTT....) If I didn't still need the NAS at all I would just replace everything with an Alder Lake N100 mini PC with a TDP of 6W should save me some money on running costs and give me a big boost in performance. All the low power mini PCs seem to come with at most two SATA connectors which makes sense given the small power supply.which rules them out as a direct replacement. The HP microserver averages about 50W (so about 1.2 kWh per day) so wondering whether there is any modern upgrade that is going to beat this in terms of power consumption whilst being quite (ideally fanless), give me a performance boost and give me better graphics?

I have my network divided up into a few VLANs. Primarily trusted stuff vs IOT devices etc. This all works great and IOT stuff is nicely segregated on VLAN tagged traffic and trusted stuff is untagged. On the Unraid side I have enabled VLANs in network settings and configured a a new address on the IOT VLAN (and excluded this from the management interfaces). I have some containers I want on the trusted side and this all works well via a bridge network and port mappings of <trusted IP>:<port> so they are only accessible on the trusted network. I then have a bunch of containers I want on the untrusted side. I have created a docker bridge network and have all these containers running in there. Those I want to be accessible have port mappings of <untrusted IP>:<port> and the rest have no mappings at all (these are only accessible to other containers in this docker network-). All good so far in that some of the containers are not accessible externally (eg. MQTT server which only sits between Zigbee2MQTT and Home Assistant so has no need to be visible elsewhere) and the the containers I do want to be accessible appear on the untrusted VLAN. Only issue is outbound traffic from containers in this bridge network are able to connect to the trusted LAN. So whilst inbound traffic is tied to the IOT VLAN, outbound is not. I guess this makes sense as the bridge just bridges the docker network to the host (Unraid) and that has a route to the trusted LAN so it can get through. Is there any way to force outbound traffic back out through the VLAN tagged (virtual) interface tp prevent this??

I am hoping it fixed /run running out of space ??

I use the card for H.264 decoding in Plex. (Is just about the latest passive card I could find) I don't need the latest driver I am just wondering if I did need an updated driver whether it would appear in the plugin or not.

How does available versions get populated? I am running an old GT-710 so I am on 470.182.03 which shows up under available versions but I see that NVidia released 470.199.02 a few days ago. Not in any particular hurry to upgrade but jjust wondering whether updates will show up in the plugin or because it is the old legacy driver whether I need to update it manually.

My array has 4x2TB drives running reiserfs. As this is no longer supported I have been looking at switching to XFS but just looking at the best way to achieve this. AIUI the only viable way to do this is to copy the drive contents to another drive, format the original and copy it back. Just looking at the fastest way to achieve this without spending a huge amount. I have a pretty old HP Microserver which is fairly limited in resources (Array + cache take up all the SATA slots and USB is USB 2.0 only). There is however an e-sata port. I have an old USB WD Elements drive which I have hooked up and just running rsync now and it has taken 2 hours to copy 182GB so I an looking at 20 something hours to copy the 1..4 TB that is used on the drive and then 20+ hours to copy it all back and then repeat for the other two data drives. Isn't the end of world but just wondering if there is a better way to do this? I did look at connecting up a drive via e-sata but seems there are limited options and most the enclosures you can get are £100+ and I don't want to be spending anywhere near that amount.... Any thoughts on any cheap ways to speed this up? Thinking I could crack open the WD external HDD and then take the array offline, replace one of the disks with the WD one and then hopefully get it a bit quicker over SATA (is only SATA 2.0) or perhaps use a USB 3 PCIe card to connect the WD Elements drive?? Any other ideas?

Upgrade mostly went well and the ability to limit admin access by interface seems better and I have been able to remove some of my hacks Docker however seems to have an issue filling up tmfs on /run I have been running the same containers for a couple of years without issue but since moving to 6.12 I have had issue with containers crashing and refusing to start. Adding --nohealthcheck has helped but this is a workaround rather than a solution. Has something changes around docker using /run in 6.12 ?

indeed. I actually reduced the number of containers I am running when I upgraded to 6.12. I am assuming the issues are since upgrading tp 6.12?

So coming back to this now (and it appears this might be a cleaner in 6.12). First part is adding Unraid onto VLAN and preventing access to the admin stuff (SSH, web GUI etc.). This was a little pain previously and involved some hacks but seems you can do this relatively easily in 6.12. So adding Unraid onto VLAN was just a case of defining the VLAN on the network settings and assigning an IP. Now there is an Interface Extra section in the config where I set the listening interface to br0 and excluded br0.10 This means I can only access admin services on the main (br0) IP (and annoyance like the ftp server refusing to stay stopped, SAMBA needing hacks to config files etc appears to all be in the past). I then created my own docker network docker network create --subnet x.x.x.x/24 iot-bridge then I went through each of the containers I wanted to link and set their network to iot-bridge. On most I removed the exposed ports so they are only accessible by other containers running on the same network. Final step was to set the exposed ports on the containers I did want accessible to include the IP. So one thing I have done is put at least one service behind a Nginx reverse proxy (so I could enable TLS). So on the nginx container I changed the port from 443 to x.x.x.x:443 (x.x.x.x being the IP of the Unraid box on eth0.10). Now the nginx proxy is only accessible on VLAN 10 and the the container behind it is not directly accessible at all. I have a few other things like an MQTT server that are purely accessible on the docker network which makes me a lot happier than where I was previously

The solution lies in No ideal but turning off healthchecks for the containers stops /run filling up.

Having the same issue here. Looks like the fundamental root cause is the /run has run out of space

It is volumes rather than images. I only update my containers through unraid UI (that I can think of anyway). Looking again now I am not sure whether this is something odd in Portainer. It was showing lots of unused volumes so I deleted them. It is now showing two volumes but I have many more than that (Portainer itself shows volumes against containers correctly just not in the volume list 😕) Will see if I can establish when they appear and what they relate to