tdallen

unRAID will work with either consumer or server grade (Xeon) hardware. You can base your choice on cost and features.

Don't buy 1155 hardware at this point. Virtually any modern setup can run unRAID, and would be much more future proof.

Since unRAID provides a hypervisor it usually runs on bare metal. Plex usually runs best as a Docker but can run in a VM.

Hi - You'd be moving from 4 cores to 6 cores, so that would be somewhat better. It seems like you are pushing things pretty hard, though - you might want to consider the Core i7.

Hi, some random thoughts: - The motherboard appears expensive? - The G4560 is suitable for a low end file server. - 8GB is suitable for a low end file server. - I'd imagine Kaby Lake hardware is nearing the end of its sales cycle. You'd want to be sure of the specs since in-place upgrades of CPU or memory will get harder, or require going to eBay.

Love the new theme, thank you!

Interesting card, but since it's made for QNAP enclosures you may have trouble with unRAID having the appropriate drivers. I don't have any direct experience, though.

If you are willing to spin up all your disks it's getting closer. Using Turbowrite I get a minimum of 70MB/s and more typically 90+MB/s. Under optimal conditions (say copying a large BD rip) I frequently get full 1Gb line speeds That's using a mix of 3TB and 6TB disks, and as boniel points out disks are only getting faster.

Sounds like you’ve got the right approach, good luck and let us know how it goes!

Hi - These older boxes can work, but they can also be a pain. It will have enough horsepower to run unRAID and 4GB of RAM is sufficient. You could definitely stand up a basic NAS with it. But, these old boxes tend to be heavy, loud, power inefficient and run hot. And if it only takes SAS hard drives then that further limits your options. You can give it a try (it's free with an unRAID trial license) and I'm sure you'll have some degree of success - but it may also inspire you to try something newer, more efficient, quieter, etc.

Maybe run a long test if you haven’t yet?

I run the stock fan and it's a lot cooler than that - high 20's, low 30's.

For Windows/SMB to unRAID I don't think I've ever hit a speed limit related to network protocols on a 1Gb network, though it's hard to say. I can hit full line speed with large files and Turbo Write directly to the parity protected array. Even with small files and no Turbo Write I don't usually drop all the way down to 50MB/s, again going directly to the array. Going to an SSD cache drive should be quite fast so I understand the OP's concern with 50-80MB/s from his Mac clients. Odd, but I traded in my Macs long ago so I don't have recent experience...

So long as you are writing to the SSD and not that old, slow HD then it seems like you've isolated the issue to Mac/OSX SMB and AFP. Unfortunately I can't help you there, but you might want to change your post title to reflect the Mac focus of your issue - there are folks here with Mac/unRAID experience.

Hi - what is the configuration of the disks in your array?

I think the conversation about Limetech being unable to provide a new license file is largely academic. If Limetech ceases operations without securing the company's assets or placing them in the public domain (and I obviously hope that never happens) then I will move my server to another OS. I am not concerned with operating unRAID in perpetuity following the potential untimely demise of Limetech. That's because a) it's not very likely to happen, and b) what really worries me is operating an up to date, patched OS. If my flash drive fails in the short time between Limetech's demise and before I can move to a supported OS, then I'll take my XFS formatted drives and move along. Like many others I spend time participating on this forum to help make unRAID a successful product - I don't just wish Tom well, I volunteer my time to make his business successful. And I think his team is running a very successful small IT shop that is performing to professional standards, and fully worthy of you buying his product. But if tragedy should somehow strike my worry is going to be about an exit strategy, not read/write cycles on flash drives. I know that sounds harsh - but in today's threat environment you can't plan to operate an unpatched OS forever.

If you just want to start by burning in the new hardware, you could use an unRAID 30-day Trial License for the purpose.

I started off my unRAID server with High Watermark and all disks included in all shares. It's a good setting for a new user to start with, and remains a good setting for users who just like to use their server rather than tinker with it. That said, I came to three conclusions. One, I actively manage my server - disks aren't going to fill up without my knowing. Two, I didn't like having files in a share scattered unnecessarily across multiple disks. Three, while having equal amounts of data smoothly spread across all disks seems appealing, it's actually a pain to manage. So, at the recommendation of some folks here like @SSD I switched over to having shares "include" only the disks I want the data on, and all shares are set to "Fill" each disk (with a nice big minimum free space). I also use the diskmv/consld8 utilities to move data from one set of disks to another when infrequently needed. Warning, this is a more advanced approach that requires you to actively manage your server - one disk could fill up while you have space available on others. But I prefer it so far.

No. There are a couple of ways you can arrange to move them. But, simply adding/rearranging the disks in the share settings doesn't automatically cause files to be moved.

If you create a "Media" share (well, any share), and you don't use a solution like cachedirs, then when you access the Media share the only way unRAID will have to determine the contents is to spin up all the drives associated with that share. Unused drives will spin back down after the standard delay. My personal preference is setup more granular shares - TV Shows, Movies, etc. And I target certain drives to be associated with each share. That minimizes the number of drives that need to spin up when a share is accessed.

Personal Preference - I feel like a Media folder is too general and prefer Movies, TV Shows, etc. Why would I want to spin up all the disks where TV Shows are located when I want to watch a movie? Downloads will generally be on your cache drive, not the array.

I’m ignoring it. When major sports content is available in 4K then I’ll start figuring out how I’m going to address it.

edit, cross posted with Johnnie who answered the question.

Has anyone looked at mounting a dust filter in front of these?

With unRAID it wasn't a realistic posture, anyway. Virtually everyone running unRAID 6 is also running a plugin or Docker of some sort.