Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

25 Good

1 Follower

About Jorgen

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 02/04/1976


  • Gender
  • Location
    Manly, Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Try rebooting unraid to shake out any leftover port usage. But what is this in your run command? —net=eth1 That looks non-standard to me, and might be part of the problem? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  2. Glad it's working for you again, but you probably shouldn't be using the :test tag anymore. It was only temporary for testing new functionality when it was first introduced. Just removing ":test" from the repository field and saving the changes should get you back on the latest normal release of the container.
  3. Lots of people are running successfully on the nextgen servers. If you post your logs (remove username and password first) we should be able to help you get it working. The logs also contain a list off all endpoints that support port forwarding. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  4. It won’t help in this case, the VM to unRAID share networking is not affected by the NIC speed, it’s using a virtual network. You should already be able to write to the cache drive at full disk speed from the VM Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  5. Just adding to your learnings: enabling turbo-write has no effect when you also disable the parity disk. There is a good explanation in the wiki about how normal vs turbo-write parity calculation is achieved and why the latter is faster. It comes at the expense of needing all your drives spun up though. I’m on my phone so won’t even attempt to find the article and link it, but I’m sure you can find it yourself if you want to dig deeper. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  6. [mention]jwoolen [/mention] sorry don’t know what might be wrong in that case. Hopefully someone with better networking knowledge than me can chip in. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  7. I assume the screenshots are from a browser on your local PC and you have configured the browser to use Privoxy as the proxy server? In that case the browser routes http traffic via the proxy server and VPN tunnel. However, the browser will use the OS mechanism for DNS resolution (DNS is different to http). Since your OS doesn't use the privoxy proxy it will fail the DNS leak test. The DNS servers you set in the container setting has no effect on the browser behaviour in this case. I believe they are only used by the container before the VPN tunnel is established, but maybe @binhex can confirm this? When you are using the PIA app on teh other hand, all internet traffic is routed via the VPN tunnel on an OS level, including DNS resolution. So DNS passes the leak test. So how do you get the results you want? Two options that I know of that should work (but see note below): 1. If your browser supports it, set DNS resolution to use http protocol. In Firefox this is called "Enable DNS over HTTPS" under the proxy configuration settings. I assume other browsers have something similar. 2. Enable SOCKS v5 proxy in Privoxy and set up your browser to use that. See here for details on how that works: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/33099569/how-does-sock-5-proxy-ing-of-dns-work-in-browsers Now, I just tested both methods and could not get the browser to pass the DNS leak test for either. Not sure what I'm doing wrong but I'm not that worried about it as I use the PIA app on my PC anyway. But maybe this will point you in the right direction. Please report back if you try it and get it to work for you. Actually, you might also be able to set up your OS to use Privoxy as the proxy, but I have not tested that at all. Edit: looks like I need to use FoxyProxy extension for Firefox to be able to pass the username/password when using Socks. Hopefully other browser have better support for Socks...
  8. Ok, had a look at earlier posts and I take it you will buy new 8TB drives. Assuming the 10TB spare has data on it, this is what I would do: Assign the 8TB drives to the array and let unraid clear and format them. Do not assign a parity drive yet. And either don't assign a cache rive at all, or make sure you user share(s) are set up without cache as Trurl mentions above. Mount the share on your Windows box Use TeraCopy to copy all data to share(s). At this point you have two copies of your data, one on original drives, one on unraid share Add spare 10TB drive to unraid and assign it as parity drive. Unraid will start building the parity. This will take quite some time, 1-2 days most likely. During this process any data that was previously on the spare 10TB drive will be wiped and only exist on unraid, but it will be unprotected as the parity has not been built yet. You need to decide if you are willing to live with this risk. Once parity is built, you can delete any duplicate data from the non-spare 10TB drive that is still in your Win box. Add or enable cache for the share etc. Optinally add another parity drive if that was your plan. If you are not comfortable with the risk in step 4, you're only option is to add another (new) disk as parity at the start of the process to ensure the data is protected at all times. But it will slow down the data transfer.
  9. So you have a spare 10TB drive you want to re-use for unraid, right? Is it empty or does it have data on it? Is that the only existing drive you will be re-using? And how many other new drives (and what size) are you planning to buy? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  10. If you want to run the copy from your win box over the network, TeraCopy will let you verify file integrity and has other good features for large copy jobs: https://www.codesector.com/teracopy You could also mount the drive in unraid using the unassigned devices plugin and use something like rsync from the unraid terminal. This would likely be faster (no network bottleneck) but is more advanced so the scope for process errors goes up. And while we’re on the subject of large data migrations. Some people like to transfer the initial data without a parity drive assigned. This way the writes are much quicker. Then once the data has been copied, assign a parity drive and let it build parity for protection against disk failures. Just something for you to consider. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  11. So is the VPN still up when the download drops to 0? I guess it must be if you can access the deluge web UI. You have tried other endpoints? Debug logs might reveal something, but I agree that this seems to be a problem outside the container, especially since the other container has the same problem. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  12. Maybe try the WireGuard option instead of OpenVPN? It’s working very well for me, none of these cipher problems. Although your problem seems unrelated if it actually connects successfully at first. Are your trackers blocking you? Have you run out of space on any disks that deluge are using? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  13. The cache is only used for writing to the array (if you’re not using VMs and dockers) so won’t give you any performance benefit for Kodi reading from the shares. From your use case I don’t think you need one. On another note, that motherboard has a Realtek NIC which can cause problems with unRAID and is not recommended. Safer to use an intel based card. But you can add that later IF you have problems with the onboard NIC. Other than that I don’t see any problems with using your gear as a pure NAS. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  14. Did you add the VNC port to the Privoxy container? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  15. PIA offers three connection options: 1. legacy servers via OpenVPN 2. next-gen servers via OpenVPN 3. next-gen servers via WireGuard Only 1 and 2 are currently supported by this container. And 2 is the recommended option. Support for 3 is being worked on. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk