primeval_god

When creating a new stack via the webui there is a dropdown for advanced options that allows you to specify the location of the project folder for that stack. In a future release an option to place the whole projects folder elsewhere will exist, no ETA.

Projects that need to build their own containers are a more advanced usecase than I had intended on supporting in the webui.

Not really except that containers run via compose can more easily be attached to multiple networks which can be useful for reverse proxy containers in some configurations.

Does the gather functionality of the unbalance plugin accomplish what you need?

Each container needs its own label.

It is but it is not recommended. Containers run through the console will not be particularly controllable via the webui. There is a plugin which installs compose and allows for managing basic compose stacks via the webui. Like dockerman however its designed to support compose stacks run through its ui interface not via the console or other methods. Compose stacks launched via means other then the composeman interface will not integrate with the interface. If your goal is just learning docker or learning to manage docker systems in general i would not recommend unRAID as the way to do it. unRAID is not a general docker host. unRAID focuses on docker containers as convenient way to have "apps" rather than being a general host for the myriad of other ways containerization can be used (microservices, clusters, C/I setups, etc). Many of the best practices of docker on unRAID are not the more general docker way of doing things (bind mounts preferred over container volumes for instance or running everything as root). If learning about docker is your goal i recommend using a VM or LXC container with a more general linux OS to host your container playground. Leave unRAID the unRAID docker host for running your important NAS services (media servers, backup servers, sync etc.).

Check out the docker container called Netdata

Yeah the general consensus for the reason they dont have a linux client is because of the number of people who use linux desktops is low compared to the number of linux based NAS and fileserver devices that people would try and backup.

Safe mode doesnt just disable plugins, it leaves them uninstalled so they cant add pages to the webui. For most plugins even if their functionality is 'disabled' or turned off they are still hooked into the webui and could be causing issues. Something you might look for, using htop in the terminal or container like netdata, is high iowait. If iowait is high it can result in a sluggish system even if the processor is otherwise not busy.

The requirements for the icons are the same as those of unRAID's Dockerman ui (whatever they are). All the compose manager does is apply a label to each container with the icon url you specify. Everything after that is built in unRAID webui functionality. There is a known issue where updating the icon url does not actually change the icon of that container (thus you kind of only have one shot at specifying the icon). The problem is with the way dockerman downloads and caches icons. I attempted a pull request for a fix but never got any traction. You can manually go in and delete the cached icons to force unRAID to redownload them.

The reason Backblaze Computer backup is difficult or not possible to do on linux is specifically because they dont want people backing up a 90TB NAS to their "Unlimited" Computer Backup service. The fact of the matter is the $9/month that their Computer Backup service costs is just not a reasonable price to expect for 90TB or online data storage.

False. unRAID is not heading towards zfs. They have added it as an option but have made no indications that they are moving away from XFS or BTRFS. Nor are they recommending it above the XFS or BTRFS except in the specific case for people who are looking to get he maximum possible read / write performance from a drive pool. My personal opinion is that their reason for adding ZFS support boils down to satisfying a fairly vocal group of customers (and potential customers) who come from TrueNAS and believe that ZFS is best filesystem. Also my personal opinion, but I dont think ZFS offers any advantages over BTRFS when used as a single drive FS in the unRAID array.

It doesnt sound like an with the compose manager plugin. Aside from boot and shutdown the compose manager plugin does not do anything with containers in the background (unless you click buttons). The problem is more likely with whatever you are using to backup your containers.

Have you rebooted since uninstalling?

Are you using BTRFS? If so just make the directory you store your backups in into a sub volume (rename the folder they are currently in, create a sub volume with the name of the original directory, then move them into the subviolume). Btrfs snapshots are not recursive, so when snapshotting the top level the sub volume containing the backups will be excluded.

Are you backing up your snapshots as well as you filesystem? You should probably just exclude your snapshots from your backup.

This. Multi-user management is simply not a feature of unRAID (either officially or through community plugins). Generally i try and dissuade people from considering unRAID for business purposes as its security, update cadence, support options, and overall design goals are focused on home use cases. More specifically for your case i would not be comfortable basing business infrastructure on some custom workaround for an unsupported feature (multi user). If the above doesnt convince you my suggestion would be not to run your multi-user VM/containers directly on unRAID. Nest them within a VM with an OS that provides the multiuser control you need.

I wouldnt say that unRAID was designed to be the opposite of RAID. It is a RAID like storage technology, that doesnt fit any of the traditional RAID levels. It offers the same redundancy of RAID 5 or 6 with improved worst case disaster recovery. It trades off some performance and block level pooling for the ability to remove and mount each data drive as a stand alone file system. You can almost do this now. Unraid does still require at least 1 drive to be in the unRAID "Array" but that requirement can be met with a small flash drive if you have no interest in the array. The rest of your drives can be placed in a BTRFS pool with whatever raid level you want. At some point the term array will go away and the unRAID "Array" will become just another type of pool. The requirement to always have an unRAID array with at least one disk will also go away at some point, but no ETA from limetech on either,

I am glad you got it working. I dont think you needed to go through all that just to get swap working, but having swap on an array disk is not ideal so it may be better that you did. My guess us that the issue was your 10GB swap file size. This plugin struggles creating large swap files as the webui portion can time out before the underlying file operations complete. You could likely have created the file from the terminal then started it from the plugin just fine. p.s. as to why putting the swapfile on the array is not a recommended configuration, it will tend to keep the disk it is on spun up at all times (and thus also parity).

I would disagree with this. The usefulness of compression is highly dependent on the type of files you have. For media files, which likely make up the vast majority of files stored on unRAID NAS devices, filesystem compression does very little as the files are already highly compressed.

Defragmenting is not recommended for BTRFS volumes under normal circumstances, especially not if snapshots are being used. Defragmenting breaks CoW sharing between files, snapshots etc. It certainly should not be done filesystem wide.

It mostly depends on what you want to do. The compose manager plugin is focused on supporting simple compose stacks from the unRAID webui. If you are looking to create complex compose stacks or utilize off the shelf compose stack provided by projects not designed explicitly for unRAID you might be better served with a more full featured container management solution like portainer. Either way keep in mind that compose is not native to unRAID. Integration with the webui will be incomplete.

systemctl is part of Systemd they are not different things. There is no simple way to update components like the docker engine separate from an OS release in unRAID. Regardless it is unlikely to be an issue with the version of the Docker Engine. It is more likely to be an error in how your configuring the container. Unfortunately i know nothing about onlyoffice so i cant really help there.

Currently unRAID requires there to be at least one drive in the "Array" (meaning the disk pool that uses the unRAID driver), regardless of what other pools are specified. For people who want to use only ZFS pools and no unRAID "Array" the workaround is to assign a single small USB flash drive (other than the boot drive) to the array to satisfy the requirement. Unfortunately the drive does still count against drive limit for the particular unRAID license level. It is expected that this requirement will be going away at some point as Limetech makes further improvements for supporting drive pools. Unfortunately, as is the case with most unRAID development, there is no ETA for that feature.

Luks i think.