brainbone

I was wondering when this would come up. Unfortunately, ISPs like earthlink do not require authentication, but do require ESMTP, so falling back to HELO on lack of authentication will still fail in this case. I'll work on changing bashmail to fall back to HELO on rejection of ELHO. It appears that's the proper thing to do.

I'm currently affected by just this very issue. Been down since about 3:00CDT yesterday, waiting for a response from Tom. It seems that some type of temporary "online" license would be helpful. Say, a 10 day temporary key, requiring UNRAID to call home for authorization daily, issued instantly for a given GUID using your old key file and GUID as credentials for access to the temporary license generator. This would then send Tom a notice, allowing him 10 days to get the new, permanent Key file to the user should he see fit, or to revoke the ability of the user to generate temporary keys should they be abusing it. Update: Tom came through with a new key just an hour after I posted this. I still think some type of automated temporary key system is a good idea, but the down, at least for me, was minimal.

in the "# Loop over each disk, checking and reporting temp, and checking if a disk should be spun down." loop, you would need to count the number of disks spun up. After that, you could check the new count against the total number of disks (the number of entries in the diskNumber, diskList or diskId arrays) in the "# Calculate if notification should be sent" section.

If, in uraid_notify.cfg, you leave RcptTo blank and only use ErrorRcptTo, then you will only receive notifications if there is a problem. There is no way, at this time, to only send notifications if at least one disks is spun up.

Good to hear. Thanks for your help improving unraid_notify!

Nice work! Just a note: I updated unraid_notify to version 2.30, fixing some bugs dealing with the "To:" field in the message header and multiple recipients. bashmail was also updated, using EHLO instead of HELO, allowing authentication with earthlink smtp servers.

Looks like i had made a mistake in the way I generated the To: field in the header. Also found a bug in the way I was working with multiple recipients. Let me know if the attached package works. (updated: see first post in this thread for most recent version of unraid_notify)

Please check your PM. I sent you a different email account to test with. This will allow me to capture your notification message and see what's up with it.

No. Unfortunately the mail server is complaining that the message does not conform to RFC2822. I don't have an Earthlink email account to do further testing. If you trust me, you can PM me your username and password, else I'll have to see if I can find another way to isolate what in the message is triggering the non-compliance issue.

The problem seems to be that Earthlink appears to reject any authentication from MTAs that use "HELO" instead of "EHLO". This is a simple fix, but unfortunately my unraid server is down right now. The change is in bashmail (/usr/bin/bashmail) Changing line: mail_chat "HELO $(hostname)" to: mail_chat "EHLO $(hostname)" After I get unraid up and running again, I'll release a new unraid_notify.

in unraid_notify.cfg, make sure username and password are blank.

I guess the question is, do you think you'll need more than 7.5TB in 2 years? If not, allowing expansion to 6 drives should be adequate. The Rosewill case will get you this, without any additional drive cages. This allows you to start with 3TB, and add an additional 4.5 TB in the very near future. You can then start retiring the older drives and replacing them with drives larger than 1.5TB when they are available at a good price. If so, and you don't think you'll go past 16.5TB in 2 years, go for a 12 drive system like your original post. If you need 15+ drives (more than 16.5TB in 2 years), you'll need to look at 12 5.25 bay cases to use 4 4in3 drive cages (~$150+) or 5in3 hotswap bays in a 9 5.25 case. At this point, setting up a second server may be a better option.

That's a GOOD thing. Guess I wasn't clear. The Rosewill case appears to reduce the amount of airflow to the drives due to the drive cage door. Less airflow to the drives, in my opinion, is a bad thing. Not sure if the obstruction of the door is enough to worry about, but... Looking at the spec. of the system in the OP, and knowing the context of RussellinSacto's wants from other threads, I'd say this is for a system that can be expended to at least 12 drives, but that will start with 3TB (3 drives).

I certainly don't think this is trolling. It's simple suggestions to Lime Tech. At worst, it may be in the wrong place, since Tom may not read this. That said, improvements to unRaid marketing that could increase the user base is of interest to all unraid users. The better unraid does, the more likely the product is to improve. Nothing wrong with a little constructive criticism.

Since you're buying a separate power supply, there's no need to purchase a case with a power supply. any of these two would work just fine. 1) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119152 ($50) 2) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147104 ($65) #2, The rosewill case (looks like the one you chose, but with no PS), seems to constrict air flow to the drive bays. With case #1, you could conceivably delay purchase of the three 4-drive cages until you purchase more than 3 drives. The rosewill case would let you go up to 6 drives before needing to change drive cages. (save $66 here) Not sure if you really need a dual core CPU. Something as simple as a sempron ($30, 45w) will do fine.

Could you post the contents of the alert email? Is this Unraid 4.3.3, 4.4, or 4.5 beta1?

Depending on where you're located (gets too hot or cold) I would recommend against a trunk of the car solution. A neighbors house, linked by a wireless bridge would likely be the easiest solution. Something like this or this, depending on your situation, should work well. Could be done much cheaper, but it sounds like you like to stay clear of DIY. Of course, if your neighbor is very close, you probably already have a wireless link established. If you're looking for a managed backup solution that uses your own storage, and are uncomfortable with configuring rsync and the like, LogmeIn Backup may be a viable option for you, however I have admittedly not used it for larger backups (over 500GB). For local transfers, it should be able to transfer to the backup storage at near local speeds, when the backup storage and server are connected to your local network. Useful for the initial load. One of the benefits of Logmein Backup is that logmein manages firewall traversal and location management, so as long as both the backup server and desktop to be backed up has an internet connection, backups will be performed. This gives you the flexibility to move the server or client to any location, provided it has a net connection. The downfall is that you'll need a windows desktop connected to the backup storage acting as the backup server in the remote location, and another windows desktop to act as the backup client connected to the local storage on the local side. That, and you end up paying a yearly fee to use your own storage.

The problem is, a community driven hardware compatibility list is bound to get out of date quickly, especially when it comes to motherboards. I really think lime tech. is missing the boat by not providing a low cost yet expandable solution for those that want to avoid the typical DIY hassle. Also, the community augmentation of unraid is another great hidden feature of unraid. Unfortunately, Lime Tech has also missed the mark here by not adopting a standardized plug-in format. Something as simple as a web interface allowing you to download and manage (enable or disable) package modules, and the ability to allow that package to interact with the web UI, much like unmenu. Many users don't want to mess around with config files, and while unmenu can get you there, you need to mess around with config files to get to that point.

As an out of the box solution, unraid certainly isn't the cheapest or most feature rich solution. As I see it, the upsides unraid has going for it are: 1) Easy and inexpensive expandability (mix and match drive size) 2) Added reliability by not striping. 3) Inexpensive if you build the server yourself. (unfortunately, see B, below for the related downside) 3a) Unraid has a knowledgeable community. 3b) Unraid is very open to user modification, allowing me to overcome its initial limitations, and expand features as needed. The downsides, however, almost pushed me off unraid: A) No email notification (had to implement a satisfactory solution myself) B) For the DIYer, the hardware requirements can be troubling. For example, even with a modern motherboard, I had to find my own solution for getting unraid to boot properly from a flash drive. No existing solution from Lime tech. or the unraid community worked at that time. C) There is currently no low cost, of-the-shelf way of getting your shoe in the door for those not wanting to build themselves. Say, a pre-configured, ready to go, 5 SATA bay, 4 drive server, with room to add additional storage in the future by purchasing supported backplanes and SATA controllers from Lime Tech.

If you have an off site (remote) location available to store an unraid server (back-up storage) with a relatively high bandwidth link between your home (main storage) and the remote location, you can start by rsyncing all of your main storage to the back-up storage locally. Then move the back-up storage to the remote location. After this, rsyncing will only need to incrementally send the changed data. Depending on how much and how often you make changes to the data on your main storage, incremental syncs to the remote back-up storage may be feasible.

The spin down timer in unRAID 4.3 uses the drives firmware to spin down the drive (tells the drive to spin itself down after x of inactivity). The spin down timer in unraid_notify (and unRaid 4.4) monitors disk activity (read and writes) and instructs the drive to spin down, regardless of the firmware. Why do it this way? Things like checking the disk temp., smart status, etc. look like activity to the disk firmware, and won't let the drive spin down. Doing it outside the disk firmware, we only monitor actual reads or writes to the disk, not checks of smart status, etc. In short, if you want to periodically monitor the status of the disk, you can't use the drives firmware (the way unRAID 4.3 does it) for spinning down the drive.

I recommend shutting down the entire array on overheat of any one drive. If a drive is overheating, there is a serious issue with the system -- and trying to limp along by shutting down only the offending drive (placing it in a failed state) would likely be counter productive.

Good to hear! I'll make it optional in the next version, but I'd like to wait to get more feedback on how 2.20 is working before pushing out a new one. I'll put in an option to disable unraid_notify from doing a spindown. At the moment, a blank spindown time will default to 60min spindown. If unRAID spins down the drives before unraid_notify has a chance to, there shouldn't be any real problem or conflicts. unraid_notify will see that the drive is not spinning, and leave it alone. Below 1 min? I'm having trouble seeing where that is useful for anything but increased drive wear?

Added SMTPS support using socat. Connecting to mail servers that require SSL support on port 465, like smtp.gmail.com, is now possible if you install the socat package. See top post for details.

Never mind. mchsi.com = MediaCom = AT&T. See my post above. I believe your ISP requires Secure SMTP for sending mail.