p.totton

Can I ask if you were successful with the Transcend Information USB 3.0 Card Reader (TS-RDF5K) with Unraid. Ie ( Not black listed) Did you end up using a Micro SD card for your Unraid OS? Thanks, Paul Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

USB Card Reader Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

+100 This is a very balanced post with good suggestions I really hope both Tom's take the time to read it. While this is true, personally I think if Tom managed this differently this could change and be far more lucrative for him. There are a number of online products that charge an initial use cost, and then an annual payment to be entitled to the latest upgrades. If Tom was willing to: 1) Provide consistent communication 2) Provide a solid list of updates being included in a given release, and stick to it 3) Provide a proper roadmap 4) Stick to his commitments, or at least provide better visibility into his progress (which leads back to #1) If the above were being met I am sure a number of us would be willing to help keep Tom financially viable. If Tom had a model where you buy Unraid (Plus or Pro) then you are entitled to 1 year of upgrades. Additional years of support could cost you $10/$20 depending on your version. This would allow those who are happy where they are to use the product they bought, and those who want the latest and greatest to pay a bit extra to gain those features. If this was being applied retroactively to current users, Tom could release 5.0, offer a year of upgrades to everyone existing and then slide into this model moving forward. I have a couple of products I use structured like this, and have no problem with it. However... it's because I have confidence in the vendor - not so much by what they've done, but by the fact that they don't disappear for weeks/months at a time, and because they don't try and slam last minute features into a product that is 95% baked. I definitely appreciate what Tom has done with Unraid to date, and would be willing to help Tom moving forward, but a whole lot would need to change from the current model. Hopefully the 1 year post-5.0 could be used to regain the trust of the community and show consistent progress to prove Tom can meet commitments and deserves this. I am not one to voluntarily throw away money, but I have no problem supporting the products I use, trust and appreciate. Given the vocal support Tom receives in this forum (and the passion of the detractors) I think there are potentially a lot who may agree with me. All those who keep pushing for release I believe are just trying to keep Tom to his word, and wanting the same 4 things listed above. It's not so much a technical requirements (though there is some of that too), but wanting to trust Tom. I am guessing none of us really know Tom (or very few do), but all of us want him to succeed. I think if Tom was to focus on the above model, the rewards would definitely pay huge dividends to him, help make Unraid far more financially viable, and possibly allow Tom to focus full-time on this and potentially other products (provided this is not a full time job now, which the sporadic communication suggests is not). I am sure not everyone will agree with me, and some will likely complain at the thought of paying even more for Unraid, but I bet there are a lot of others who would agree to this. I am guessing I may find out in the reply comments to this. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We have been bug free since July 10th it is now August 16th. We have scope creep why not just admit it. But lets make a date commitment to get this under control. This is what every commercial software development project has to manage. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What bugs?? This is just feature creep and yes it is completely appropriate that we discuss it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

These "paying customer" comments get brought up every now and then and I find it interesting that people feel the need to flame/whinge/complain like you haven't got an awesome product for the amount of money you spent. Free or $70-$120 for a LIFETIME license is pennies for what unRAID delivers on a daily basis. At the end of the day is renaming rc16c to final really going to change anything? No. The product stays the same. I understand that RC as a label has an impact on impression from a commercial point of view (people who re-sell/manage unRAID servers for customers) and feature creep is definitely frustrating but for the majority of users it isn't going to make any difference to the end result when 5.0 goes "live." Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 4 Beta [/quote This is not flaming at all, I fully respect and use the product that Tom has developed. However many of us know Unraid could be much bigger commercially with a little(lot) more release discipline. Your comments that RC vs final doesn't really matter are way off the mark and both Tom's should know this. I have project managed both small and large software developments for a living and release dates are absolutely critical to stakeholders and sponsors alike. In this case paying Unraid customers are both and therefore the delivery commitment timeframe is to us. Commercial success is not just about producing a feature rich product nor is just about product quality. Existing customers are key product advocates in recommending and promoting UnRaid. To be an advocate you must have CONFIDENCE in both product delivery and support. Refusing to take software out of Beta undermines all of this. Commercial lesson over.. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

+1 Everyone keeps saying we are close to R5.0 final, If thats really true why can't we get a committed date for the core Unraid product. Instead we appear to be stuck in an endless cycle of scope creep. Perhaps we should start naming our software releases after animals like Apple does. I have the perfect animal name for R5.0. Lets call it "Unicorn" it's both magical and mythical at the same time. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I basically concur with Joe L, although I would prefer to say that it should be *treated* as informational, even though the messages and behavior are clearly not right. The only misbehavior apparent though is that the mpt2sas driver module does not appear to be programmed to expect a second instance to be disabled. The fix would be a newer version of mpt2sas. I have to say that none of the SAS support modules appear to be very mature to me, and I hope Tom will continue to look for newer versions to include, after v5.0 Final of course. [drifting off-topic here] In fact, if I were preparing an LTS version of UnRAID, I would have to strip out all of the SAS support, and probably the Realtek support, and perhaps other things, but then who would want it? By its nature, and the constant demand for support of the latest storage technologies, UnRAID is forced to be cutting edge, staying just behind the latest releases. That is not exactly compatible with its original mission as a rock-solid totally stable file server. Sorry if this is a dumb question, but is there a reason that the drivers for these problem cards can't be compiled and loaded separately from the main Unraid package. Seems like it would be desirable to decouple extended hardware support from the core software to simplify support. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Browse that forum section on a computer. Tom marked the solved issue threads with a "Solved" icon. You can't see this in Tapatalk. OK thanks, I didn't realise this Tapatalk limitation Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Could I request that all those users that logged problems within the Unraid OS 5.X Issue List thread update their status. It looks to me like most of these issues have been resolved but its difficult to determine unless you keep up with all the RC threads. Thanks Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Welcome, it is indeed encouraging to see Tom#1 investing in marketing, communication and support. Unraid can only improve with proper product management discipline. I say discipline deliberately because without it things become UNPREDICTABLE. Users (and potential users) need to know there is a business plan with a visible product roadmap. Does this mean that the product roadmap is set in stone? Of course not, but LimeTech need to aim for a much more predictable time interval between releases. What features are in each release may change depending on bugs, user requests and competitive factors. There should be a fixed period before release (inc Beta's) where feature candidates are locked down, this includes ANY changes to the core product. If the Product Roadmap does need to be changed make that official and push it out to the Forum. Right now we have total confusion about what new features are in V5 and what bugs will be resolved. You can't please all of the people all of the time but you can be predictable and transparent about what is happening. When I selected Unraid as my NAS it was the user Forum that clinched it for me. I lurked for over a month before deciding to buy. Not only were the key members professional & knowledgable but they were extremely patient with the less technical users asking basic questions. I have learned a lot just from reading these guys posts. I realize that LimeTech cannot respond to support issues raised by every user but consideration should be given to a Limetech prioritized support for those users who have contributed so much and helped so many. Lots of potential to make things better and grow the Unraid user base. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Limetech's biggest failing isn't anything to with the product, it's clear consistent communication. We get short periods of good support and feedback about product development and then months of nothing. I have no doubt that Tom is working hard in the background. But, Unraid users and potential users rely heavily on our forums for answers to their questions. When none of our Forum veteran's and expert users seem to know the product direction it does not bode well. The second thing I would change (that has caused significant frustration) is the release schedule,The bottom line is that it needs to be more regular and more predictable. As great as some of these shiny new features may be I don't want them if it means being in a perpetual Beta/RC cycle. I expect that many will be placated when R5 final comes out but let's not fall back into the cycle of delight to disappointment. I know this can be addressed through improved communication and better release management. Limetech's incentive for doing this better is organic business growth through word of mouth. It not the technically superior product that achieves the best commercial success it the one with the best overall reputation. For many that reputation can be damaged with a low score card on the above issues. I remain optimistic that this can change for the better. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No mention of the board spec's (MB/Controller/HW) to know its truly VMWare certified (CIM support, IPMI). In todays world running a Mid to Large size dedicated NAS is pointless, the curve is all about virtualization and cloud services. Sales will suffer if it is not truly virtualization certified both hardware and unRAID by Tom. Anyone see an official post stating unRAID supports being virtualized by Tom? (No adding a vmxnet driver does not quantify) unRAID has no built in email/notification and monitoring. This has been pointed out many times and no progress has been made on this. Even the simplest NAS's carry some form of these. All mid to large implementation carry notifications of degraded states, non by unRAID. Parity check are voluntary and not scheduled based; an alert to parity errors is way too late in the game, when a simple alert of a degradation for hardware component (eg. Temps, voltage, premature drive failure) would go alot further to preventive correction before hand. Even if this was a custom or pre-release of v5.0 for anyone who bought the hardware, it is an untested feature nonetheless; one would be running in untested waters. I personally am not thrilled with the QA process I seen come from the Beta/RC's. 5.0RC12a is by far the slowest thus far, AFP is a no go, NFS has issues, I can only imagine from what I have read in regards to Active Directory mode (to scared to even try down that road). unRAID will always be a beta no matter the label from the way its being run and this is unfortunate. Technology is growing faster than a one man show, its falling behind the curve with each day that goes by. There are many linux distro's being utilized, none go at this pace. Its always some other components issue (supposedly) but take a minute and read through the release notes and you will clearly see how much was fixed and experimented to unRAID itself at a turtles pace, and this is what was publicly noted, we don't know all of it. Soon running all SSD's that are low power, low heat, take up less space and don't need to be spun down will overcome many factors, about the time unRAID maybe stable and final. P.S. Looks like speedingant designed the main http://lime-technology.com/ page looks good (no matter who designed it, may it not get defaced ever again) Madberg has very valid pint about AFP & NFS support.. This is something that any user with a hybrid of Computer OS would consider as important, (I know I do) Not to mention all the media steaming devices that use NFS. I have no problem with software being declared GA for a defined set of hardware. But I do have a problem with software that's not reliable with common networking protocols. This is core to the main Unraid applications of media/file serving and backup. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No mention of the board spec's (MB/Controller/HW) to know its truly VMWare certified (CIM support, IPMI). In todays world running a Mid to Large size dedicated NAS is pointless, the curve is all about virtualization and cloud services. Sales will suffer if it is not truly virtualization certified both hardware and unRAID by Tom. Anyone see an official post stating unRAID supports being virtualized by Tom? (No adding a vmxnet driver does not quantify) unRAID has no built in email/notification and monitoring. This has been pointed out many times and no progress has been made on this. Even the simplest NAS's carry some form of these. All mid to large implementation carry notifications of degraded states, non by unRAID. Parity check are voluntary and not scheduled based; an alert to parity errors is way too late in the game, when a simple alert of a degradation for hardware component (eg. Temps, voltage, premature drive failure) would go alot further to preventive correction before hand. Even if this was a custom or pre-release of v5.0 for anyone who bought the hardware, it is an untested feature nonetheless; one would be running in untested waters. I personally am not thrilled with the QA process I seen come from the Beta/RC's. 5.0RC12a is by far the slowest thus far, AFP is a no go, NFS has issues, I can only imagine from what I have read in regards to Active Directory mode (to scared to even try down that road). unRAID will always be a beta no matter the label from the way its being run and this is unfortunate. Technology is growing faster than a one man show, its falling behind the curve with each day that goes by. There are many linux distro's being utilized, none go at this pace. Its always some other components issue (supposedly) but take a minute and read through the release notes and you will clearly see how much was fixed and experimented to unRAID itself at a turtles pace, and this is what was publicly noted, we don't know all of it. Soon running all SSD's that are low power, low heat, take up less space and don't need to be spun down will overcome many factors, about the time unRAID maybe stable and final. P.S. Looks like speedingant designed the main http://lime-technology.com/ page looks good (no matter who designed it, may it not get defaced ever again) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tom can we please have an update on 5.0 final? It's been a while since anything has been posted from Lime Tech about progress and it would be helpful to understand what issues are being worked. Thx

Genuine bug fixing of R5 is fine, but feature creep where new features are introduced as part of the package will increase the risk of new bugs and further delays.

I would like to think that finalizing Rel 5 was a priority over new projects like 64bit Unraid. However based on Tom's original post in this thread I am wandering if one of the things delaying R5 final is that he plans to introduce Cache pooling as part of the current 32bit release. My preference, for what its worth, would be for Cache pooling to be introduced as part of the 64Bit series. I think it's fantastic to see these developments on the roadmap, but right now I am keen to see R5 finalized.

Can anyone tell me where we are with Release 5 final? I believe the last post from LimeTech indicated he was investigating slow write speeds where more than 4GB of RAM was installed. We're there any other important issues preventing this from going final?

Agreed, bug 3 is too serious +1 Need this fixed for final

My vote is to make a 5.0 final now for the following reasons:- 1. It is the right thing to do for support Limetech needs to encourage its user base away from version 4.7 because it will become increasing difficult to support on software that old, nor will many of the expert users on the forum be using it either. 2. It is the smart thing to do commercially. Impressions ARE important to your brand and that means being predictable with releases. Software that stays Beta forever looks like hobby software that only unix guiru's should be using. Now I know even the Unraid early beta's were rock solid but try convincing potential new customers about that. 3. Give yourself a breather with the 5.0 final milestone release. Tom you have already put in blood sweat and tears into this release, you need to take stock, sit back and make sure you fully understand any remaining issues and their impact rather than simply continuing with this RC series. Keep up the great work and the comms

Indeed - I keep wondering what's in a name! V4.7 has at least two faults, already fixed in the v5 beta cycle, which prejudice data integrity, yet many people refuse to move to v5 because it "isn't stable". Actually, I think 4.7 has three known bugs that will corrupt data fixed in the 5.0-rc8a release, not two. 1. The bug where a "write" to a disk could be lost during a re-construction or parity calc. Work-around, do NOT write to an array during a re-construction or initial parity calc. 2. The bug where an MBR on existing disks will be overwritten and result in it pointing to the WRONG sector. (this occurs when the super.dat file on the flash drive is rebuilt.... as when a flash drive dies and is replaced) No work-around other than to keep a backup of your config folder, just in case your flash drive fails. 3. The bug where a temporary file created on a disk, when renamed to the original name in a user-share other than the original physical disk does not unlink the original file, resulting in a duplicate file error AND the original contents NOT being re-written, leading to potential data loss. No work-around, the use of temporary files is common on many file transfer/copy programs. This bug exists on all but the very most recent 5. releases. Joe L. The above makes me think most people should be running the latest RC. The problem for many is product positioning, the beta or even the RC "name" implies the software still has bugs that prevent in from being going final. I try to recommend Unraid whenever I can because I genuinely believe it is a great product, however people who have no experience with the product don't want to take the risk. Now I understand those that say they should run 4.7 if they are worried but that release is 2 years old with many key features (like support for>2TB disks) missing. As a product manager I can assure folks a lot is in a "name".

+1 That way all those with RC3 issues could confirm if their issue is fixed and hopefully the bug list gets shorter and easier to read.