Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

38 Good

About -Daedalus

  • Rank
    Advanced Member


  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I'm not ephigenie, but I liked the idea, so I'll give my two cents on it, for what it's worth: Maybe something like a broad strokes roadmap. Nothing too concrete, but even a post with headings like: Features being worked on for the next major/minor release (multiple cache pools) Bugs being squashed for the next major/minor release (SSD write amplification) Future possibilities currently under investigation (ZFS) You could make the forum visible to community developers only. Or if you're feeling particularly transparent, forum members with enough posts that they've at least been semi-active, and around for a while. The understanding would be that anything mentioned is subject to change or reprioritisation, and that obviously certain things can't be talked about for market/competitive reasons or whatever. (or just because you don't like spilling all the beans on shiny new things) This would allow you to gauge community interest (at least, the portion of the community active on the forums) around given features which might factor into prioritization. As well, it gives us members a peak at the direction unRAID is heading, and an appreciation for why so-and-so wasn't added to the latest patch, or why such-and-such a bug is still around.
  2. This is why I don't comment much; I manage to completely miss the obvious most of the time. Reasoning for not including drivers off the bat makes complete sense now, carry on.
  3. Fair point! I might have to pick up one of these to test with. I had no idea they existed, cheers.
  4. Without going near any of the other stuff, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this one: Why the concern over install size? Most people are installing unRAID on 16-32GB sticks these days. Does it matter much if the install size is 400 vs 100MB? I can absolutely understand efficiency standpoint; it's a lot of space for something very niche, I'm just not sure what the downside is. The only one I can really think of is longer backup times of the flash drive, but that seems very minor. Is there something I'm missing here?
  5. Interesting. I didn't thing GPU drivers were coming this soon. I assume you didn't build in support for 3rd party modules just for that though, interested to see what comes of this down the road!
  6. I don't have an answer to this, but try doing the same things with top/htop open. If you still see high CPU usage there, then there might be something up. If you don't, it's because the dashboard CPU takes iowait into account, which can spike if the CPU is waiting on disks. Obligatory feature request for iowait to be removed from dashboard CPU usage. This isn't the first time it's caused confusion. It really shouldn't be there. If it is going to be there, don't call it "CPU".
  7. While this is true, it's somewhat irrelevant. The point of good UX is that you shouldn't have to ask where something is if you can't intuitively find it.
  8. +1. I was amazed when this didn't happen the first time I saw one.
  9. My bad. I misread your first post as "Emby". Never mind!
  10. +1 My eyesight isn't great, and I also hate that colour combo.
  11. Is there not an option to store this metadata on a separate drive? You could grab a 120GB drive for maybe $20 or something and throw all the images and the like on that. To me this sounds like quite a rare use-case, as most media front-ends have options to store metadata on a different path for exactly this reason. Still, an interesting request.
  12. +1 Server management interfaces have a similar function for updating firmware or changing BIOS settings. Usually done by an "Install" button, or an "Install on next reboot" option.