tjb_altf4

On iOS, all browsers use the same rendering engine, so are all susceptible to same bugs. I've never had issue with Chrome on Android. As a workaround, you could look at mobile apps like ControlR which I've used in the past personally, or Companion for Unraid which seems to be popular.

Does this ignore dockers that have their own IP set ? Otherwise great job bringing in this feature

Might be a good idea to add a warning in CA Fix Common Problems about old unused share configs that need deleting (or introduce a cleanup method), otherwise it might reduce the effectiveness of this feature for users that have previously made these mistakes.

Depending on how you code it, surely the worst case scenario is you stop additional containers at the same time unnecessarily, right ? I would think it is an edge case, so the small performance/efficiency penalty would only be felt by a minority. You could always do a uname -r check (or similar) to see whether the script should run in an unraid optimised way.

Prusa MK3S, but there are many great options out there. It's a simple design, it took me about 30min to measure and finalise in CAD, while the print itself was about an hour as there is purposely not a lot of print volume.

Currently Docker CPU usage shown on Docker page shows CPU usage as a percentage of the full system core count, unfortunately this behaviour extends to when a container has CPUs pinned, which is where a user has configured the container with less CPU cores (vcpu). In this example on a 32 vcpu machine, and with a container configured for only 2 vcpu shows a less meaningful fractional percentage. Instead I propose this usage should be based on actual available vcpu, which is more meaningful for the purpose of monitoring cpu usage. The below mockup shows current metrics, and the same usage if displayed relative to allocated resources. Note that container memory usage already displays this relative behaviour. This machine has 64GB of RAM, but this container is restricted to 8GB though extra parameter --memory=8GB Container CPU pinning for context

Designed and 3d printed a bracket this morning so I could mount the sas expander I bought earlier in the year. This allowed me to repurpose the second HBA, while adding 4 more drives... now my 28 bay enclosure is maxed out and I'm sitting on around 350TB

OK after finding a similar report by another user, I decided to reboot as he did and the warning went away as it did for him... Started the array and all is well... thank fk. This is the second time Unraid's BTRFS pool state management has tripped me up, it would be great to see the BTRFS implementation in Unraid get a bit more love before we dive in the deep end with ZFS.

root@fortytwo:~# btrfs fi show Label: none uuid: 533c0b3a-8a34-4203-af2e-9c380d554c7a Total devices 1 FS bytes used 190.76GiB devid 1 size 476.94GiB used 221.03GiB path /dev/nvme0n1p1 Label: none uuid: b4460fad-e372-492d-af6e-7a766202415d Total devices 2 FS bytes used 981.27GiB devid 4 size 1.82TiB used 1.05TiB path /dev/nvme1n1p1 devid 5 size 1.82TiB used 1.05TiB path /dev/nvme2n1p1 Label: none uuid: 77c414a6-8ac6-4003-b447-689ca96865f3 Total devices 3 FS bytes used 7.23TiB devid 1 size 3.64TiB used 2.57TiB path /dev/sdd1 devid 2 size 3.64TiB used 2.57TiB path /dev/sdb1 devid 3 size 3.64TiB used 2.57TiB path /dev/sde1 Label: none uuid: f522172e-c3f4-4f7a-9727-3b69a5ab81f4 Total devices 4 FS bytes used 65.28TiB devid 1 size 16.37TiB used 16.34TiB path /dev/sdu1 devid 2 size 16.37TiB used 16.34TiB path /dev/sdo1 devid 3 size 16.37TiB used 16.34TiB path /dev/sdm1 devid 4 size 16.37TiB used 16.34TiB path /dev/sdl1 Label: none uuid: f7538fe8-507c-4c36-bd3c-aadc92dc921a Total devices 4 FS bytes used 64.91TiB devid 1 size 16.37TiB used 16.26TiB path /dev/sdw1 devid 2 size 16.37TiB used 16.26TiB path /dev/sdaa1 devid 3 size 16.37TiB used 16.26TiB path /dev/sdt1 devid 4 size 16.37TiB used 16.26TiB path /dev/sdn1 Label: none uuid: 67290cac-5453-458c-90f2-10835ff79fe4 Total devices 2 FS bytes used 32.56TiB devid 1 size 16.37TiB used 16.30TiB path /dev/sdy1 devid 2 size 16.37TiB used 16.30TiB path /dev/sdac1 this seems to indicate everything is OK, but I have NFI what the Unraid GUI is about to do if I start the array. (the two 4 device pools are the ones in question)

Adding some drives which required some moving of cables, one hba cable wasn't hooked back up correctly and so those drives didn't appear. Array was not started, pools were not mounted. No problem shutdown and fix, they reappear on boot, all good Now I see a warning against the drives in those pools "All existing data on this device will be OVERWRITTEN when array is Started" Is this actually going to overwrite the data on those drives ?

If you only populate slot 1, it gets x16. If 1 & 3 get populated, then they get x8 each (or maybe 1 x16 and 1 x8). Slot 5 only has x4, and if populated it will disable one of the onboard M.2 slots I'm on Threadripper (1950x) for my main unraid system for this exact reason, lots of PCIE lanes: the typical base package gets at least 2 x16, 2 x8 and 3 M.2 (x4)... and you can bifurcate on most mobos also.

Just upgraded to 6.5.55 without issue, this release has an additional patch for the log4j vulnerability https://community.ui.com/releases/UniFi-Network-Application-6-5-55/48c64137-4a4a-41f7-b7e4-3bee505ae16e

If bifurcation is available, it would only work on slot 1 as it needs a slot with x16 lanes. Its also possible if you did this, using slot 3 might drop slot 1 down to x8 lanes meaning only half the M.2s would work (although this manual snippet doesn't indicate that). If you got it all working, the M.2s would be presented as individual devices, so you could allocate them in Unraid however you wish.

There were a few issues that amplified writes, one of those was dockers like Plex doing health checks (which created small changes frequently in the docker.img) The fix was to add the following to extra parameters of the offending docker under Edit Container > Advanced View --no-healthcheck

For the config (only), just copy paste the config using XML mode, it is a manual method, but not that arduous to do.

If you can't create/change the entry point of the docker to do this (probably a no go), I'd look at the docker folder plugin, this was originally meant to group dockers, but it also gives you the ability to define custom commands among other functionality. Otherwise you could put in a feature request to have custom commands added to the vanilla Unraid UI.

are you trying to run a specific script from the context menu?

As @trurl said, it already does this

On current version it's under Settings > Management Access > Local TLD If your sig is current and you're on 6.7.2, I think this might be under Settings > Identification

Yes same for me, whatever name:tag you build locally using, you specify that in the template. I usually build with a tagged version and latest simultaneously for simplicity.

You would have to copy (manually or otherwise) your template xml to: /boot/config/plugins/dockerMan/templates-user/ That's how I'm doing it at the moment.

This might save your bacon from future OOM events

Its part of stock Unraid (unless I'm mistaken), go to: Settings > Display Settings > Show array utilization indicator > Enabled Don't forget to press apply.

Just used this to guide to take advantage of the Cyber monday sale, to upgrade a system that's currently in pieces Very concise guide, and the extra troubleshooting steps were a great help! Great work by the IBRACorp team.

Would be great in a future revision to see a basic text editor as an action, and/or an "open command line here" to allow more complex operations in web terminal. Otherwise very much looking forward to this plugin