dheg

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    413

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by dheg

    [POLL] Should Lime Technology make unRAID CentOS 64-Bit Edition?

    in User Customizations

    Posted

    SnapRAID is precisely what I have been looking at recently.....but I still have preference for unRAID, and would prefer to stick with it but only if it moves forward at some point.

     

    Either way I am glad this topic is still being promoted / discussed here after the other thread was locked

    So do I. I checked back snapraid and looked promising, especially the multi parity drives. What put new off however was the lack of webGui

     

    Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk

     

     

    [REQ] A Newbie Guide to Virtualization, unRAID 64, and unRAID Distro

    in User Customizations

    Posted

    This may add to the confusion but wouldn't it be correct to say that by moving unraid to a mainstream up-to-date distro then you'd eliminate the need for members of the unraid community to virtualize in order to install additional functionality?

     

    So then all that remains is what would be other reasons for virtualizing? I'm sure that is a huge list but I think the OP is asking for the most common. For example

    pfSence VM to replace my router

    You could run 'virtual full desktops' (guests) from within a hardware server (host). In plain terms, you could run for example Windows, Linux and OSX from one simple box.

     

    And of course one of these guests could be pfsense ;-)

     

    Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk

     

     

    Dynamix - Web GUI

    in User Customizations

    Posted

    I know. Still, i prefer the basic Limetech/SF gui over Dynamix, due to the tabs-within-tabs-within tabs. It's not a matter of taste, or getting used to, it's just not supposed to work like that. It's a serious usability/design error. No professional gui will ever work like this. I can't understand that you don't see that.

     

    If you would make your tabscheme optional, e.g. choose between a tabbed gui or the standard tabs-with-rows, like SF and LimeGui, i'll use Dynamix.

     

    As I said before - if it doesn't work for you, use the alternatives - there is no need to keep telling/asking me to change the current design.

     

    Bonienl and others offer their services with no compensation to help enhance the unRaid product.  Based on the professionalism I see in Dynamix, I'd say bonienl knows what he is doing and is doing an excellent job.  Continuing to hammer him on a feature you may not appreciate does nothing to further the cause of enhancing unRaid.  As he said, if you don't appreciate the features he has built into Dynamix, find an alternative that does things the way you want.

     

    Bonienl - keep up the good work.  Dynamix is an excellent enhancement to unRaid and I like it just fine the way it is.

    +1

     

    Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk

     

     

    unRAID fork(), concepts, ideas and discussion, Running unRAID on another distro.

    in User Customizations

    Posted

    I did remove it.

     

    A simple comment that you weren't going to participate in the discussion anymore due to the attacks would have perhaps been a more appropriate response than just deleting the entire thread.    "Taking my ball and leaving" is not a particularly mature response ... that's twice now that this has been done in these virtualization threads (remember ddeeds ?)

    That's easy to say now, but (verbal) violence was escalating. Mods (I believe you are one) , or even Tom, should have anticipated and stopped it, but they didn't. And ironic locked the thread, only to have it unlocked by a mod (I think it was NAS). I'm sure NAS meant well, as did ironic,  but coming now to say it shouldn't have been deleted is, IMHO, a cheap shot.

     

    Ironic, grumpy and others are doing this for free, they don't have to take any bs. They have taken certainly more than I would have. And bs is defined per their terms, there is no absolute value on this, this is one of the few perks of doing this for free.

     

    Finally, if this forum is not the place to discuss this thing, which I believe is a valid argument (although I don't share it) it's up to tom and the mods to say so.

     

    Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk

     

     

    64 Bit unRAID running natively on Arch Linux with full hypervisor support

    in User Customizations

    Posted

    However, I think there is a misconception on here that Linux can't do RAID 5/6 (It can and does it very well) and that one can't add drives or remove them (It's actually easier than doing it in unRAID).

    I'm certainly nowhere close to be a linux guru  ;), but, can you set up a not-stripped raid?

     

    IMO, this has 2 advantages:

    [*]I do not have to spin up the whole array to open a small word file (for example)

    [*] if parity+1 drives fail, I only lose the information on those drives, and not the whole array. This might seem unlikely, but it happened to me one month into unraid, with brand new drives, that have been precleared. What are the odds!

    64 Bit unRAID running natively on Arch Linux with full hypervisor support

    in User Customizations

    Posted

    I'm back from my Xmas travels and have an exam on 6th but the after that its full steam ahead once I've begged and borrowed the components for a dev machine.

     

    Waiting to hear back from Tom on things, loosing a bit of hope as its been nearly 2 weeks since he last made contact. I'm all for collaboration but it takes two to tango.

     

    So, in light of this I will be pushing ahead with a fork of unraid myself much in the same way as other Linux distros have forked. Mine will be a two pronged approach...

     

    First, get unraid-fork packaged for an alpha release. I approximate by mid to late Jan on this.

     

    Second, tidy up any loose ends and reach a state where this can be 'given back' to the community entirely open sourced with some documentation by the end of Feb.

     

    Third, take what I've learned and push forward with a replacement modernised version of emhttp that I will write. It is still very early days on point 3 mind you...

     

    So with this all in mind, and leveraging this awesome community and what was discussed earlier in this thread, I feel comfortable accepting donations. I realise this model isn't for everyone but I would really appreciate any contributions towards the development costs as I'm a full time student right now without a job.

     

    If you'd like to donate please do so via PayPal. My address is

     

    [email protected]

     

    Thanks for reading and for donating from the bottom of my heart if you do.

     

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

    donated, hope not being the first and certainly not the last ;-)!

    64 Bit unRAID running natively on Arch Linux with full hypervisor support

    in User Customizations

    Posted

    Grumpy if I were to use your opensuse and kvm guide, how easy would be to move the setup later on to this new unraid version (if it ever happens).

     

    Why would you?

     

    You will be going back in time to a read only file system, plugins and solely dependent on one person for everything.

     

    Does openSUSE have 10,000+ developers, testers, innovation, updates, patches, testing, package maintainers, etc. or does unRAID?

     

    You need to think of unRAID as a NAS storage device utilizing a very "stripped down" Linux to do it and not a Linux Distro. I doubt it will ever evolve into that.

     

     

    As Fx stated before, unRAID is something more than raid 5. Their jbod application is pretty useful when adding new drives. HOWEVER, if I could get this with other distro/solution, I'd have a go at it. The thing is that I haven't found it and so far unRAID is the NAS solution that better fits my needs.

     

    My point is... Why twist yourself and your hardware into a pretzel trying to make it accommodate unRAID.

    That's not really what I'm trying, I might have not make myself clear. Virtualization, IMHO, is the way to go. Right now I have a VM for media storage (unRAID), a VM for VMs storage (NAS4Free), a VM for mySQL, another for a Plex Server, a testing VM, usenet, etc. My next goal was to install pfSense and maybe untangle.

    Bottom line, I'm not trying to accommodate my set-up to unraid, but rather unRAID to my set-up, because it's the best media storage solution I could find.

     

    64 Bit unRAID running natively on Arch Linux with full hypervisor support

    in User Customizations

    Posted

    I was hoping this will move forward during the x-mas break to migrate from ESXi, but it seems like it's not going to happen.

    Grumpy if I were to use your opensuse and kvm guide, how easy would be to move the setup later on to this new unraid version (if it ever happens).

    I also wanted to take the opportunity to install pfsense, will this make things more difficult?

     

    Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk

     

    [GUIDE] Virtualizing unRAID in KVM on openSUSE 13.1 (64Bit) <--- Completed 12/19

    in Virtualizing Unraid

    Posted

    This might be a stupid question, but is vt-d support required? I see a mention of it in the first post but wanted to confirm before attempting. My current hardware is not vt-d supported but I was trying to find a way to run xbmc and unraid on the same computer. From reading through all the other threads, I would assume vt-d is a requirement for all visualization but I just started reading about virtualization a week ago.

    You need at least vtx for Virtualization. Vtd is needed if you also require/want pass through

     

    Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk

     

     

    64 Bit unRAID running natively on Arch Linux with full hypervisor support

    in User Customizations

    Posted

    So, I could put my cache drive into active storage capacity with no performance hit, and could easily? convert a disk to serve as a 2nd parity?

    Unraid doesn't support a second parity drive. It's been in the roadmap forever though. I believe it was called p+q.

    What you could do (I think) is to raid1 your cache drive, easier said than done though.

     

    Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk

     

    64 Bit unRAID running natively on Arch Linux with full hypervisor support

    in User Customizations

    Posted

    Going into the POWER USER Zone...

     

    You can also set up additional shares to various folders, drives, etc. on your Host Server. You aren't stuck with only what unRAID shares. If you have a SSD drive on your Host outside of unRAID with a folder called Stuff. You would share Stuff on the Host (not in unRAID because unRAID can't see it) and you could copy things there if you so desired.

     

    Why not? You can share the pendrive, why not the host drive, or especifically a part of it? Maybe create a partition that will act as cache for unRAID. This way, if I have a RAID1 of the host hard drive, cache will also be protected, does it make sense?