NewDisplayName

The worst part is the NEED for VPN to use this from outside, as i would need this app inside my local area network. And yes i know why he did this, but in my opinion, its not clever.

Thats my opinion.

Hi, i installed nextcloud on my unraid server as a docker and on my phone... But its crap. I put files in it manual per file browser (because this crap app is not able to syncronise 70gb). But now he doesnt recognize it and wont show up (i mean srsly? Is it 1920????) Also many errors while transfering, hammering my mobile (just wtf?) So, i want to change to some other program, which preferable just works... i would liketo have direct access to files via smb. Really cool would be that it transferes everything from handy and remove the files from mobile after X days. I saw owncloud (is it the same as nextcloud?) and seafile, can someone tell me anything about this apps?

So i tried this plugin and i must say.. its crap. I use unraid since months, (without any problems) but this plugin was able to shutdown my buisness 2 times in 2 days. CRAP. One time in the middle of the night, nothing in logs, all dockers closed. Besides the "complicated" settings where u need to move one time at a time thru all your dockers... so bad.. Today at 11 after docker update it didnt restarted the containers, i dont kn ow how much reputation i lost becuase of this ****** We need an good option in unraid itself, for dockers and vms.

controllr is crap. A nice multiple server setup would be very handy.

How u like my smart split idea?

And whats about the next folders after share?

Yes, for me its working, i just needed to change that Key in the template. U can see my nodes when u enter "unraid" in the ranking (while tryin storjmonitor running, i accidently deleted my first storj node which had over 100GB :() Im just waiting for the point they start selling their service again so new customers may lay their files there, until then, its just "farming" for reputation and response time getting low... and waiting for it to start...

I dont get it, sorry.

I guess i could explain it better in german... But the e.g. i gave, should explain it. I guess.

1. yes. All like normal. 2. just to be sure, parent directory would mean the directory before or? I mean the current directory. So if you have /some/dir/i/dont/know every directory could be on a seperate disk Is this possible?

Im no programmer, so i cant tell exactly, its possible, and if someone with exp with unraid programming could lighten us up, it would be cool. i think the normal split level also has to check which hdd and which directory, so it should be cashed (or already read), it just needs to put instead of random (hdd) or specific to the split level selected(hdd) put new files into the hdd the other files are. From information needed i dont see a difference in the split levels we actual have. It just needs to make a different decicion bases on the facts he already know.

I dont see any negative impact. But maybe a unraid dev can tell us more about it. @limetech Split level needs to check anyway which directory it should go on which disk, so there is no difference, but we need a new rule while he do that (to be "smart"). Its that simple. You can do everything manual, thats not the point, were talking about automation which could be more effective without any negative impacts. And also, if someone dont want to use it, he just dont pick smart split. Noobs may choose it and wont have a negative impact, but the positive effects, ppl who know how split level work and have a share for each thing, can still set it manual like they want.

Hm thats mysterios, but i also can confirm that my dates in the dockers are sometimes not that acurat (like hours off) - but no problems - and usually at some point the nodes goes normal again... If im right it can go -300 - +300 without problems, above, below is a problem.

Guys, the last weeks was much traffic because it was trash test data. Now its back to normal. Test was from (i dont know) till 27.4... I got like 5mb the last couple days, that is normal. (11 nodes) I posted a log checker, use this if u unsure if your nodes are running okay. This docker works perfect, i only needed to adjust the ports of the extra nodes created if you use this feature.

I think you see it the wrong way. Its the same as it is already with the split levels today at this moment. Just other criterias. And like i said, if the files in that directory wont fit into a single hdd, just fallback to standard random. Its nothing new, its just advanced because you dont need to FIX set the split level for the whole share.. Thats the only difference. My adanced idea to this, a "nice to have" feature would be splitting and moving AFTERWARDs. It just changes and makes it more complicated and more resource heavy if you AFTERWARDS put (files in directorys) together. But that is just an nice to have feature which probably isnt worth making - i dont know. Or someone just writes and plugin for it.

before (what split level now does, if u dont set it, or set it wrong): /some/share/films/film1 -> file1 (hdd1) -> file2 (hdd2) -> file3 (hdd3) /some/share/films/idc1 -> file1 (hdd1) -> file2 (hdd2) -> file3 (hdd3) /some/share/films/idc1/something/ishere -> file1 (hdd3) -> file2 (hdd2) -> file3 (hdd1) /some/share/series/serie/serie s01/film1 -> file1 (hdd1) -> file2 (hdd2) -> file3 (hdd2) after (what my new "zero intelligence needed" smart split level could do: /some/share/films/film1 -> file1 (hdd1) -> file2 (hdd1) -> file3 (hdd1) /some/share/films/idc1 -> file1 (hdd3) -> file2 (hdd3) -> file3 (hdd3) /some/share/films/idc1/something/ishere -> file1 (hdd5) -> file2 (hdd5) -> file3 (hdd5) /some/share/series/serie/serie s01/film1 -> file1 (hdd2) -> file2 (hdd2) -> file3 (hdd2) Maybe this is more clear. I dont see anything why this should not work. The only real question is, how much ppl would use it and is it worth implementing, for me, i think i would use it in nearly all shares. And i guess, im the standard "a little bit" expierinced guy. I edited my first post to show the progress we did in this thread.

1. the same as it is already 2. are there many ways in linux to manipulate things, id ont know exact cmds, but there are ways.

That, also. I also use cache dirs, but like the author says, it cant always be good enaught. There are cases where its not needed or suited, but i think in most cases it will atleast not HURT.

How split setting overcome this now??? Sorry but easier explaining as here i cant, sorry. before: /some/share/films/film1 -> file1 (hdd1) -> file2 (hdd2) -> file3 (hdd3) /some/share/series/serie/serie s01/film1 -> file1 (hdd1) -> file2 (hdd2) -> file3 (hdd3) after: /some/share/films/film1 -> file1 (hdd1) -> file2 (hdd1) -> file3 (hdd1) /some/share/series/serie/serie s01/film1 -> file1 (hdd2) -> file2 (hdd2) -> file3 (hdd2) It should be done like its now working with split level (the same thing, just differnt RULES), if it AFTERWARDS move it, is an additional feature (nice to have).

Yes, thats perfect. Thanks. You are right, this feature request is not suited for all cases or all people (i guess, the advanced ppl still use their split level). And you are right, it doesnt matter if that nfo... and so on, BUT i would like to get the max out of the system (long time without hardware failures) so i would like to only spin up whats needed, also i want to safe power. Also spin up and spin down (like goin from e01 to e02) is, as far as i know, also a factor which "uses" ur hdd. If today a drive failures and you have parity (like i have) its not likly that you loose anything because you can recover. Also that music point is the most anoyying thing for me. But there are other usecases, like if i would like to browse the archiv, because windows gathers informations about the files and the directorys, all drives spin up. In the end, ppl who dotn want to mess with split levels could choose "smart split". Advanced ppl just still set their split levels like they want it. Besides the one directory is too big for one hdd thing i dont see any downside in my suggestion. I see it as a quality of life feature for standard noobs. (most time correct split level automatic set to get most out of unraid)

Did u even read what i wrote? This makes it very hard to make suggestions, because you get the feeling no one cares... " For instance you do not cover the case where a given directory is too large to fit on a single disk or where it fits initially but then outgrows the disk. " I suggested: if possible to fit on one disk (so if not, then leave it where it is) - its that easy. OR, the advanced way, search for a hdd where it fits. Also im not talking about this is usefull for every case, i said for the standard user, which has a "standard directory arrangement" it would be anice addition.

Why should it need to read disk? When what you say is true, that it is in ram already... you got the point... To decide where to put (which hdd) he also needs to know which dir it goes?! Overall it doesnt matter, how much cpu, ram, disk it needs to look while he is anyway moving and accessing the data it takes to write files which are in same directory to the correct disk? If someone need a high speed, high capacy, ultra avaible server, he would probably wont take unraid and also he could just set the split level like he want and dont need to use the new "smart split" option. I guess all other standard users would be happy by not spinning up useless many disks. I always feel like ppl dont want to make software better, or cant think how other ppl might use their unraid instance. Since you have more knowledge about unraid, YOU could tell me / us how it is technicaly done best. I just make suggestions which, i think, would help the standard user much. And thats where u make money. YOu can make a product specific for a niche, but unraid is obviolous targeting standard users more and more, which is the right way. This new option is one of many things which could make unraid better useable for "noobs".

Hows ur delta?

1. yes, ofc. its a per directory split rule. 2. yes (its the same question, or?) 3. u create a share without directorys, so unraid can try to keep ROOT together on one hdd as long as possible, if its able to keep allocation methode up. All these actions (if they really are performance impact, which i dont believe, but i could be wrong) could be done when mover is invoked. (and or if system is idle, or at specific times)