Gordon Shumway

I have confirmed that the NFS mount parameters used on my Ubuntu server are identical for the Synology NFS share and the Unraid NFS share. I also set Global Share Settings > Tunable to YES and the "ls" command against the unraid share still takes 1m57sec. I tested this several times and all timings are identical. The ls against the Synology share takes less than 5 seconds. There are currently 57,000 files on the share (camera video clips). I also logged directly into the unraid server and ran "ls /mnt/users/blueiris | wc -l". The command ran in less than 5 seconds. So why does this command take almost 2 minutes when ran remotely against an unraid NFS share but under 5 seconds when ran ON the unraid server, and less than 5 seconds when executed against a Synology NFS share with the same number of files? All devices are on my home network which is flat with a single subnet. Please advise.

I'm running unraid on a decent desktop (see attached). The array is primarily used as a target for Hyper Backups from a Synology and as a target for FTP from Blueiris (camera NVR software). I mounted the unraid share to a Ubuntu 20.x server and when I run the "ls -ltr" command it takes multiple minutes to return. There are at least 40,000 files on the share. I would understand this but the same command from the same Ubuntu server with an NFS share mounted from my Synology device (with the same file count) returns in seconds. Blueiris FTP's captured video clips to BOTH unraid and a Synology share. On the Ubuntu server, when I launch the "ls" command against the unraid share I see my CPU maxing out at about 27%. The share in question does not currently have cache turned on (kept it off while seeding the filesystem with the 40k files). It is not exported as SMB. For purposes of this post I ran the commands against each filesystem. The one against the Synology share took 17 seconds. The ls against the unraid share had not completed after 7 minutes so I killed it. According to the Array Devices this share is on disk2, disk4, and disk5. Any ideas where to start?

I'm a recovering Synology user setting up a new Unraid box with a circus of disks pulled from a flaky Synology DS. I have 2 x 500G M2 disks on the board, and the following spinning SATA disks: 1 x 2TB 1 x 4TB 1 x 5TB 2 x 6TB 1 x 8TB Does anyone have any config suggestions for these disks for best performance for simple NFS/CIFS file usage? Your opinions are appreciated. Thanks!

Thanks!

Hello, Looking through the options to download and install I don't see any guides for guys using Ubuntu desktop. I dumped all my Microsoft Winders installs a year ago and haven't looked back. How do you recommend downloading and installing Unraid using Ubuntu 20.x desktop? Thanks.

Is the webapp lighter and more responsive than the client? Maybe I was doing it wrong but since I installed it on Ubuntu on a physical server, I launched the Windows client/install process, but immediately did a remote connect to the IP of the Ubuntu server. How do you launch the webapp?

Yeah, I started with a Panasonic BB-HCM381A about 15 years ago. Then I bought a 2nd about 12 years ago. Believe it or not they cost over $800 each. They're both still working, but very low res. Then I bought a few Foscam's and got my ass handed to me by a guy on a camera forum when I had trouble with them when I installed BI. Live and learn. They all still work, too. Now I pretty much have Hikvision DS2CD series camera models all across the board. It takes a few years in a hobby to realize you're paying too much sometimes to just buy a name (which is why I'm now going to try out that Reolink? camera mentioned back in this thread). My BI "server" is a desktop PC with an [email protected] and 16GB RAM running Winders 8. The unRAID is an i5-7500@3400 w/16GB. There's also a flaky Synology DS1511+ in the mix, and the 2 HP DL380 G6's that is an enterprise class server and drives are ridiculously priced for it. I know sooner or later I'm going to say to myself "hey, I bet this would run better on that machine" and totally hose up a weekend getting greedy and moving stuff around between computers. Like I learned with the Synology, just because you can doesn't mean you should. As soon as I started running all their "station" apps (web, ftp, dns, mail, photo, surveillance) on that little ARM processor, the NAS started to suffer. Same thing happened with the unRAID on the i5. I'm going to let the BI "pc" do cameras and the unRAID "pc" do NAS, and use the G6's for compute stuff (one is running VMware ESXi with about 6 VM's, the other now has Ubuntu 14 native). It was a fun run. Thanks everyone. GS

So the DL-380 G6 seems to be holding up well. I'm learning hard and fast with this one. I have all 11 cameras online and am using 5 modules each: Camera, Motion, Preview+Archive, Problems, Email, and the load averages are around 3. All 16 CPUs are running on average 20-30%. I had the archives going to the local disk which is only 300GB and had to mount an unRAID share fast so I didn't fill up the filesystem. I learned that I could redirect the archives as well as the folder names just in time... A few things that bother me are that Xeoma is still a second or two behind in the matrix live video view. Also, some of the previews are sharp and some are pixilated, at least until I click them. And when I click/open a camera it still takes a second or two to clear up, then I see the video moves at what looks like normal speed for a few seconds, then it plays catch-up in quick motion. I can tell that because all my cameras display a time stamp (easy way to tell if any are frozen) and I see the clock roll fast and skip numbers . Blueiris wins for now. Thanks for all the help.

I don't quite understand the modules yet so I let it default. I think there were two chains per camera. I also let it default on the camera resolution rate. Last night I spun up the DL-380 G6. This one has 2 Intel X5560 CPUs @2.8GHz each quad core and HT,and 12GB RAM. I installed Ubuntu 14.04.1. I'll see how it does with Xeoma this morning. GS

After reading ... and reading ... and reading, I finally installed the docker. It took a bit of tinkering but in the end ... fail. After configuring 8 of my 11 cameras I was pushing an average CPU load of 83%. Video was lagged about 5 seconds on some cameras and motion was herky-jerky (for lack of a better technical term). I guess this processor ([email protected]) is just not made to handle that load. I will probably stick with some light-weight dockers like maybe a small webserver, or just let this box be a NAS server and nothing else. I'll have to consider putting Xeoma on a VM on a DL 380-G6. It has 2 sockets with quad core and hyper threading and should have a lot less trouble. Thanks everyone for the support. GS

Thanks everyone for the replies and information. For some reason the Windows 8 PC Blueiris was running on just randomly rebooted itself tonight. Another nail in BI's coffin. And thanks for the link for the Reolink cameras. I like the specs and the price, too. I'll download Xeoma tomorrow morning when I have 4 hours to spend playing with it. To paraphrase a bumper sticker I once saw ... I'd rather have a bad day with computers and cameras than a good day with yard work!

Other than having the opportunity to run Xeoma on a docker and consolidate my systems, the only other reason I have to dump BI is that it's running on Windows 8. That, and I am just not getting the whole folders concept for archiving. Otherwise it works fine. I paid for year 1 and still get free updates in year 2. I am not looking forward to the licensing model of Xeoma. I think you have to pay yearly? I have 11 cameras across several manufacturers (Panasonic, Hikvision, Foscam, NSC (rebranded Hikvision)) and they all work fine with BI but I haven't had any success with Zoneminder's most current version. I did manage to get a Hikvision camera working with an older version of ZM on unRAID but it was consuming 25% CPU. I haven't been able to get the same camera running on the newest version, whether on a VM on my ESXi box, or on a docker so I just shelved ZM. Stand-alone, VM, and docker aside, if you compared BI to Xeoma apples to apples, is there anything about Xeoma that was superior to BI that would make you switch? Thanks again for your reply. GS

I know this is not a forum for Xeoma, but I am gently trolling the interwebs for a replacement for Blueiris and I stumbled on it. A fellow posted a glowing review of Xeoma on a camera forum and got his doors blown off when they uncovered that he had been given free licenses by Xeoma for multiple (favorable) blog posts ... and neglected to disclose that little fact in the post. Before I jump into Xeoma, whether in a docker on my unRAID (yes I do have one) or any other machine, can any of you Xeoma users that have had experience with Zoneminder or Blueiris give me a reasonably fair review/comparison of the software? I am currently running BI on a desktop with an Intel [email protected] and 16GB RAM. It hardly uses memory (avg 4GB) but with 11 cameras it's got my CPU's constantly over 50%. I wouldn't mind running it on my unRAID and reclaiming that desktop if possible. My unRAID is running on an [email protected] with 16GB RAM and no dockers are currently running. Much thanks. GS p.s. if there is a more appropriate unRAID forum to discuss this topic please advise.

OK, that's what I was looking for. You say that "everybody else gets read-only", which is apparently the default. Now it makes sense. I'm coming from a Synology environment where if you don't explicitly allow RW or RO by IP address, then you can't even mount the share. This is still acceptable. Thanks for the reply.

I see that the R/O options work fine but I meant to ask if there were any options to make an NFS share unmountable to all but specific IP addresses? By this I mean that NO host can mount it except those specified. Thanks.

Hello. I have been running unRAID 6.3.5 for about a week and have a question about NFS permissions. I would like to set the NFS permissions on a share to be RW for a few *nix hosts but Read-Only for others. To test, I created a share, set the NFS permissions to "secure" (and later "private"), but in both instances I was able to mount it read-only on a *nix server (Ubuntu x64). Attempts to create files were met with "read-only file system" messages but I could read the files. I would have expected the mount request to be denied. Also, when I set the permission to "private" an additional option box called "Rule" was displayed. What is the purpose of this Rule? Can I use it to enter the IP addresses of the unix servers to be allowed R/W or RO permissions? Thanks!