Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About Conmyster

  • Rank
    Advanced Member


  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Hello, UPDATE: So it seems that as I am unable to set static routes within the ISP provided router I would be unable to get this working. As a temporary measure I have put the server back into the working VLAN. I have contacted my ISP to confirm if there is actually a way to set static routes on it and if not then I will need to see if I can set it into modem mode and get a separate wireless router (such as TP Link) which will support static routes. I recently got a new Ubiquiti EdgeSwitch 48 Lite and it seems that other subnets are unable to access the internet. Example: My unRAID server is on VLAN 3 with the IP of with the Switch being My ISP provided router is and connected to port 1 of the switch, which is part of VLAN 2 and has an IP of I have routing on the switch and setup routing for each VLAN however it is still not working. Unsure if someone from here can help? unRAID network page: EdgeSwitch Route Table:
  2. I mean if you are thinking it to be equivalent to say a Dell storage array, then I can tell you that they don't have file moving facilities. Not to mention you can move/copy files with linux mv and cp respectively. or there is midnight commander
  3. If you want to get things within your docker share back on cache then the best method would be to set it to "Prefer" then run the mover this way any files on your disks will be moved to the Cache. It is then up to you if you want to set the Cache to "Only" or leave it to "Prefer"
  4. Yeh I'm unsure why it waited for the parity sync for it to display a notification about the removed disk.. Would need a more experienced user with unraid to see why...
  5. Ah so likely due to the parity sync running. Although I don't think that should be the correct course of action by unraid....
  6. Ah okay, I'm unsure on how it would deal with loosing a drive during a parity sync. As I'm aware most single parity hardware raid (say raid 5) would just die. And I don't have a system to test that with myself.
  7. If you setup the notification system under Settings > Notification Settings Then it should of notified you of the errors on the drive... I would need to test myself though Edit: After pulling my disk 5, I got a notification within 5 seconds (Discord) This is what my main screen looks like too: After this I stopped the array, unassigned the device, started the array. Then stopped the array and reassigned the device and started the array. Data is now rebuilding fine.
  8. I haven't tested myself, however when removing a disk without shutting array down etc. It should detect this and then emulate the storage using parity data. I would expect it to also show a notification stating something along the lines of "disk not detected"
  9. From what I am aware there are still limitations with disk sizes and adding disks to a pool. unraid does have the nice feature of mixing disk sizes. So if unraid added the feature for multiple arrays it would definitely be a pulling point for more people to use unraid.
  10. Yeh GlusterFS with ZFS pools is an option. However for people who are less skilled with Linux, I don't think they would know how to create ZFS pools via command line and then make shares etc. If unraid supported more than 30 drives (in an array or by having multiple arrays) then it would allow less Linux skilled people to have larger storage/more disks.
  11. The whole idea is that the Parity drive has to be the largest (or equal to the largest) in the array. In your case if you wanted dual parity (and didn't want to buy more drives) then you would need to make both of the 10TB drives parity and then use the 1TB and 4TB for data. This however would reduce your total capacity from 15TB to 5TB. To keep the same size storage as you currently have then you could buy a third 10TB drive for the dual parity.
  12. I know it's bad but I am probably not the only one impatient for 6.8
  13. +1 (Just because it would provide more features) However from looking through the VMWare forums etc, it seems that NFS is becoming the more suggested method on connecting to your storage..
  14. Did not know about Krusader existed... In which case it would be solved with the docker container...
  15. I would preferably say that this is not a needed feature. From my experience in using web based file explorers for website management (cpanel, etc) the performance is not very good. The best case would be to use FTP, SMB, etc as they will have much better performance over a web based solution. Not to mention the amount of work that will entail to make the web based version work.