flipz

Any chance you can give some more steps/details on what you did to even get proftpd up and running on beta 5, or link to a setup guide? vsftpd is killing me. Thanks!

I'm running in to a (hopefully) minor issue with getting this setup. It seems that somehow the vbox-4.2.4-unRAID-3.4.11.tgz file from skydrive is corrupted. When I try installplg'ing it I get "xml parse error." When I try just extracting on my windows machine with winrar it tells me it's corrupted. I downloaded it 3 different times. Does anyone have a good copy of it? Skydrive doesn't show an md5 and I don't see it in the version_info file either, but the md5 I'm getting is f77114990d4de30420194859657f327e. Thanks. Edit: nevermind, I was accidentally using installplg instead of installpkg. Ignore me.

I've been running unraid 4.7 for a long time now. Last weekend I updated to 5.0-rc8a and I decided it was a good time to actually configure VSFTPD so that I could use it as I often let my friends outside of my network download from my server. I had previously always used lighthttpd for this task but I had wanted something more secure, I just never got around to fully setting up ftp on 4.7. I'm no pro but I am a fairly advanced user so I'm well aware of the security risks, of reasons to not use ftp, etc. I'm not concerned about any of that, I just want to address the issues I'm having. I have it 100% configured and nearly all of my options in /etc/vsftpd.conf are working, but there are 2 that I'm noticing that aren't and they're both important to me for security and for preventing my server from getting overloaded. 1) listen_port=2121 No matter what I set this option to, it still continues to only work on port 21. Is there somewhere else to change this setting on unraid to make it run on a different port? Using netstat I noticed that the listening port appears as tcp 0 0 *:ftp *:* LISTEN I assume the fact that it's just called ":ftp" instead of an actual port number has something to do with it, but I'm not sure where to change that. Every thing I google for vsftpd config all says I just need to change listen_port. 2) max_per_ip=1 Even with this set to 1 it still continues to let the same person log in multiple times, and allows multiple downloads at once (which is the real thing I'm trying to prevent). Here is a netstat and ps -ef showing that the same account and same ip are connected more than once with no issue. netstat -a | grep 192.168.1.101:ftp tcp 0 0 192.168.1.101:ftp 192.168.1.14:51224 ESTABLISHED tcp 0 0 192.168.1.101:ftp 192.168.1.14:51225 ESTABLISHED ps -ef | grep vsftpd nobody 31430 1102 0 08:44 ? 00:00:00 vsftpd htpc 31432 31430 0 08:44 ? 00:00:00 vsftpd nobody 31451 1102 0 08:44 ? 00:00:00 vsftpd htpc 31453 31451 0 08:44 ? 00:00:00 vsftpd Is there any particular reason that these 2 options wouldn't work, when all of my others do? I'll paste my whole conf file below in case anyone would like to see it. If you see any completely obvious security issues, feel free to let me know. But other than that I'd really just like to talk about the actual issues as I said. I keep saying this because while looking at other vsftpd.conf threads it seems they constantly get hijacked by people who are just telling them how they shouldn't be using ftp. Thanks for any help! # # Logging to syslog syslog_enable=YES # Misc. dirmessage_enable=NO ls_recurse_enable=YES # Changes made by me local_root=/mnt/user/Videos anon_upload_enable=NO anon_other_write_enable=NO anon_mkdir_write_enable=NO anon_world_readable_only=NO guest_enable=NO log_ftp_protocol=YES xferlog_enable=YES xferlog_file=/var/log/vsftpd-transfers.log ftpd_banner=Welcome to BrentFlix local_enable=YES listen_port=2121 connect_from_port_20=YES chroot_local_user=YES anonymous_enable=NO local_max_rate=450000 max_per_ip=1 max_clients=3

Excellent, thank you!! (Reviving this from the dead).

total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 3097104 3016352 80752 0 66316 2729808 -/+ buffers/cache: 220228 2876876 Swap: 0 0 0 It has 3 gigs of ram. I have tried going directly to the ip with no luck. I can however access it using the computer name and/or the ip at all other ports for all other web servers. Main: 80 Lighttpd: 82 Unraid-web: 89 Crashplan: 4243 Sab: 8080 Sickbeard: 8081 Unmenu: 8082 Edit: I forgot to mention I have crashplan running on here too setup using this guide: http://lime-technology.com/wiki/index.php?title=CrashPlan But again, everything has been up and running and totally functional with no changes made before I started seeing this issue aside from regular updates to sab and sickbeard.

Correct, I can't currently reach it on port 80 but can reach it on all other ports / servers. "Google Chrome could not load the webpage because media-server took too long to respond" File is attached. ps_output.txt

Yea, it is after a reboot but what you requested is basically exactly what I did. I powered it off last night to move the server, powered it on before I went to bed and tested and everything was working. This morning I couldn't reach it anymore. So unfortunately whatever is causing it isn't creating any sort of error in syslog. The hardware breakdown: Intel Core2Duo E6300 Intel DG965WH motherboard 4x SAMSUNG HD204UI 2TB drives (all in the array) 1x WD WD1001FALS (not in the array) 3gb of ram, I'm not positive of specs. But it's 3 sticks. When I very first setup unraid I did run memtest overnight. I had an issue a few months back where after I made some changes it wasn't wanting to POST and once I got it working again I did run memtest again, not for 8 hours but I ran it through a few passes with no issues. Add-ons: apcupsd bwm-ng GNU cpio unMENU Image Server mail and ssmtp unRAID Status Alert Monthly Parity Check ntfs-3g openssh unRAID Power-Down on disk overtemp Clean Powerdown screen unRAID-Web unmenu Version 1.5 Revision: 223 I also run sabnzbd and sickbeard off of it which were setup using this guide: http://lime-technology.com/wiki/index.php?title=Install_Python_based_servers This has been my same setup since I very first configured the server 6 months ago. The only changes have been updating sab and sickbeard to their new versions as they release. Thanks for the quick reply.

Hi all, I've been running unraid 4.7 successfully for nearly 6 months without any issues at all. I've recently noticed an issue that's starting to bother me. Part of my job in life is watching servers so I check on my setup probably more than others. Just constantly checking that everything is healthy. A few days ago out of no where I was unable to access the main webgui on port 80. I could however still access everything else (unmenu, unraidweb, all my shares, etc, etc). Everything was totally functional except the main page. Once I realized I couldn't reach it I attempted to open it via unmenu which would give me a page could not be displayed error followed by unmenu also dying and becoming unreachable until I re-ran its process manually. Let me re-explain that this is 100% not a networking issue as I can access every other port and service. And it has been working and fully functional for the last 6 months. I shut it down to install a 4th hard drive (which I was doing anyways) and powered it back on and everything was great. No further issues, I could access the main gui again. Then last night I went to pull it up again and once again, it was unreachable. Same issue as before. Times out if I go straight to it, but all other services are 100% functional. So I shut it down (I was having to shut it down anyways to move it) and powered it back on last night and we were back to normal. Everything was totally happy and I could access the main webgui. I woke up this morning and once again, I can't access the main gui. So there is definitely something going on. Nothing has happened on the server between last night and this morning. I didn't even stream anything off of it. I have attached my syslog and I have not rebooted the system so let me know if there is anything that you would like me to check. Thanks in advance for any help! I have searched both google, the forums, and looked through troubleshooting on the wiki and couldn't find any help aside from people that just weren't good with the networking side of things. syslog.txt

unRAID 5 is a moving target. Maybe unMenu changed, you may have to install unRAID manually. The two files are the install buttons I'm assuming. I've got to get a shipment out but I'll take a look later if I get a chance. I came to post that I'm having the same issue but I'm on 4.7. My unmenu didn't seem to be the newest version so I just now updated it and restarted it and I'm still seeing the same issue. I click the check for update button, the page refreshes, but nothing ever changes. There is nothing at the bottom of the page as expected. I have no problem installing it manually but I'm free for testing if you need. Nothing is output to the syslog when I click the check for update button but if you want one anyways then let me know.

Total noob here so take my response with a grain of salt, but if it's a new setup then why not preclear them all? It's a good idea to do it regardless and it will super-stress-test the drives.

I'm an UnRAID noob and don't even have mine fully operational yet, but I've been reading around the forums a lot. Saw a similar post the other day. It's probably just because that hard drive is bad (as you said it is) so it seems to have trouble with it. http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=13861.0

Sometimes it takes someone laying it out like this and giving you a good example to realize the whole benefit of it. As obvious as it is, I didn't even think about the fact that I may now have tv shows that are missing random episodes, or the same with my music. It makes perfect sense, it just didn't even cross my mind. You're all very right. My whole collection is very well organized but I absolutely need to setup the actual shares themselves better. Thanks again Peter, and everyone else. Love these forums.

The more that I think about it, the more that this makes sense. I guess for me the main factor is that I can read everything from 1 share which unraid does perfectly, no matter how I have data stored on the drives. It certainly would be nice to know what I lost if something were to happen, and it won't be too hard to simply fill up a drive and then move on to the next. I've always kind of preferred that I don't have 1 full drive and then 1 empty drive, but this fear is calmed a bit knowing that I have that parity drive. It was a combo of two things, one that is my fault and one that isn't. First no, I did not have duplication turned on for my movies. It was on for my music and pictures as those are both harder (or impossible) to replace, but not my movies. Reason being is I have about 3tb worth of movies (lots of high-def stuff) and only had 4tb of space. I knew that this was one day a possibility, but I just hoped it was never happen. Hindsight tells me that having spent the few hundred dollars on extra drives would be worth it compared to the time I'll be spending redoing it all, but that's how life is. The more catastrophic loss though is that I lost every data backup after that drive died. WHS wanted to run a database repair on the backups and upon finishing, every single backup except one was gone. Typically not a big deal except that I JUST had a laptop die on me (go me, I back up every single night! nothing to worry about right?) and the backups for that computer were lost too. So just terrible timing. It just goes to show that even when you think you are doing things right, things can go terribly wrong. With that said I was under the impression that data backups that were stored on WHS were always duplicated. The problem comes in when you have data that is identical on multiple computers. To make things more efficient, WHS only stores 1 copy of any particular files that are the same across any backups. Lose that 1 file and the entire backup is apparently wiped out. Lesson learned. Thanks for the tips and input all!

Hey Peter, That does make total sense as in the case of me having just lost one of my WHS drives (accounting for 25% of my total storage space) I don't actually know specifically what I lost because WHS handles all the pooling and spanning. However my thought with unraid is that should I lose 1 drive then I can rebuild it and it's no big deal. Should I lose more than 1 at a time well then I'm kind of out of luck anyways. I have so many movies and such on here that even knowing which ones I lost wouldn't help me any. Unless there is another point that I'm missing? Thanks for the quick response!

Hey all. I am a long-time lurker of unraid and after a recent drive failure in my WHS setup which caused massive data loss I have decided it is time to give something else a try. I have done a ton of reading on wiki, this forum, etc, etc, etc, but there is one question I have that I haven't been able to find an answer to. I have tried googling and searching the forums and no luck. I will be setting up unraid with a certain number of drives and then physically hooking up additional drives one at a time and manually copying the data on to unraid. Due to the size of these drives (up to 2tb) it will be very difficult for me to just pick a drive and dump it on to that one as I may not end up with enough free space to copy a whole drive on to another drive. I said all that to say this: I have created a share called "unraid." I have the allocation method set to high-water. I have left everything else blank. I do not have anything in min. free space, split level, included/excluded disks, etc. When I install one of my old harddrives and mount it, can I simply copy the data to /mnt/user/unraid? And then that way it will automatically span it across the drives for me? Thanks! Edit: If anyone would like to give input on which split level I should use, my folder structure is: ./Movies/Movie Name/Movie.avi. However my tv shows are: ./TV/Show name/Season #/Episodes.avi . I believe that split level should be set to 1, is that correct? I'll never be playing the tv shows one right after another (like the vob file example) so waiting for the drive to spin up is no big deal. And my movies are all single files (avi or mkv) so that's no problem either. Should I even put it as split level 1 or should I just leave it blank like I have it? Edit 2: After a little more research it looks like I may actually want to set it to a really high number like 999 as it doesn't much matter to me where the files end up.