Point7

If you attempt to play the ISO using other devices such as a windows machine, do the playback issues still occur? OK. I normally don't play BluRay's on my Windows machine but I kludged together a setup that will do it. (One of my movie-watching setups has a 120" 2.35:1 screen!) I used Virtual CroneDrive to mount the ISO and then Used CyperLink PowereDVD8 to play it. The bluRay played normally. This is good but it does really address my issue (and probably a lot of other people who have older media players that they want to use). I am surmising that some of the recent 'updates' to SMB is partially breaking SMB compatibility with older versions. I feel that somehow this issue is going to have to be addressed. Can you switch to NFS ? I've had stuttering problems for many years with full Bluray ISO's (file sizes of 30 to 50GB) on a Dune HD Smart D1 media player. Not with blu-ray rips or remuxes. When I switched from SMB to NFS all the stuttering problems are gone.

Great ! Can't wait.

Hi, just upgraded from 10a to 12 without problems. I don't use plugins. Unraid here is a pure file server. I've a suggestion for the new interface. Is it possible to use more colors and not only percentages for USED disk space/utilisation in the dashboard and main tab ? For example 0-70% = green 70 - 90% = orange 90 - 100% = red Thanks and keep up the good work!

It's fixed after 8 hours running :)

The check finished with 1 error and suggested the --rebuild-tree option. Running it now... To Be Continued...

Hi, This is my first "real" problem with UNRAID. Today one data disk (disk 7) shows UNFORMATTED (green ball). What to do next with no data loss ? Thanks in advance ! Here is a part of the system log where it goes wrong. Oct 9 22:35:28 Tower emhttp: shcmd (110): mkdir -p /mnt/disk7 Oct 9 22:35:28 Tower emhttp: shcmd (111): set -o pipefail ; mount -t reiserfs -o noatime,nodiratime /dev/md7 /mnt/disk7 |& logger Oct 9 22:35:28 Tower kernel: REISERFS (device md7): found reiserfs format "3.6" with standard journal Oct 9 22:35:28 Tower kernel: REISERFS (device md7): using ordered data mode Oct 9 22:35:28 Tower kernel: reiserfs: using flush barriers Oct 9 22:35:28 Tower kernel: REISERFS (device md7): journal params: device md7, size 8192, journal first block 18, max trans len 1024, max batch 900, max commit age 30, max trans age 30 Oct 9 22:35:28 Tower kernel: REISERFS (device md7): checking transaction log (md7) Oct 9 22:35:28 Tower kernel: REISERFS (device md7): Using r5 hash to sort names Oct 9 22:35:33 Tower kernel: REISERFS (device md7): Removing [258 259 0x0 SD].. Oct 9 22:35:33 Tower kernel: REISERFS warning: reiserfs-5090 is_tree_node: node level 60526 does not match to the expected one 1 Oct 9 22:35:33 Tower kernel: REISERFS error (device md7): vs-5150 search_by_key: invalid format found in block 15878227. Fsck? Oct 9 22:35:33 Tower kernel: REISERFS (device md7): Remounting filesystem read-only Oct 9 22:35:33 Tower kernel: done Oct 9 22:35:33 Tower logger: mount: warning: /mnt/disk7 seems to be mounted read-only. Oct 9 22:35:33 Tower emhttp: shcmd (112): set -o pipefail ; mount -t reiserfs -o remount,user_xattr,acl,noatime,nodiratime /dev/md7 /mnt/disk7 |& logger Oct 9 22:35:33 Tower logger: mount: /dev/md7: can't read superblock Oct 9 22:35:33 Tower emhttp: shcmd: shcmd (112): exit status: 32 Oct 9 22:35:33 Tower emhttp: mount error: 32 Oct 9 22:35:33 Tower emhttp: shcmd (113): rmdir /mnt/disk7 Oct 9 22:35:33 Tower emhttp: shcmd: shcmd (113): exit status: 1

OK, I'll stick with the 4 GB RAM then. Indeed I only use my Unraid server as a big NAS. It's not even 24/24 on. Only when I watch blu-ray movies and copy a backup image to the server. I've other NAS devices (QNAP and Synology) for more functions and 24/24 online.

Hi, I've now upgraded unRaid to the latest version v6.0beta6 64bit. My question is. Are there any benefits upgrading my RAM to 8 or 16GB ? I don't use plugins. I use unraid only for data storing (blu-ray en backups) Thanks

No problems with RC15 (running stock config no plugins)

All is running fine here (RC12a). Realtek 8112L No plugins used. from my logs: eth0: Identified chip type is 'RTL8168D/8111D'. r8168 Copyright © 2012 Realtek NIC software team

It looks it was the split level ! With the setting=1 the mover tried every time to copy to disk 2. No matter what allocation method. I changed it to 4 for testing with "high level" method and now the mover copies to the new disk9. Can this caused by creating subfolders in the past ? I don't fully understand the split level. I used split level=1 because I want all the files from 1 movie on the same disk. EDIT: I changed the split level to 2. If I understand the manual correct then It was my fault by creating the subfolders. EDIT2: OK....it works again. The mover does what it should be doing. Thanks for helping guy's !!!

OK, I created the "BLURAY" directory manually on disk 9 and now it shows up. In the past it worked well when adding a new drive but in the mean time I changed the structure a bit. I created extra subfolders with letters (A, B, etc.) for better overview. Still the mover wants to put > 25GB on disk2 with only 13GB available. I'm changing now to high water and see what happens. BRB. The structure looks like this.

I have rebooted the server many times but it does not help. I can't expand my array (shared folders) any more. :( :(

Hi My server worked perfect over the last 1,5 year but somehow it behaves strange now. For some reason the mover put it's files on a disk that is full. For example. When I copy a 25GB file it want to copy onto a drive (drive2) that has only 13GB free. Also when I test it with a small file (5GB) it want to copy it always to the same drive. No matter what Allocated Method I use. I expanded my array with A new 2TB drive but it does not help. I can't get Disk9 show up in the shared BLURAY folder. The 25GB file still wants to copy to the drive with only 13GB left. I used Unraid 5.0b12a but upgrading to the latest RC6 doesn't help. Here are some screen shots of my settings. My syslog http://db.tt/IxsqdOyl

Any drive with write speeds >100MByte/sec will do just fine. Your network speed is the bottleneck. I've a 5400rpm 1,5TB cache drive and it is limited by the network speed (gigabit network) and i'm getting speeds around 100MB/sec.