Frank1940

Limited resources prevent instantaneous updates. (Limetech does do QA on all updates before they are released as a general release. Note that this a release candidate– that is what the rc means –so they are waiting to see if there are any problems are found by the early adopters before that general release.)

This is not correct. The permissions have to be -rw-rw-rw for files and rwxrwxrwx for directories for SMB to work. For the reason, se this post: https://forums.unraid.net/topic/191221-some-musings-on-smb-and-samba-and-unraid-and-windows/#findComment-1561580 For info on how to set this up in a Container, see here: https://forums.unraid.net/topic/71764-support-binhex-krusader/page/38/#findComment-1486740 and, here: https://forums.unraid.net/topic/188600-share-permissions-changed-to-owner-99/#findComment-1540351

I would suggest going to this Webpage: https://unraid.net/support And go here: When you contact them, give details about your purchase and and the Active GUID that is showing up on Main >>>> Boot Device Then click on Boot(Flash) to get the page with the GUID.

You have asked a question to which there is no 'right' answer! Many of us run a parity check once a month. It is always our hoped-for- goal to find no errors. Once you have an error(s), you have a potential for a data loss. And you should address the problem at once. You also want to find problems before a second problem occurs. (Once, you have two source of errors on an array, the likelihood of a data loss just jumped astronomically.) Here is link to an old thread that has a look at the problem from a statistical viewpoint. You can read the comments of forum members at that time. Most of the still apply! https://forums.unraid.net/topic/50504-dual-or-single-parity-its-your-choice/ About the long time to run the parity check. Have a look at Parity Check Tuning plugin. It allows to break these long running operations up into chunks that can be run during more convenient hours. Remember that this test is intended to catch problems at their beginning before they become major headaches. PS---- I know that the annual failure rates that I used in the Tables is much higher than we see today! (Thanks for some blessings!!!) But there were a few drives back then that did have annual failure rates of 10%. Today, a drive that has annual failure rate of 2% is the outlier.

Just be thankful that you have a solution to make your old printer/scanner to still work. (A while back there was another user with the similar problem. As I recall, he also found a work-arround.) SMBv1 is all but gone as it has security issues especially for home users. Most people have long abandoned it so getting help to fix issues is now a problem.

Upgraded both servers and no problems. Well, one very minor one, I had to reboot a Windows client after I try to access a server too quickly after it came back online and something went wrong in the login client-server handshaking.

I would suspect that it is browser related. What works in one browser does not work in another browser...

You might only need a new battery. Inexpensive replacement batteries are available for most UPS models.

Is the MB an older one? If it is, I would suggest replacing the CMOS battery.

I am not sure this will answer your question BUT google security issue on opening port 25 and read the AI summary. Apparently, the current recommendation is to use port 25 only as a last resort. see below: I also checked to see what port that I had my Unraid e-mail Notifications for. It was using port 465. (This setting is the default for the Yahoo mail server.)

Start with this link in this thread: https://forums.unraid.net/topic/191221-some-musings-on-smb-and-samba-and-unraid-and-windows/#findComment-1561581 Then read the next two posts. (The entire thread provides an explanation of how SMB, Samba, Windows and Unraid work together to provide connectivity. Understand that MS intends that Windows SMB will only work if the environment is completely secured from security risks!)

If you do move ahead with a new server, consider retaining that old box as a backup server for the main server. Remember that there are a lot of ways to lose data other than a drive failure– Fire, flood, lightening, theft of equipment, Malware, malicious behavior of a user, power supply malfunction are a few that quickly come to mind.

How are your transcoding? I would think that Plex could use a GPU to do the transcoding much more efficiently... (Point of Disclosure– I do not use Plex. I use Unraid to store my media and KODI clients to play content. In this case, the client does any transcoding necessary. I use a mysql Docker to maintain a common database that all of the KODI clients use.)

For a quick AI overview, Google iperf test If you need more help, Google iperf test procedure IF the AI is not enough, look at the links below the AI infor....

The other big thing that I see are the single quote (instead off double quotes) around myunraid.net

Line break are a big problem as the term does not result in the same ASCII character being used for different OS.. Windows = CR LF UNIX = LF MacOS = CR Where CR is Carriage Return Where LF is Line Feed or New Line (All of these are commands originally intended in use by teletype machines. There probably aren't twenty of these still working order left in the world!) This can cause a lot of problems with straight text configuration files written/edited with one OS and subsequently interpreted by a second OS!

@JorgeB, Could you alert the proper person on the Unraid design team to fix this? Thanks!

I feel like there should be some way to m I don't use pfsense so I don't know what is the impact of disabling the check. Is it simply a warning? Firefox (and I assume most other browse do to) issues a warning if you try asking a site using http:// protocol and make you jump through a few hoops to do so. If I recall correctly, it generally 'remembers' that site and does mot require that you do it again.

Try googling this: pfsense local dns resolver for unraid.net This was one of the results: https://forums.unraid.net/topic/74143-ssl-certificate-provisioning-w-pfsense-aka-logging-in-to-local-unraid-server-via-ssl/ The AI result ( assuming you are getting Google's AI results as well as those from the 'normal' search) might be all you need...

I have found my problem. On the clients where I could not connect, I was using the DNS service from my IPS provider. On the machines where I could connect, I was using Cloudflare as the primary provider. Quick explanation, My IPS CNS server is preventing redircts! How to do this shown below: 1.1.1.1 is Cloudflare's DNS server and 8.8.8.8 Is Google's DNS as an alternate.

Have a look at this 'Help' screen: In my setup, If Unraid.net address works, I have to be logged via the local address. If it does not work for a computer, it does not matter if I login via the local address, unraid.net address is never found. While it is a security issue, all my client computers access the LAN via Cat5 connections and not wireless so the loss of encryption for the password exchange is less of a problem. I have decided to accept the risk for now. But I will be following your thread to see if there is something I have missed.

I have had a simpler problem EXCEPT that only a couple of my computers would allow my to use the unraid.net address. The others throw this error: I could never figure way it was behaving this way. I finally said 'Forget it" and just set Use SSL/TLS: to "No". (And I think the "Forget it" was said a bit more colorful language. 🙊) Because different computers( all running wiht the same WINDOWS 11 PRO configuration) that worked and didn't work were on the same LAN, modem, router and DNS, these were ruled out as possible causes of the problem. I seem to recall that Chrome had the same issue as Firefox. Good luck....

This is another option that can be employed BUT you should do an analysis of how many free space you lose and with decent estimate of how much storage space you will be in the future. A time window of five years is probably enough. Another option to be explored is removing some smaller drives by transferring their contents to some of older larger drives to fill them up closer to their capacity. That way if you do need to swap a new capacity drive for more storage room, you lose less space by replacing drive. (If you replace an almost full 8TB drive with a 24TB drive, you only gain 16TB in the process. If that drive was a 4TB drive, you would gain 20TB on the swap. Remember that the cost of the 24TB drive is a constant in analysis.)

In a former life, I was an Senior Electrical Engineer and I was involved in the design of 'systems'. Much of that task involved making decisions about size, capability, reliability, and cost as well as usability. Believe me when I say that not one design solution ever meets all of the requirements that were originally set. The end result usually involves some compromises on the part of everyone. (I remember that in my class in ROTC, an Army reserve major, who had gone ashore at Normandy, said, "You will never have enough men, equipment, time or money to do the job. But you will still have to do it somehow!") You now have a running system that now has some fixed design constraints. You will now need a plan to manage that system. So be working on that plan and get one that will work for you. The AI build-out has made a total mess of the Electronic component supply system. I don't know how long the current situation can exist. I suspect that it might well be a bubble with people, who have not really looked at the operating cost plus sunk cost for those data centers, throwing money at the concept to be the first one to have one running. (Unless, they are going to provide the AI services at a loss, those costs have to priced into every query made...)

One more important point about arrays with very large size parity drive(s). If you have many different size data drives in the array, the speed of the parity check is control by the read speed of the slowest drive in the array. As an example, in my Backup Server, I have a 3TB drive and its read speed is about 90MB/s on the very inner tracks of the drive. (Everyone should realize that all HD's have their slowest read speeds on those inner tracks.) At that point, the potential read speeds of the 12TB parity drive and the other 12TB data drives is about 180MB/s! As a point of reference, the parity check times for my two servers (See specs in signature below) are: Media Server 22 hours, 29 minutes, 24 seconds. Average speed: 148.2 MB/s Backup Server for Data and Media 21 hours, 32 minutes, 42 seconds. Average speed: 154.7 MB/s I have now fixed on only using 12TB drives in my servers. This allows me to have only one size of 'spare drive' to have on hand for expansion and/or replacement @Ouze , your average data drive size is approximately 12TB (192TB/15drives) . Your potential data storage with this array as presently designed and configured is 360TB. You should have asked yourself if you really can see the need for that much storage in the next five years before deciding on the first 24TB drive purchase. I know that there is a tendency to want the latest and biggest in all of us. But there are also disadvantages to doing so without looking at the much larger picture. I can also understand that designing and configuring a brand new server can result a completely different configuration that one would choose when re-configuring an old server. (In the past, When I was re-configuring my servers, I was was doubling the size of the parity drive. That simplistic approach no longer makes sense as it results in potential array sizes that I can never fill and parity check times that I find simply unacceptable.