Frank1940
-
Posts
9,917 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Store
Gallery
Bug Reports
Documentation
Landing
Posts posted by Frank1940
-
-
33 minutes ago, coblck said:
i just used an old one lying about which is quite large,
That larger 'old one' may last longer than the 'small stubby one' due to it ability to better dissipate heat and thus run at a cooler temperature.
-
I would suggest using Unassigned Devices plugin and the Dynamix File Manager plugin. Both of these are supported.
-
Actually, it turns out that the owner is not important as long as it is not 'root'. All Share access users are members of the users group. So as long as the Share Access member is given permission in the SMB share settings SHARES >>> <share-name> Scroll down to these sections:
In this case, the Share Access users (smbuser and user) will have full read-write privileges to the files and directories in this Share even though these resources are variously owned by nobody, smbuser and user! I had tested and verified this fact. That is because the permissions on these resources for files is rw-rw-rw- (666) and for directories drwxrwxrwx (777) and the group is users for everything.
The reason I am pointing this out is so that folks who happen to discover that the owner is not 'nobody' that they don't panic and think there is some major problem on their server. You do have to make sure that Docker containers and VMs set the group to users and the permissions to 666 and 777. (This is a fully common problem as many of them will use the more secure Linux permission setting of 644 and 755. This will cause a problem!) And if one has to do that they might was well set the owner to be 'nobody'.
-
First, let's make sure that you have things setup for SMB access on your server correctly.
SETTING >>> Network Services >>> SMB >>> SMB settings
Make sure that you have things setup this way:
Second item. Got to SHARES and click on one of the shares that you want to connect to.
Find the following section
Make sure that you have 'Exported' the share. Now try to access the share. Things may still not work.
If that is true, go to the first post in this link and get the PDF file down and use that to get your Windows client and Unraid server setup.
https://forums.unraid.net/topic/110580-security-is-not-a-dirty-word-unraid-windows-10-smb-setup/
Basically, Windows is often setup with all of the security features turn on. It is usually quicker and easier to go down the security path then trying to turn everything off.
-
Look at this solution:
As I understand it, You do need Windows PRO for the remote computer. The instructions are not that clear. so you will probably have to do a bit more googling. (BTW, this is often the tool that "this is Microsoft support and you have a problem" Scammers use to get access to the victim's computer...)
-
6 hours ago, oh-tomo said:
According to Seagate, Instant Secure Erase eliminates the need to physically destroy or overwrite the drive, saving time, money, and resources. Maybe @stereobastler has figured out how to get ISE to work on unRAID in the 3 years since starting this thread:
As I read this (a very quick read to be granted), you have to make the decision at the time when you install the drive to employ SED on your drive. It is not an after-the-fact solution!
-
By the way, in my opinion, the Split level setting should be left at "Automatically split any directory as required". The reason being that the other parameter settings causes more problems than they solve with modern hard drives. They are so large that changing storage location for new files from one drive to another drive occurs so seldom that if a split were to occur that does give an issue, it can be corrected by moving a few files.
More important is the "Minimum free space:" parameter. It should be set to be larger than any file that is expected to ever be written to the share. (It is one of those problem areas I was talking about. The 'Split level' parameter overrides the 'Minimum free space' parameter and it can eventually cause a write operation to fail when a file that is forced to be written this disk won't fit!)
PS--- this parameter was added back in the days when a large HD was 500GB. The problem occurred when folks were saving material from DVD copies in a folder and file configuration. As you may realize the movie's video is in several .VOB files of exactly 1GB in size which must be played subsequently. If these .VOB files get split across two disks, there will be a pause in playback which could occur in the middle of a word! OF course, this was totally unacceptable...
-
9 minutes ago, Cerberus9 said:
However I still don't understand why this is happening.
I did setup a test share now with manual spliting, and it only sees my disk5 which is 8TB's in size... This is next in line for filling up in unraids mind I get this, but why does it break the share size value? I mean it still is set up to use the whole array, so every disk, which is 32TB. I guess it only shows the disks where data is already put, and dinamically changes if more disks are involved... Really strange and kinda missleading in my opinion.
IF you turn on the help (or click on the 'Split Level', you will get this:
-
I run back through your numbers and it does appear that there some discrepancy. Make sure that there aren't any lost-and-found files anywhere. Make sure that you refresh the browser window.
I don't recall ever seeing any mention of this type of issue before...
Now, there is one more thing I want to caution you about. You stated that you would moving files from Disk Share to Disk Share. That is fine. But moving files from Disk Share to User Share (and vice verse) will eventually result in some files being truncated to zero file length. (This happens when the copy operation is copying a file from and writing it to the same disk.) mc will allow you to do this. The 'Dynamix File Manager' plugin will not allow you to do this.
If this does not fix it, post up your Diagnostics file in a new post in this thread.
-
Quote
First thing, you need to click the 'Compute' link (shown by the arrow), to find the amount of storage actually used by the share. When you do that it will show the storage used and what each disk that contains files associated with that share stored on it.
Second thing, as I recall, the circle is the amount of total space that is available to the share on the array. If it is less that the total space on the array, this is because the share has restrictions on what disks it can use for storage of data when it does a write operation.
To check/change this setting, click on the Share name on the Shares tab and look for this section:
The two settings are circled. I seem to recall that you should only use one of them-- not both for the same share. Either include certain disks or exclude certain disks. (I would do the one which would have the fewest number of selections.)
-
See here:
If this doesn't work, you might want to try setting things up so that you are not fighting the security measures that both MS, Linux and Unraid are trying to implement to protect user data. Read the first post in this thread and the attached PDF:
https://forums.unraid.net/topic/110580-security-is-not-a-dirty-word-unraid-windows-10-smb-setup/
Granted that it takes some time to set things up but you will then not be playing wack-a-mole with trying to bypass security enhancements.
-
2 hours ago, max.prime said:
I'm not sure how concerned I should be. It kind of defeats the purpose of a parity drive.
It is very usual for parity rebuild after a unclean shutdown. Especially since it was the result of a power failure. (I am going to paraphrase your statement-- It kind of defeats the purpose of a UPS.) The parity drive not being assigned is a bit of anomaly.
Do you know if there was any disk activity at the time of the power failure? If so, do you know what was being written to the server? You will want to check to see if this information was correctly and fully transferred to the server before the shutdown. If not, you will have to deal with this situation. (There is a way to find those files written about the time when the shutdown occurred but it is a bit tedious.)
Any writes to the array while you did not have a parity assigned should have proceed normally. (You don't actually need a parity disk assigned for Unraid to work. In fact, it is often recommended that when one is first 'loading' an array with a massive amount of data to unassign the parity drive(s) until the loading is finished. Then assign parity and allow it to build to provide protection.)
Let the parity
checkrebuild finish. Check to see that it did not find any other issues. Then have a look at the data on your server.One more thought. Unraid is not a backup. It can be a part of your backup solution. You need another copy of any data that is irreplaceable on some other device.
-
55 minutes ago, nc88keyz said:
Can a "grandfathered user" expect to pay the same upgrade cost to move from Basic to Plus , Or Plus to Pro under their license?
There is one thing that everyone who is talking about the cost of the licenses and the cost of upgrading from one class of license to another--- Here is what may be a big reveal!!!
There have been several increases in the cost of licenses over the years and when those prices were increased, the cost to upgrade from one class of license to another was increased at the same time. Was there a window of opportunity to purchase and upgrade at the old price? To be honest, I don't remember. But, if there was, it was a very short period of time! And there was the same moaning and belly-aching at those times.
If you wondering why the pricing hasn't be announced, consider that fact that the announcement of the new plan was forced on LimeTech because someone found a snippet of code in the current release of either in Unraid itself or one of the plugins. Unfortunately, this apparently happened before all of the details of the new plan were in place. In other words, you have what could be called 'insider' information in the Securities world. (It is also unlawful to use this information to make a trading decision but it does happen more often than one would hope. So think about how you might use this to your advantage. Remember that in cases of insider information, not everyone has the necessary resources and/or smarts to figure out a way to be on the plus side at the end of the day.)
-
I also believe that HD manufacturers still provide a utility disk for their drives and this will usually contain a program to perform read-write tests to every byte on the entire disk. Look on their websites for this. I believe that we are down to two manufacturers as a result of mergers and acquisitions now and I would think that their utilities would work on their acquisitions. The long smart test will do the read portion but the write is not performed.
-
1 hour ago, Opawesome said:
I could not find a 'Show "dot" files:' parameter.
Step two is the "SMB" under 'Network Settings'....
-
1
-
-
52 minutes ago, tech3475 said:
That said, is it still relatively simple to swap licenses around by just swapping the USB sticks? Because that's one potential way around it (my backup server has a pro license from a sale, but only has 7 drives attached, so I could upgrade the basic to plus).
Today's Plus license could be a good option for a lot of folks who want in on the Lifetime license at a minimum license cost and risk. Twelve disks in an array. Think of a server with two 20TB parity drives, a single ssd cache disk and nine data drives. You could easily have a server with a 180TB of storage space! That would be a really great backup server. (That is enough room for about 7200 Blu-Ray movies. and I can't think of why most people would need 520TB of storage that a PRO license would provide...)
-
12 minutes ago, tech3475 said:
Yeah I'd like to know this as well since I might buy a basic key to have for potential future use, I don't want to buy it and then find it costs $200 to upgrade to pro.
8 minutes ago, Veah said:Seems clear to me the answer is either:
A) 'I don't know.'
B) ' I know, but you will not like my answer so I will not answer.'
You should know this from a bit of thinking. It will cost at least as much as the current upgrade cost to PRO from what level of license you have and will be less than the new cost of the new PRO/Lifetime.
You will know this as soon as the formal announcement is made. Whether you will have a window of opportunity to be able to make such a purchase will be your real problem.
My SWAG (Stupid Wild A$$ Guess) would be that the new PRO/Lifetime purchase cost is a bit less than the total cost of a five year upgrade option. (This based on the fact that most of the people commenting in this thread have had their licenses less than five years...)
-
2 minutes ago, Aeloth said:
Is it possible to use permissions like this in a container?? PUID=99 PGID=100
I don't really understand this yet.
Yes those variables are the 'numbers' for nobody (=99) and users group (=100). This should allow to do anything you want to the resources under /mnt
It is not the container that is the only security problem. It is the fact that now all of the members of the users group now have access back to the root of the file system as well as the anonymous user-- nobody. This is called an "elevation of privileges" in security language. Some of us run our Unraid servers in a secured environment so this is not a big security issue unless one of the client computers is compromised.
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, Aeloth said:
it is a container that should help with backups using Veeam but I need it to have access to /mnt to be able to backup to unassigned drives.
Set up the container to run with root privileges. (If you do so, in the interest of security, I would put a strong password on the container GUI and start-and-stop the container when its use was required.) Here is the way I once did this:
https://forums.unraid.net/topic/71764-support-binhex-krusader/page/17/#comment-780475
-
@itimpi and @Aeloth, I do know that Dockers can be setup to run with root privileges. I did it with binhex-Krusader and the method to do so is posted as a "Recommended Posts' in the support thread. (I not longer use that Docker container since the introduction of Dynamix File Manager plugin.) And, of course, it is possible to setup a Docker container to have access to the root of the Unraid file system. (Doing so should be done only by the actual Administrator of the individual server who realizes the risks involved. Hopefully, there is not a Docker container being distributed via the Apps plugin that does so without that Administrator's knowledge! I would class that container as Malware...)
-
31 minutes ago, almostuser said:
This is a perfectly fine sentiment in a vacuum, but the current state of the industry and the pricing models being pushed suggest otherwise. Maybe Unraid really will be the lone shining beacon in a sea of garbage. Who knows, but in my experience, once you open that Pandora's box of "we're exploring a new subscription model," all bets are off, and it's full steam ahead towards more and more enshittification because number must go up.
Might I suggest that you wait until the official announcement is made with details and pricing info. Then you can make an analysis of the various options and decide at that point what you wish to do-- Buy a life time package (which you could do now), sign up for the software with periodic payments, or look for another option.
Personally, I find all the speculation of what will happen in the more distant future to be nothing more than a SWAG--- Stupid Wild A$$ Guess. (Reminds of a boss that I once had who, when asked to provide an estimates of costs five years in the future, would look out the window and read the tail numbers off of the next plane in the landing pattern!)
I provide some support on the forum and I am shocked at the number of people who are running old Unraid releases. Within the past couple of months of there was a request for assistance from a user wanting to upgrade from Version 5.X! So this idea that you must absolutely have the latest security patches is not that big a concern to a lot of people. As further proof of this, there are users who still want to use SBMv1 which has a major security hole that primarily affects home users. (A lot of the security patches are more things that primary impact business, government, and corporate users.)
-
2
-
1
-
-
@Olivilo, Understand that Unraid is different than most Linux installations. It is actually installed to a RAM 'disk' rather than on a physical drive (ssd or hd). This means that it has limited storage space in its file system. So that Linux (or Docker) apps that are not aware of the this may be storing 'user' data on this RAM 'disk' thinking that is actually writing to a physical disk! IF your Dockers apps all have support threads on the forum, they should already be setup to address this issue---(Read the support thread). If they do not, you will have to check to see that if you have any Dockers containers that are saving 'user' data that they are setup so that this storage is on a physical disk.
This is usually done by editing the Docker Container to specify a Host Path that maps a Container Path to a Host Path-- a physical disk on your Unraid server file system.
-
For windows client based operations to your Unraid server (in networking there are 'clients' and 'servers'), here is a link to a PDF file on how to set Windows 'clients' to work with your Unraid server with a minimum of hassle after the initial setup:
https://forums.unraid.net/topic/110580-security-is-not-a-dirty-word-unraid-windows-10-smb-setup/
-
@medicmandan, Please note my upvote on @itimpi's suggestion. That would be the easiest way to go.
However, if you insist on going the other route, I did a guide to setting up a Windows peer-to-peer network. You can find it here:
https://forums.unraid.net/topic/115125-windows-10-peer–to–peer-file-sharing-guide/
Just understand that setting Windows SMB networking environments is a minefield and that there are tens of thousands networking professionals who make their living setting up and maintaining these networks. Most of the technical details were provided by @Batter Pudding and I did the technical writing as I am not a Windows Networking Professional. (I know just enough to made me really dangerous...)
I must admit that I have never attempted to set things up so that file transfers could be done from the Unraid side. I would imagine that you would be using the Unassigned Devices plugin.
New server and migration
in General Support
Posted
What about disks for the new server? (It is not clear weather you are moving the disks from the old server to the new server or purchasing new disks for the new server.)
This is a problem. I would hope you realize that you should not have two devices on your LAN with the same IP address. (The same advice applies to computer/server names.) I would think you would want to start with the new server having a new IP address and server_name until you get it setup properly. You can then change the IP address and server_name on the old server to something new. Then configure the new server to have the old server's IP address and server_name.
You also didn't say what data is going to be on the new server. (One might assume that you want all of the data from the old server. But is that true?) Figure that 2-3 hours per TB of data will be required.
I understand that VM can be a problem area that has to be considered. Also if you are passing any hardware through to a Docker.
My approach would be to set up the new server and get it basically running with its new license. Don't install any plugins or Dockers at this point. Then make a backup of your flash drive and have it safely stored on another computer.
Most of the time, Plugins and Dockers are hardware agnostic and you can just copy the /config folder from the old server over. (I would stop all Dockers and VMs before I did this.) You will have to replace the .KEY file with the one from the flash drive backup that you made. Then find the section of the manual about reinstalling Docker containers. Make sure everything works. Then tackle the VMs...