Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About Marshalleq

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday October 17


  • Gender
  • URL
  • Location
    New Zealand
  • Personal Text

Recent Profile Visitors

246 profile views
  1. Well that's very nice too! Thanks, I will give it a try.
  2. Well that's very nice. I'm thinking BTRFS would be more suited to my Lightroom catalogues and such which are lots of small files. Do you have any idea how I do the reformat? Logically I should be able to format it live (or perhaps with the array stopped) and make the parity see those changes realtime, but I'm betting I'll have to do a newconfig with the newly formatted drive included? (It's existing currently as XFS, but with no data on it).
  3. I've run an 1800x as one with 16GB ram. It's essentially the same thing and it works a treat. You've just got to set typical current idle in the bios and turn of the pstates. Interestingly when I upgraded to thread ripper I didn't have to do that. So it's been a while and I many have gotten the terminology wrong (tired right now), but you get the idea. There are plenty of posts about it. Those two things make the system stable, which it is not without it. One day, hopefully will be fixed in a kernel upgrade. So honestly the answer is that yes, it's not only a good system, it's a great system and well worth it. Go for it!
  4. I've not seen the video and I'm not planning on losing however many minutes of my life I'll lose by watching it - sometimes I do wish instructions were written so I could skim read - nevertheless videos do have their place! Anyway, enough about that - what you're attempting to set up is quite involved so I'd start with the basics. The basics to me would be that you can ping (from an externally connected device), unraidseven.duckdns.org. Bear in mind you've got cloudlfares security on in the screenshot which hides your real IP. You might like to turn it off for testing purposes (click on the orange cloud once) and maybe give it some time to reflect the change. I'm not actually sure what svnprx.me is, it doesn't seem related to anything you've got in cloudlflare, so perhaps have a look at that. You've just got to trace the basics back first. Make sure your DNS is working before you start playing around with certificates, reverse proxy's and whatever 'DNS verification' is - I assume it's secure DNS, but honestly don't know. So maybe post some findings from there. Good luck.
  5. Actually, I was surprised Unraid did not have this time tested feature. I personally think a hot spare capability would still be of benefit in unraid. Even though you only lose one disk of data in unraid, it is actually also about the risk factor of losing another disk. Once one disk is gone, you can rebuild that, but a second no. Liklihood of more than one disk dying simultaneously? Well, more likely the more disks you have. And yes it does happen. One advantage of a hot spare particularly for smaller builds is that you could do away with the negative performance impact of dual parity and still have cover to reduce the risk of a second disk dying, which is heightened once one disk has died, e.g. due to the extra heat from having to constantly calculate the parity of the failed disk. It's a really great feature and unraid is the first redundant system I've ever seen that doesn't have it.
  6. I'm assuming the parity works at the block level so doesn't care about what is actually on each disk? To that end, I could reformat one of my blank XFS disks to btrfs? Thanks,
  7. APFS is a containerised file system. I think you mean SMB. Apple still operates AFP, however it is clear it is moving to SMB. It still works and I imagine it will for some time, but new features and development will likely be across SMB. Yes, that's the Windows networking protocol being used by apple.
  8. I came here because I'm experiencing similar. The unbalance app seems to be much, much slower than it should be. I have come to the conclusion there is something wrong with it, or some ballooning error that happens with long transfers. When it eventually finishes it's large file copy to (shifting between enterprise disks which is currently scheduled to take 14 hours for the remaining 1.6TB, I will do it by command line. I've done all sorts of large copy operations on the system and only since using unbalance has it been slow. Also for @rclifton I note that the unbalance plugin, does not equal the same as the actual transferring speed of the drive as reported by unraid. Clearly the speed field in unbalance is taking all sorts of things into account and averaging it out. But, this being my first time doing whole drive cleanup with the unbalance plugin, I note it slowed way down after a couple of hours. Originally based on it's then active transfer speed, it was going to take 5 hours for a 3TB copy, however it's now been running for 20 hours and it's done 1.4TB only. Some observations that seem odd to me include at times the disk is reading and writing from the same disk at the same speed in both read and write columns of 75MB/s and simultaneously the drive it's copying from is only running at 10 or 20MB/s sometimes less. Other behaviour that seems odd to me, is it cycles between reading from the source drive (and not writing to the target), then not reading from the source drive and writing to the target. So it's like copying it to a buffer somewhere. Something I'm sure is not normal for a normal move or copy operation. That all said, I accept I don't know lots about how Unraid operates and perphaps I don't understand something. But it in no way feels normal. I did have some custom disk tuning set up which gave me larger write speeds. I've reset that to defaults, but it hasn't helped. obi-wan-diagnostics-20190705-2317.zip
  9. Well, one would think that Unraid's / linux's mounting of the exfat system would be enough to tell the OS to ignore file permissions. However when you're running a tool that is explicitly trying to change permissions on a target file system that simply does not support ANY permissions, it's hard to blame Unraid. I'm not sure, but it's possible there's an extra mount flag that isn't being run that would get around this issue - which would have to be a feature / bug request with unraid. Perhaps you could try that.
  10. Awesome, I have to admit, I do love how flexible rsync is - definitely check those errors though, there shouldn't really be any. Good luck!
  11. Well, exFAT as far as I know doesn't support permissions. My first guess (and some small memory of having done similar years ago) is this is part of why. Though in that case the files did copy and the error was informational. I can't tell with your rsync logs, but certainly MC doesn't seem to be informational. rsync does have an option to skip permissions. I think it's --no-owner --no-group and / or --no-permissions. Or using archive (a) with rsync, maybe don't use that as that explicitly copies permissions. I can confirm it doesn't happy on my UD drives, though all of those are either XFS or BTRFS. Edit: If it really becomes a problem, you could just copy to the network share within unraid. Internal unraid network copies are 10Gb so not too bad. The share would get around the permissions problem I think.
  12. Does anyone know if there is a way to get disk io from the attached unassigned devices? I'd really like to be able to visually see real time so I can guage the amount of writing to my attached SSD's. Thanks.
  13. Yeah, I'd combine the transparent proxy and probably an extra vlan that routes the whole vlan through that proxy. Should be possible. Thinking that through, if you have a semi-decent firewall you could actually do this on the firewall. That would have the advantage of being available to the whole network and not having to configure proxy's on anything (just e.g. choose the relevant network). Not as simple as the vpn docker container you've got though.
  14. I can't remember what it's called now, but there is a way of displaying free memory that doesn't really show you the free memory. i.e it shows up as used, when actually it's cached or something, but still available to use when needed. So possibly depends on what you used to show the free / used memory? Unraid GUI or something else? Also, depending on how you assigned the memory to the VM, it's either dedicated or ballooned. If you assigned the 10G in both fields of your vm config, I believe that's dedicated, what it sounds like you want to do is have shareable memory (like most other vm servers do by default), which means you need to put in a range. Also, you need to ensure the balloon driver is installed in the guest. Hope that helps.
  15. Hey, (warning this is not a fully formed thought, but..), you can force applications that don't have proxy capabilities to use a proxy by setting up a transparent proxy. I'd have a read up on that, it could be an option added to the deluge-vpn docker depending on what that uses. In the days of slow connections I set this up using squid a few times. Maybe it helps.