Marshalleq

That's been going on for years and there's always an appeal. If you're going to look for reasons why not though, you will find them. There are plenty of those about all sorts of things on the unraid forums for example. Meanwhile, if you do look for examples of how you could, you will see those exist as well, and plenty of places are doing it. Kinda pointless discussion to be honest.

I agree about not touching oracle software generally as a business - it's insanely expensive. However, the above no longer applies nowadays, sometimes people say it and it scares people off (which is helping no-one IMO) - you can read about it online - I've posted a few examples on it before on these forums. Others have noted the same, I'd suggest you haven't gone searching for the why we could, rather you've repeated the age old discussion on why we shouldn't. Things do move on. (No offence intended).

Compared to the complexity of managing BTRFS issues? - I'm not sure there's much of a difference. The only real reason BTRFS is included is to provide the ability to create a software mirror for cache. I've had a number of issues with that, including that it didn't actually set up the cache, even though it reported it did. This was later fixed in a firmware upgrade, so perhaps it was more configuration based. And you forget, it only introduces complexity if you decide to use it. It's only being asked that support is added, not that it is set to on by default. Though in my opinion it would be a far better, less complex and more reliable option to be the default cache. But hey, that's just me.

With cloud flare I found I had to disable the caching. That is the little cloud beside the dns entry. I’d try that.

@steini84 Also there is yet another version of unraid out with a number of security fixes.

@elstryfe I did read about a day ago that there is a new version of ZFS on linux out, which has crucially re-enabled code that uses the CPU hardware for compression (if I'm reading correctly). I believe a kernel developer disabled something in the newer kernels that broke it. I'm not sure if it affects unraid kernels or not - perhaps @steini84 can comment more factually.

I haven’t really looked into how it works but I am somewhat surprised I can’t just reformat the existing mirror with zfs in its place. I assume since we can’t it must have the cache built directly into the unraid array code and somehow it would detect the change in file system and disable it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It seems they recommend SSH tunneling now. https://support.sia.tech/article/ljzu8k4hqn-using-sia-ui-on-a-remote-node I was hoping for something a little more elegant than this. Thankfully I run mac, so this will work, but the windows guys aren't going to have much luck.

Damn. Thanks for that. If I could have an XFS mirrored cache I would, I have grown to dislike BTRFS. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@glennv I agree, btrfs is surprisingly unstable for a stable fs. I just possibly realised something that I hope you can clarify, if I create a ZFS mirror and mount it to /mnt/cache, will unraid use that as it's normal cache? I had always assumed the cache had to be btrfs for a mirror and XFS for a single disk. I've replaced my docker with zfs, but hadn't considered it was possible for the cache.

Hi, thanks for the offer. Yeah I got quite confused cause the Sia Docker Support link sends me here and people here were talking about storj. I guess it's a multi-product thread. Mines all running as far as I know based on this: Synced: No Height: 100250 Progress (estimated): 41.3% But just figuring out how to connect a gui to it as the command line seems limited and the GUI seems very polished. But the config.json is missing the commands to do that, and adding them in manually seems to do nothing. Any thoughts on that? Thanks.

Dear all, I've now read through the whole thread. Am I correct in assuming what was called storj and similar is now just called Sia? Also, is this still a viable thing running a storage system via the unraid docker image also now called sia? I also note discrepencies like we're supposed to fill in the amount of available storage in the docker yet that option no longer exists in the container. Are we supposed to add this manually or is it now no longer needed? I think we need some renewed clarity, hopefully updated at the beginning of this post.

Skimming through this, I take it the installation at the beginning is no longer correct? Certainly I have nothing about local host remote and ip address in my config file.

@ezra How do I actually install your dashboard? Do I just put the files in the config directory somewhere? Thanks.

I haven't set up monitoring, so yes, please share.

I also misread @yros - thought he said theres absolute no benefit, but actually said there's no absolute benefit, which it quite different. Anyway, I look at the videos of freenas and am a bit jealous of their GUI. There's a lot to be liked about how polished that is and not just with ZFS. But in particuarl managing snapshots and backups and such through the GUI would be much easier. Especially from a monitoring perspective. Even the pool creation and so on would be cool - and a display of what's active and it's available size etc.

LOL, of course there's benefit, not everyone that wants ZFS knows command line, this is unraid after all, not some enterprise geek OS. Even me with nearly 30 years in IT spanning from command line days in Novell server OS's can admit that the GUI can be useful cause you don't have to remember stuff. There may not be benefit from a functionality point of view, but from a user perspective it has a lot of potential benefit. You may even find a lot of extra people start installing it if there was a GUI.

This is one place I'd somewhat disagree. I can use it fine in the command line, but I think a gui would also be fantastic. @steini84 did you mean to say we don't need to update for every build of ZFS, or don't need to update it for every build of unraid? Thanks.

Sounds like a cool setup. I'm not sure you can use Unraids default array options to use partitions though - generally it uses whole disks. It might be you'd have to do something with mdadm or similar. Or even better, perhaps ZFS can be configured to use them somehow. I'd say what would make more sense is to leave the 2x2TB disks out and set them up seperately, then you'd be able to do exactly what you're talking about and gain the remainder of the 6TB disks for your ZFS array. Generally when you ping @steini84 he'll update the zfs for you - I wasn't sure I wanted to bother with this one, though I was feeling guilty about not testing it (which I can't without ZFS updated) so perhaps it's a good idea. I really want the 5.0 series kernels and this is the pathway to those.

@limetech I've just re-read your release plan as I was confused with this release not being in the kernel 5 series. I now understand that has been flagged for 6.9 rather than 6.8.1. Indicatively, can you advise if 6.9 is intended to be a more distant target e.g. 1+ years or something sooner? Thanks.

That’s a bit unusual isn’t it. Have you checked logs? Probably some clues in there. I would have thought almost nothing could stop snapshots except maybe faulty hardware or I/o issues. Maybe check the system log too. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@ezra those don't look problematic to me. Only the first few - which is normal as those may not have had the new snapshot running. Also, after setting up a new snapshot, you do have to end the process, sometimes this doesn't work as expected either and a reboot or something sets it off right without your realising it. Could be that.

Docker startup and shutdown dependencies (e.g so the database is shutdown second and started first), docker grouping and ZFS would be my votes. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've actually stopped doing this. The problem was multiple streams and it seemed to occasionally randomly fail playing mid stream, frustrating the Mrs and causing issues for the other streams too, I assume due to lack of disk space. Sometimes I had to reboot the server to resolve - I assume it wasn't cleaning up the files properly after it dumped me out of the stream. I was only using a 4G ramdisk so I could have made more, but then found out it was the reason my Live TV recording was failing and I then started wondering about things like creating thumbnails and other stuff. I do have quite a bit of RAM in this machine, but ultimately thought the amount of RAM required to fix all of this was wasteful, so I turned it off nearly a week ago, and put it back on my Enterprise SSD. Hopefully 1DWPD is enough. Work in progress!

@eds that doesn't sound normal. I don't have to do that anyway.