Marshalleq

Ok thanks.

@johnnie.blackAnd I'm not stupid either, magic only works in books. But yesterday I read something about setting it up with backup metadata on a single drive, so not knowing a lot about ZFS yet, it sounded feasible - apparently it would self heal except for hardware failures or something. Anyway it was just a question. @glennv Thanks heaps for your reply, that's very helpful. Have read through the whole thread, already and quite a number of long form articles on it to get my basic understanding straight. Seems like I'll need to get used to using scripts for this one. Very exciting though!

So 6.8 rc1 is out. I wouldn't normally ask, but given I've just discovered ZFS on unraid and the whole 6.7 series has performance issues in the array, what are the chances to compile ZFS for 6.8 rc1?

A quick google and well here's one legal review by cananonical and Software Freedom Law Centre, So fast forward to 2019. Ubuntu includes it , Proxmox includes it - I'm sure if I google more, i'll find more references. But anyone can do that.

The licencing issues don't apply any more I believe. That's what I've read and I do note the date of your link...

Hi, I have three basic questions about this plugin. But first the background context and assumptions how I'd set it up: 1xPool with 1x 2x8TB HDD in a vdev as a mirror - this is for my photo's and documents - I've wanted to have a greater protection on these for a long time 1xPool with 1x 1TB SSD in a vdev - this is for my VM's and docker - I know it's not redundant, but I'm happy with a 'backup level' of redundancy on this for now. Maybe I'll go buy another 1TB SSD later though. Then I'd have 7 HDD's assigned to unraid Question 1 I think I can have multiple pools right? Question 2 I'm aware there is a way to create self healing on a single drive, I assume that would be preferable than a single drive without? Question 3 Any tips generally? I also have the option of 2 NVME drives on board if that helps. I am also fortunate to have plenty of RAM and CPU. Many thanks, Marshalleq

Wow, how did I miss that this plugin existed. With all these issues with performance etc in 6.7.x I've been thinking of moving back to proxmox and maybe running unraid in a VM (if that's even worth it). This plugin may just turn unraid back to awesome. I don't know why unraid don't just include this plugin (which would get around the recompile issues) and make it an expert option that you can make a ZFS array instead. Or one of each unraid / zfs (that's what I'm going to do). I mean BTRFS doesn't even do a RAID 5/6 equivalent reliably anyway.

Dear developer, I note this morning you have made the minimum unraid version 6.7. While this may be sensible or required for some reason, it would be great to at least wait until it is not required for most people to run 6.6.7 due to the two horrendous and seriously impactful bugs present in newer versions of unraid (apparently fixed in 6.8 only). EDit: Just saw previous posts. So it won't upgrade. Awesome - you guessed my query before I even asked it! Many thanks.

Just catching up on this, are you saying people using cloudflare for DNS need to add an extra line? (Trying to go back through the thread to find)....

Maybe something on the router / DNS side?

@Alec.Dalessandro - probably need slightly more info. What system has ldap that you're trying to connect to?

I've been looking for this thanks. If it had just been included as an option in the container would have been easier, but gotta manually add it. Will be trying it now. Only thing is I assume all subdomains for the first domain will also need to be registered for the second domain?

Anyone got it working with wordpress?

Yes, and it's awesome. Worked quite well for me.

Seems like you've not mapped your transcode folder in your docker to /tmp file in the host? I am assuming that because you're in an unraid forum you're using docker.... However, I agree with above, definately do a ramdisk. It does work better.

And what about for SSL? Edit - I've found this is all in the GUI now Settings, Management Access. Should have looked there first!

I always thought Freenas was awesome cause of that killer filesystem feature - but there's always more to it isn't there. Sad. LOL.

The best thing about unraid is the pleasant community. Actually, I worry that I won't live up to it sometimes! And seriously, that's not how some other communities are. I moved to unraid to consolidate into a smaller system in preparation for an eventual move overseas, for the most part, it's done that admirably. The killer feature for me is the relative ease of GPU and associated device passthrough e.g. for gaming. I definitely miss some of the features of the more pro end NAS units like directory integration, snapshotting, branded apps and tools to access the NAS e.g. the QNAP / Apple integration to mention the main areas. I look forward to Unraid plugging these gaps more and more in the future.

I found something that I think is telling about this:

Well technically not 'anything under' /mnt, anything at exactly /mnt is more correct given that's where all your permanent storage also resides....

Fantastic, thanks for putting in the time to explain for me. So I think I should work out a number of transcodes I'm not likely to have e.g. 10, figure out how much data each one would have at the worst resolution for say 2 minutes per stream (mostly 1080p for now), and that gives me an idea how much RAM I would need. I agree the transcode directory on SSD is a concern and the advantage of /tmp is that it should give the ram back to the system as needed - maybe not an issue with 128GB though. I have a high endurance SSD, but I still don't wish to put transcode directory on it because it seems pointless and wasteful. And finally monitoring of what is going on may be more challenging on /tmp. Time for some experiments. Thanks again. Marshalleq

Apologies if this is obvious, but as a hint - is the explanation of this buried somewhere in this thread that I've missed, or just personal experience? I'm probably not likely to be affected by memory issues with the amount of RAM I have, nevertheless I do like to understand what's going on and why a Plex docker would fill /tmp differently than a RAM disk on some other mount point. Perhaps some other process is getting in the way trying to clean it up or something?

I still don't understand why this is better than /tmp.

Unless I missed something in the 9 pages of comments (only skim read the first part and the last part - /tmp is ram. So you're saying /tmp still has some limit on it? I liked the idea of /tmp because it's pre-existing and I didn't want to faf about with scripts and such.