Marshalleq

Oh I know nothing about unraid DVB. Sounds reasonable. Do tell. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@chbmb I hadn't really thought about it before, but it occurs to me that you're really running a whole different kernel albeit a matching one. We may find ourselves in the future with another need for something in the kernel and forced to choose between this or something else. Have you ever thought about creating this for more than just nvidia? I.e. making a whole community custom kernel as it were? The unraid guys are pretty good at getting stuff in there, so maybe its a bit pointless, just thinking out loud I guess.

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.

6.8.1 is fully released now anyway.

I'm not sure anyone actually asked that question. Seems to have reared it's ugly head over nothing. People who want to help still have to ask questions. Another unfortunate thing is limetech only give one discussion thread per plugin, so that makes the threads a bit challenging too. But yes you're right and I doubt anyone wants that, it's a great addition to unraid and from what I remember they had three architectural attempts, each taking quite a bit of work on it's own, so certainly not easy!

I think I’m getting sensitive Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For gods sake read the posts. No one is complaining or saying they are fed up with waiting. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OMG.@chbmb given you said you typed that at 12:50am I’ll forgive you for misreading my post completely out of context. Incorrectly saying it’s a complaint and incorrectly making out I’m pushing you to get this done, thinking it’s easy or whatever. I said and meant none of those things, only others here have done that. I also didn’t compare you to ZFS I simply stayed i knew they were responsive to dev releases and had no idea about you. Hope you have a great sleep! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@saarg Nobody said it was simple and yes I have read some of how this came to be back when I first tried it. My comment is just saying something currently triggers the build and that something is currently external. All I'm saying is this could potentially be moved to run by the end user and how Novell / OpenSuse did this was by running a compile at boot. It was considered very clever at the time, kept all the licencing compliant and gave end users the flexibility. I don't think trying to be helpful by throwing out an idea warrants such negativity on your part. As for testing, that's just a silly comment because If everyone had to have a separate replicated set of hardware and software, not much testing would go on now would it? It would be left up to a select few and that wouldn't be very helpful.

@Gee1Me too - these plugins are a problem in that it's challenging to beta test. @steini84 with the ZFS plugin is very responsive, not sure about the unraid nvidia dev yet, which is why I asked. @DarphBobo yes we appreciate this which is why the question. What would be fantastic is if @limetech provided a means for triggering localised rebuilds of any third party plugins that require re-compilation to match the kernel. I've seen this done at boot with new / different kernels back when I did OpenSuse / Novell. They did this to get around licencing restrictions and binary driver issues whereby they stopped working when a kernel update came along.

HI all, what's the deal about getting builds updated for the beta's / rc's these days? It feels wrong to me that I can't help test anything when I have this plugin installed. 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