Marshalleq

I just put all mine in /mnt. I am not sure that you can have two mount points for one pool, but ZFS is very powerful so perhaps that's a feature I've not seen before. You can change the mount point of an existing ZFS pool with zfs set mountpoint=/myspecialfolder mypool. I suspect to get your drives to show up as zfs, that your restore has lost you the unassigned devices / plus plugin? Not that is not the same as the unassigned devices heading you have above. At least that's what I think I'm seeing in your screenshot.

To be honest I'm not sure I'm following you so much on the smb and security side. Everything else was very well outlined though. I think you're saying you use a link from zfs to the unraid share which to me sounds absolutely horrible. So I only know the way I've done it, which is outlined below. SMB permissions with ZFS are done manually via smb-extra.conf (which is in the /boot/config/smb directory). The unraid smb GUI does not like anything outside of it's own array (I honestly don't know why you'd put in this artificial restriction, but they do) I've always preferred the console method anyway as it's more powerful. So the point here being, you're using the same SMB system that unraid uses, but you're bypassing their artificial restriction of the GUI. At least this is how I do it, someone else might have a better way. Here's a typical one, then a more advanced one to help you out. [isos] path = /mnt/Seagate48T/isos comment = ZFS isos Drive browseable = yes valid users = mrbloggs write list = mrbloggs vfs objects = [pictures] path = /mnt/Seagate48T/pictures comment = ZFS pictures Drive browseable = yes read only = no writeable = yes oplocks = yes dos filemode = no dos filemode = no dos filetime resolution = yes dos filetimes = yes fake directory create times = yes csc policy = manual veto oplock files = /*.mdb/*.MDB/*.dbf/*.DBF/ nt acl support = no create mask = 664 force create mode = 664 directory mask = 2775 force directory mode = 2775 guest ok = no vfs objects = fruit streams_xattr recycle fruit:resource = file fruit:metadata = netatalk fruit:locking = none fruit:encoding = private acl_xattr:ignore system acl valid users = mrbloggs write list = mrbloggs Also about the access denied, with ZFS on unraid you do have to go through and set nobody.users on each of these shares at the file level. So basically # chown nobody.users /zfs -Rfv Who knows, perhaps this is all you need to do to get your method to work. Good luck!

Well, I particularly liked the user centric approach of the Time Machine style - but the more options the better!

Does anyone else think this is a very very cool idea? I'm surprised nobody thought about it before, but perhaps it's just a sign of the reach ZFS has had since it's all opened up in the last 12 months. Short Description - Time Machine for ZFS Original Reddit Post Github Link How hard would it be to make this a plugin? This could be a real killer feature if unraid officially integrated it. It might even stop me complaining so much about how a basic thing like backups is not included in unraid, making me want to run off to TrueNAS SCALE (which is not ready either TBH). Thoughts? Marshalleq

So it works well for sabnzbd, qbittorrent and SurfShark. It didn't work so well for the *darr apps. Seemed to break after a few seconds. I'm not sure why, but anyway, those support proxy so just switched to that. Really nice find thank you!

Just watched it - I dislike video instructions a bit (having to go through 8 minutes of pain for a simple 2 lines sets my impatience on fire lol), but his videos are very good. So it's simply attaching one docker image to another. Awesome, thanks for the tip - I agree that's much better. Thanks.

Ah thanks, I wondered if there was another way, I'll take a look! In the meantime I tried qbittorrent, which is now working after quite some challenges with the unraid container and webui implementation - all good now though! Thanks again.

Thanks, so linking those with this, they both support using a proxy? I've been using all in one containers up til now, but some recent changes in the binhex one has made me look elsewhere.

So the container installed easily enough. What are people doing for a torrent application? I'd rather have this on unraid than on my local machine - any votes for best container? Thanks.

I don't think unraid supports zfs in a cache pool. If it does, I suspect the warning will persist. However the warning does go away if you use an official Unraid mirror for the cache pool. I used to run that for the same reason, and that's when I started getting BTRFS issues. Regarding other questions, I do believe I had issues with both mirrors and non mirrors with BTRFS. I ended up running XFS but ultimately got annoyed having another attempt at BTRFS, also failed (probably did three different spurts over 12 months, each time with issues after a month or so of use). There's probably something specific to the way I was using it, like perhaps I overfilled it a few times or something but no filesystem should crap itself just because of how I was using it. There was also problems with Unraid's implementation of BTRFS in the GUI which didn't help - initially denied, then later corrected to do with how it created the mirror, metadata and balancing if I recall correctly. All in all not a good experience. I will never ever use BTRFS again, there is very clearly something wrong with it and you can see those reports if you look around. I often wondered why unraid didn't just offer a standard mirror array i.e. with mdadm, that would have been better than btrfs.

My experience was to avoid BTRFS for your cache if you value that data. I therefore used XFS. At the time ZFS wasn't an option in the cache, I heard a rumour that it might be now, but I still have my doubts as unraid still don't officially support it. The thing was I never had a failed cache drive, but I did have multiple BTRFS file system failures once I moved to a BTRFS mirror. So that defeats the whole point of a mirror which was meant to keep the data safe. So it ended up being safer to have a single XFS cache. There are lots of other people whom had a similar experience and lots that say that they haven't OR more likely haven't had the issue fixing the BTRFS file system afterward. That was the thing that got me the most, the filesystem was unrepairable. That basically doesn't happen on ZFS. For the video scrub pool, using the zfs special metadata device is a good idea - you can pretty much run the scrub pool of standard HDD's then because all the file system info for searching and so on is in the SSD - something to consider anyway. My system is 100% ZFS now and because of that it doesn't really even need a cache of the style unraid has.

Wow this looks really good. Thankyou so much for thinking out of the box a little - makes such a difference to have the various VPN providers on the list!

I think I'm going to have to bail on this container. I really like the extra attention to leaking of tracker info or whatever it was, but it broke my container and a month or two of it not working and being no clearer what the issue is, it's actually just easier to go to one that isn't so hard to set up. I run a custom VPN, which may be the difference (Surfshark), but - nothing changed, only the docker image changed. I could roll back but I don't like that either. Perhaps I'm feeling lazy (second beer in just now) - yep I'm feeling lazy. But I will say, that if a change is made, and it breaks something for a lot of people the fix would normally be obvious by now. Will see how the competitor containers are - maybe that will encourage me to come back.

Seems like someone has been having a few trying discussions! Two more: No ZFS doesn't eat your RAM, some distro's just haven't configured the memory limits properly Yes dedup is useful and no it doesn't eat your RAM if applied properly, especially with the special metadata vdev. We should make a list of the FUD BTW, my entire system is now ZFS and has been for quite some time. I won't be going back, the benefits are just too huge. The speedup of the system was quite noticeable also.

I found when restoring data from Crashplan there were a few tricks to it where you could speed it up. I think I posted notes about it - let me see. Yep here. I got a 20x speed improvement. There's another tip or two in the comments also.

I came here because I'm getting a lot of performance issues / stability using virtio-net. In particular even at the console it freezes all the time. I don't know this is the net driver, but I suspect it is - I've known about it for a long time but have been too lazy to have the discussion. Now I'm trying to set up a VM I need for an Agile board and the web sockets aren't working, I assume for the same reason. I've tried re-installing the VM, I've tried CentOS and Ubuntu. I see in the latest beta there are now four options - virtio, virtio-net, vmxnet3 and e1000. virtio used to work for me, with all the dockers I have, but I don't know neither option has worked well for a very long time. And virtio-net is actually not just a little slow, it's insanely slow to the point I can't really use it for anything other than a basic web page. By contrast running this up in TrueNAS I haven't had this problem. They offer virtio and e1000. I'm running virtio with no problems, but I'm not running a lot of dockers there, those are now going to be migrated to a VM as I've come to the conclusion that it's better for me. Avoids all these dramas and makes them a lot more portable. So I'm going to try e1000 and hope that is better - though it's a very old driver I think.

I think the PGID default port is written incorrectly as 99. I assume thats just in the definition and isn’t actually the default?

Not in the current version. You must use a dummy usb stick for the array. That may or may not change depending on how zfs is natively implemented.

Hi all, I just noted this morning (as other seem to have previously) that I can no longer connect to privacy. I'm using Surfshark in custom mode, which I have been for some time (other VPN providers previously). Looking at the logs it seems vpn is connecting, it gets an IP and I think it's doing it's ping google check OK. However testing with Firefox set to proxy to 8118 it's a fail over and over. I did just try adding 8118 to the VPN input and output ports, but no dice. Actually not sure what those are for - couldn't find any documentation. So I understand IPTables protections have been added - can anyone link to any docs on what has changed? Cause this isn't working for me and if not solved I'll have to try a different container. Been a binhex fan for ages so keen to stick around if I can. Cheers. Marshalleq.

Hi all, is it just me or is the docker hub integration no longer working? It seems to just take me to the docker hub page, but not offer any automated way to install a non unraid package like it used to. I assume I could adjust an existing package and change the url or something but that's not very nice. Specifically, when I click on the apps page and search for z-push, I get no results. I used to be able to click the 'click here to get more results from docker hub' and it would include results from there, within the community applications page. Now, it instead just opens a window at docker hub, which does not allow me to install a package as far as I know. Thanks.

Anyway, I think the addition of ZFS officially is very exciting and I am looking forward to see where it leads. Though I suspect like everything else in unraid, we're not going to get enterprise features in the GUI. But who knows, this might just start a journey given from a file system perspective this stuff (like send /receive for backups) is just built in. It's funny to think, I jumped in this forum some time back with little knowledge and lots of questions and now I have quite a full on implementation and completely got rid of unrraids array. I had tried ZFS once on proxmox and it was incredibly slow, which I can only assume is due to a poor default arc setting or something. It goes to show the good job @steini84 has done here and everyone else whom has contributed. Also @ich777 I found to be super awesome to work with too - seeing that they're aligned up and unraid is aligned up with them I think the future is rosy for ZFS.

From what I understand about the way the unraid array works, I don't think it matters what's actually on the drives, the parity just calculates at the block level and that is that. I've run an unraid array before, that had a mix of btrfs and xfs within the single array. Also, I'd say there is zero chance that the Unraid folk are going to include zfs for the people that want it and tell those same people that they can't use their existing pools, that'd just be stupid. Where I think there will be some ambiguity is exactly what and how the GUI manages native zfs pools. Whether unraid actually makes a whole GUI for something that is essentially not their core (and particularly whether they do this right in the first version) remains to be seen. What will be nice is just a little native integration so that ZFS is not a second class citizen for unraid features like cache, docker images, disk status, thermal reporting and such. Heck even a scheduled scrub option would be cool. That's my 2c anyway, I'll even take a simple 'we include the binary now' as a first step.

Great question, yes it is possible to have features in a newer version of ZFS that don't work in an older version. So what you say is possible. However if you stick to stable versions, I'd say there's little chance of this being an issue due to the timeframes involved and maybe someone on here will explain how to keep to a specific stable version of the plugin, so you could e.g. keep it to one version. It's very unlikely that when Unraid DOES add zfs that it will be older than the current stable version given their attentiveness to remaining current. And if that scenario were to occur, you can bet they're working with the makers of this plugin to cover all the scenarios. I think stick to stable and you'll be good. Someone else may chip in something I haven't thought of though.

I wonder why that doesn't exist already. I also wonder what happens when you have multiple pools, i.e do you need multiple cache files. I guess I gotta do some googling. I have quite a large number of pools.

I would expect to use the exports file manually. And to make sure it persists across reboots. I'm trying to remember if ZFS has native NFS sharing built in like it does for SMB. If it does, I assume it will be the same i.e. edit the existing sharing mechanism. I think the main point is, currently the sharing mechanisms built into unraid GUI do not work for ZFS, you've got to do it at the command line. Hope that helps. Marshalleq