sadkisson

It is a very cool plugin. My personal preference... I really want to avoid plugins whenever I can. While the plugin devs and the community are very good at providing support, I have made that decision that I want to limit anything that touches the core OS to be supplied/supported by LT. Hopefully more functionality that is provided by plugins will be rolled into the core, much like Dynamix, apcupsd and others have been. Again, no knock on the plugin devs...just not my thing. John Yes, I know what you mean. I also don't use any of them for the same reason and wouldn't mind if the tab "Plugins" could be hidden and the update button for OS moved somewhere else. I am using the 4 plugins that add functionality to dynamix. These are not actually running any processes just adding some php/xml changes to add functionality to core dynamix. I do agree however that any processes that are run should be within docker/vm.

Can unassigned devices mount a dvd rom? I can see the drive but when attempting to mount the page brings up a spinning icon and then comes back with no change.

unRAID takes much less involvement and with notifications is very much so set and forget. SnapRAID requires much more RAM for larger filesystems. You will have a much larger support system with unRAID. I have done both and have liked both solutions. I prefer unRAID where my configuration is very much the normal setup as everyone else. With SnapRAID you are going to see many different ways people have setup their systems. Going the SnapRAID route I believe you will have more customization options where as unRAID is more tailored to how you should use unRAID. With the changes that have been made with unRAID 6 I prefer unRAID 6 for its Docker and VM options. That is not to say you cannot have the same with the other setup, it just may require more involvement than you prefer.

For anyone that did not get the limetech repo when updating to 6.0 final, below is their repo. https://github.com/limetech/docker-templates

So there is a default limetech supported docker repo? I do not see the repo in my repo list. What is the url?

Sounds too complicated.. I am sure there will be an option when creating the docker to specify its own ip address eventually. I will just wait. But to solve your original problem. QoS can be setup on some routers to give priority to specific kinds of traffic. This maybe the solution.

I wish I could apply a different ip address to each docker. If I could then I would just use my router for QoS.

I see a few minecraft-pe dockers... not sure how to get it into unRaid however. Anyone made a minecraft-pe template yet?

Do you see the share in ls -lah /mnt/user0 Yes, all of my shares show in that directory minus my vm cache only share. If you are seeing a share in /mnt/user0 then it exists on drives other than cache. Thanks, Squid and Trurl for taking a look. As Limetech stated this must be a known feature of unRaid and not RC4 specific. Just something I noticed when writing to a share set with cache yes and parity spins up. No big deal.

Do you see the share in ls -lah /mnt/user0 Yes, all of my shares show in that directory minus my vm cache only share.

I don't know the inner workings well enough to be able to give you a definitive answer, but I would think that if you had it set to "CACHE-ONLY" then no it shouldn't have spun up the drive. If you have it set to use cache, then the system may have also created the share on one of your data drives. Did the file in question get written directly to the cache drive? (You can check from your windows box by going to your network, selecting your server and then looking at the contents of cache - if you exported the share) Yes, the file being written is being save on the cache drive. That is why I do not understand why it would have called for parity to spin up. Is that not the point of cache drive? Something (windows?) could have modified a thumbnail or something stored on your data disk. If this is the case, modifications to already existing files are written directly to the array. (disk 1 should also be spun up) The file being written is a movie I am transcoding using Sparkyballs handbrake docker. I am in the process of slowly compressing all my makemkv rips for size reduction. I am also using Ubuntu on a laptop so no Windows environment accessing unRaid.

I don't know the inner workings well enough to be able to give you a definitive answer, but I would think that if you had it set to "CACHE-ONLY" then no it shouldn't have spun up the drive. If you have it set to use cache, then the system may have also created the share on one of your data drives. Did the file in question get written directly to the cache drive? (You can check from your windows box by going to your network, selecting your server and then looking at the contents of cache - if you exported the share) Yes, the file being written is being save on the cache drive. That is why I do not understand why it would have called for parity to spin up. Is that not the point of cache drive? I checked disk1 which the file will be placed on and the drive does not contain the file. So it looks like for whatever reason parity is just spinning up, not actually doing anything unless it is protecting the cache drive lol.

I don't know the inner workings well enough to be able to give you a definitive answer, but I would think that if you had it set to "CACHE-ONLY" then no it shouldn't have spun up the drive. If you have it set to use cache, then the system may have also created the share on one of your data drives. Did the file in question get written directly to the cache drive? (You can check from your windows box by going to your network, selecting your server and then looking at the contents of cache - if you exported the share) Yes, the file being written is being save on the cache drive. That is why I do not understand why it would have called for parity to spin up. Is that not the point of cache drive?

I have a share set to use cache yes. When I add files to the share the dashboard and main page indicate the parity drive is spun up? Is this a bug? Diagnostics file is attached while writing is in progress to the share. tower-diagnostics-20150607-1032.zip

Is libdvdcss included with handbrake docker? If not how do I get it installed?

Is docker not a good solution for MakeMKV? I would love to have it in a docker and avoid having to resort to VM.

Okay Has anyone tried making a docker for makeMKV? I know there is a linux version, but it looks like it needs compiled, and they usually have a new version about once/month, so it probably will need 'constant' maintenance. I'm not sure if building one will be easy or good, but I'd really like to put the work of creating my mkv files onto my unRAID box, and not have to continue doing it on my laptop, over wifi, which takes forever. maybe this helps one get started... http://www.makemkv.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2047 I have latest makemkvcon installed on unraid, still playing with it........ But it looks good. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 This will have to wait docker v.1.1 upgrade, where the new --device flag will be available. jonp promissed that to the next beta, if I'm not mistaken. We are at docker 1.6.2. is this a possibility yet?

Post a screenshot of your vmmanager setup for the vm. I have recently been playing around as well with Ubuntu VM. I have not had the issue you are having however. I chose host pass through with with Q35. Only option I had for the BiOS was SeaBios. Did you select the Ubuntu template where it changes the icon to the Ubuntu emblem? Did you setup the img file? How big did you make it?

You haven't been around here long, have you? He's got eyes everywhere... Just confused how he knew I created that VM in RC2. I did create it in RC2 so it makes perfect sense.

How did you figure that out by looking at my log.

The VM was not hard to restore.. Just recreated and pointed at the virtual drive. syslog.zip

After upgrading from RC2 to RC3 my VMs tab now says "No Virtual Machines Installed". I had 1 ubuntu VM running before upgrade on RC2.

With Docker, KVM, and Xen already included with UnRaid. What more do you need?

Is this error related? I see this error several times in my log. avahi-daemon[1764]: Received packet from invalid interface.

I was wondering what format everyone is using now for blu ray rips?