je82

Beautiful work, this should be implemented as a feature for future releases if possible!

Was going to use vaultwarden to save my passwords, but only have it accessable via the local area network, using vpn to connect to my network and sync passwords if i am not on the lan. The problem is whenever i setup Vaultwarden it tells me it wont work without https with my browser. It seems very cumbersome to deal with internal certificates, is there a way to bypass this? I do not wish to expose vaultwarden to the internet as i have access to my network when using vpn anyway. Letsencrypt only works if letsencrypt can valide the certificates from their servers which won't work if the host is offline. Any good solutions here? I want to have certificates more or less seamless without having to manually deal with them each time they expire but i also only want my vaultwarden to be accessible from lan, never from wan.

Hi, thinking of selfhosting a password manager, but i have some questions. I want my passwords to be 100% selfhosted, no cloud services involved. Therefor there are some problems, i need multiple installations of either bitwarden or perhaps using something like enpass which as i understand stores the passwords locally encrypted on each device? The reason i need dual installations is if i shutdown my unraid server then what? I have no passwords? Just like DNS i like at least 2 on different hardware so i can shut down one while the other remains operational and they need to auto sync inbetween. I intend to use vpn connectivity to my network when i use devices from the outside, so i don't need any reverse proxying. What is the best password manager 2021 you would recommend to achieve such things? Is Enpass the way to go or is bitwarden (now for whatever reason called Vaultwarden?) the way to go? EDIT: Seems like enpass doesn't support syncing unless you use cloud, what a strange thing.

i have 3 unraid servers now. 1. 170tb 2. 250tb 3. 40tb my 170tb one just got a little upgrade to transcode some movies

great work guys!

Hi, I made the mistake of buying a 3060ti Gainward ghost card because it was the only one in stock and it had many rgb lights, i've managed via the command nvidia-smi -pm 1 to get the card to sleep at pstate 8, but it still draws 19watts in this mode. Does anyone else have a 3060ti or a 3series card with pstate 8 and no rgb lights? My guess is that these rgbs are at least drawing 10 watts of power, could that be possible? I have no idea how much leds usually draw but looking at some other people who have nvidia cards in the same power state they have around 6-10 watts draw and not 19. Follow up question, is there a way to disable the led lights via the nvidia driver? My guess is no because this i third party vendor card... i guess the only way to find out how much power these leds actually draw is to open the card up and find the power source to the led lights but that might be a gamble. EDIT: Ended up opening the box up again and removing the rgb power header cable which luckily was pretty straight forward with this card, voila 9w!

nevermind, i understand now, only lower case files will be visible and if share already exists there are most likely files that are not all lower case. yeah smb performance really sucks in 6.8.x and onward compared to 6.7.2 which seem to be the last version that had a smb protocol that didn't add seconds of delay between accessing a file EDIT: This setting fixed my smb speed issue in 6.8.3 and onward (Default is yes, set to no to speed up smb directory listings) Not sure what i would be losing out on with this disabled, i don't use any hard links that i know of.

i just did a manual upgrade from 6.7.2 to 6.8.3 and now my dockers cannot find any updates, doesn't matter if i use cloudflare dns, google dns or pihole, all the same. ideas? nevermind found solution here: https://forums.unraid.net/topic/108643-all-docker-containers-lists-version-“not-available”-under-update/?do=findComment&comment=993917

Hello, I am wondering why the detailed information regarding case sensitive filenames settings in the share section that was introduced in 6.8.3. tells me the following: "A value of Forced lower is special: the case of all incoming client filenames, not just new filenames, will be set to lower-case. In other words, no matter what mixed case name is created on the Windows side, it will be stored and accessed in all lower-case. This ensures all Windows apps will properly find any file regardless of case, but case will not be preserved in folder listings. Note this setting should only be configured for new shares." I've bolded the part that i wonder about, what will happen if i do this to a share that already previously existed? Why is it only recommended to do for new shares and not old ones? Thanks!

Hi, I prefer to run the "previous stable branch" to not be bleeding edge, i am now going to upgrade from 6.7.2 to 6.8.3 but via the gui i can only upgrade to either 6.9.2 or 6.9.1. I read somewhere all i have to do to upgrade is to simply overwrite the bz* files that are sitting in the root folder of the flash drive then reboot, is this correct?

The multi pool support is cool for sure, separate the cache away from the dockers is a good idea, we all know how bad it is if you accidentally fill the cache on unraid thanks for the tip!

oh really? oh well i've been running my unraid for over a year straight so i can only imagine how teared down my ssds are, i might as wel run them into the dirt would the writes decrease if i remade the cache volume to use xfs encrypted rather then btrfs? what would be the downside of not having btrfs?

Hi, I've been lurking the forums and i saw there was a big issue with 6.8.x causing btrfs cache volumes to "constantly loop writes" and eventually killing the ssd, is this still a thing or was it ever solved in 6.8x? My unraid install has 2x btrfs mirrored, will this be an issue? Is it recommended to convert this to xfs encrypted rather then running btrfs in 6.8.3? Back when 6.7.2 was the latest version the recommended cache setting was btfs thats why i have it, i have no real idea what the upside/downside of having it really is. The rest of my array is xfs encrypted. Thanks.

Okay, i am surprised by the "where they are located" are we talking about physically? I intend to move things psyically too, i never though this had any matter at all though. EDIT: Ignore my question, i am ot of coffee and i somehow read that it mattered where the drivers were connected psyically, i have no idea why, sorry. As long as disks are using the unique ID all should be fine!

Sorry for bumping this thread again, i came to think of something i really don't feel comfortable doing without testing it first on a test build, but i cannot find the zip package for unraid version 6.7.2, is there any chance someone knows where i can find this package? The thing i want to test is what happens to a share i have on the server and i change the disk location. Is shares that have allocated disks allocated on "per slot basis" or per disk unique identifier basis? If they are per slot basis, what happens when i change the order of the disks and the share is allocated to now paths that no longer exists? These allocations would not be the same if i change the order, what happens to this share? This is probably easier for me to try on my own than anyone answering it because its a very strange usecase, so the TLDR is, where can i find 6.7.2? This is the version i have on my unraid production server. Cheers! EDIT: Found version 6.7.1 via waybackmachine for whatever reason 6.7.2 seems to never have been posted to the ofifical releases page as it went from 6.7.1 to 6.8.x but 6.7.1 is better than nothing, ill do my own tests to see how unraid behaves when having a share and swapping the order of the drives around.