Helmonder

Still working... Did not change anything.. Have you logged recently into crashplan vnc? Are you backing up to crashplan servers? Did you make any modification to the standard docker installation? Thankyou Gus Yes No to my own backup server No, only the memory increase for the java stack heap

Still working... Did not change anything..

Now running two 8tb preclears on my main and testrig (one on each), the preclear seems to work fine. It would be nice if there were some kind of identifier wrt the name or ip of the server in the launched window, with two servers on the network its not visible which window is for which unraid system..

They also have a slighly higher rotational speed.. I am basing myself on the comparison stats.. But the main reason is the drive mix to be honoust.. I have build my backup server totally on seagate shingled archive drives, they also function fine.. That is a cost-based decision..

The WD 8TB drives are NOT shingled, and are superb drives. I just bought 4 of them (not for UnRAID), and they are VERY nice -- sequential reads well over 250MB/s. They're a bit pricey (~ $320), but well worth it. They're essentially a slower RPM version of the $550 HGST Ultrastar HE8's [ http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822145969 ], and like the HGST's they're helium-sealed units. They run very cool; look exactly like the HGST units (except, of course, for the WD Red sticker); and perform exceptionally well. I'll definitely use these for my next UnRAID upgrade. I have all WD RED drives in my system, really happy with them.. I have now gone for the 8tb Seagate because they are slightly faster read/write wise.. Also its good to keep a mix imho

The non shingled ones are called "desktop drives", the shingled ones are "archive drives"

Seagate now also has non shingled 8TB drives.. I just ordered two as parity drives for my two servers (and now I type this I realise that I would need to have three.. since I now have dual parity :-)

I just upgraded unraid to the latest beta on my backup server, after that a docker update for crashplan came available, i updated it and after that crashplan updated itself to 4.7.. Everything is working fine again !

Mmm.. I have two crashplan instances running on two unraid servers.. The one on my main unraid server has updated to 4.7, the one running on the secundary backup server is giving errors trying to upgrade for a few days.. The only difference between the two systems is that the primary server (where crashplan updated to 4.7) is running the latest unraid beta, the backup system is running the latest stable release .. I have tried restarting the docker on the backup unraid server, but that does not make a difference.

It does not work that way.. "shingling" is a part of a regular write cycle, so its not saved up or something like that.. the drive will never spin down without a completed write..

You probably tried to quickly.. After starting the docker it takes a few minutes to initialise and make the webui visible..

The rest is not going to work.. Unraid uses a standard file system.. The stuff discussed might be technically feasable, but it would make a total Linux change necessary and that is not going to happen.. The crashplan trick works.. Also solves general backup issues.. Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk

That last thing would be totally easy but very impractical.. Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk

This would be great, perfect to secure Movies and TV shows from ransomeware. Sounds nice but as far as I know there is nothing in linux resembling that... So will not fly I think..

Yes.. which is one of the main reasons I use it... It also protects against stupidity.. Since you can set it up to have unlimited versioning and never to delete any files, you can basically restory anything you accidentally delete..

Yes, basically is what I do. Download some files and copy to the shares. In the case I got a ramsomware and it encrypts my crashplan share, the cloud copy will also be update with the encrypted files? Gus Yeah, that really bothers me. If you have automatic backups set up, then it can potentially ruin the backups as well Not really... That would constitute a change to an existin file so versioning would you allow to go back to previous version.. which would be non-encrypted..

I had this issue.. it dissapeared when i removed kaspersky from my system... So at least it was virusscanner related..

Doesn't the log tell you what is going wrong ? It is stating there is not enough diskspace available.. Should mean your ramdisk is to small... Just make it bigger..

At the moment ransomware spreads by infecting files on local systems and file systems it can access remotely, it used to be that it would only spread on on attached filesystems (eg: mounted drives / shares). This is no longer the case, it now scans for filesystems on your network and if it finds them it will try to infect them using credentials it has stolen and/or user nobody.. So an RDP connection should be safe at this time. With stuff like this you never have absolute certainty though. If it gets interesting enough for the guys whjo create this sh*t to utilise RDP they might at some point..

Nice... That would actually work...! Plugin anyone ? Preferable share based with a "change window" per share.. :-)

my install appears flawless.. i also updated to the latest version..

Sorry, I guess I misinterpreted the ambiguous comment . Can confirm my blackscreen VNC has been fixed, thank you. Highlights the major flaw with having a single user providing dockers. If the docker system allowed a rollback, or ability to choose a previous build, this wouldn't be an issue. (You could rebut this and say build your own, but I'd digress) I do at least agree that I am starting to realise that it might be something of a risk having my precious backups in hands of a company that might decide to stop supporting us and/or in a docker system where I am reliant on one maintainer... And this has -NOTHING- to do with enormous amount of great work gfjardim is doing on this... I really do appreciate that enormously.. Its just... my backups.. I haven't decided on anything but maybe an rsync solution is "safer" in that respect..

You could do it quite easily on one system also.. Just create a share that is not writable when mounted (give a user write access that you do not use from windows) and rsync all your other shares into that making it so that you do not overwrite.. Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk

I have the same thing... I also simply keep all versions of my files.. So even if I find out about the ransomware in half a year I should be able to revert back using backups..

With the correction on my assumption for changes to existing files infortunately the idea seems to be much harder.. You cant win them all.. Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk