6.9.0-rc1 exporting a pool as a share

[bidmead]

I've created a single-drive pool, btrfs formatted, and have been trying to work out how to export it as a share. The only way I've been able to do so far is to pretend it's a cache drive and set it to Use Cache Pool Only.

 

The logic behind this seems to me somewhat contorted. The thing is no kind of cache and I'm left wondering if this is UnRAID's semantics problem or am I simply kluging around something obvious that I'm missing.

 

-- 

Chris

[JorgeB]

If want to export the pool (not the share(s) inside it) you need to en enable disk shares, need to be aware of the disk to share or share to disk  copy issues.

[bidmead]

Yes, "enable user share assignment" is set to yes for this pool device. I'm not clear if you're saying it shouldn't be necessary also to characterise the pool as a cache device in order to share it across the LAN. Have I added a redundant step?

 

If so, can you set out here or point me to the procedure for sharing an off-array pool device across the LAN using user-based security?

 

I'm also not clear what these "copy issues" are that you mention.

 

--

Chris

[JorgeB]

With Unraid you have "user shares" and "disk shares", disk shares will share all array devices as individual disks, e.g. \\tower\disk1, etc, and all pools, e.g., \\tower\cache or \\tower\yourpool, are you having trouble accessing a user share on the pool or you want to export the pool itself as a share?

[itimpi]

1 hour ago, bidmead said:

Yes, "enable user share assignment" is set to yes for this pool device. I'm not clear if you're saying it shouldn't be necessary also to characterise the pool as a cache device in order to share it across the LAN. Have I added a redundant step?

 

If so, can you set out here or point me to the procedure for sharing an off-array pool device across the LAN using user-based security?

 

I'm also not clear what these "copy issues" are that you mention.

 

--

Chris

A pool is a visible as the whole pool under the same share name (the name of the pool) if you have Disk shares enabled.   Disk shares are all about making the whole of a physical device available under a single share name.

 

there is an issue that can lead to data loss if you mix a disk share and a user Share in the same copy/move operation.

[bidmead]

I've exported the whole pool (the single drive) as a user/pass protected share. And that seems to work fine with no issues.

 

My question is about the apparent need to pretend that this is a cache drive set to Only in order to make it user/pass protected. It isn't caching anything and it isn't, in any sense, part of the array.

 

However, I notice that my actual cache drive is included in the array drive count. I can follow the logic of this, But because I'm having to pretend that the new pooled drive is also a cache drive, it too gets included in the array count. That seems to me to be, er, counter-intuitive.

 

So my problem here isn't practical, it's a logical problem that leaves me wondering if I'm kluging around something I could/should be implementing more straightforwardly.

 

BOTTOM LINE: Am I right in thinking that there's currently no way of exporting an entire unassigned device as a user/pass protected share except under the guise of a cache drive set to Only?

 

-- 

Chris

[trurl]

25 minutes ago, bidmead said:

included in the array drive count

Why are you concerned with this? If it has to do with licensing, all attached disks when the array is started are counted against the license limit including unassigned disks.

[trurl]

30 minutes ago, bidmead said:

BOTTOM LINE: Am I right in thinking that there's currently no way of exporting an entire unassigned device as a user/pass protected share

Go to Settings - Unassigned Devices and enable SMB Security

[bidmead]

3 hours ago, trurl said:

Why are you concerned with this?

Quite simply because I don't like kluging when there's a better way of doing something.  I gather from your subsequent response that there is. I haven't tested this yet, but thanks.

 

-- 

Chris

[itimpi]

4 hours ago, bidmead said:

My question is about the apparent need to pretend that this is a cache drive set to Only in order to make it user/pass protected. It isn't caching anything and it isn't, in any sense, part of the array.

I think you may be getting hung up on the fact that they are called cache pools?   This is historical in that was the first use of a cache drive, but nowadays they can just as frequently be used as application drives with Docker and/or VMs.   The only thing about cache pools is that they can (optionally)  be part of a the User Share if you want them to be.   If you can think of a better name to refer to them than cache pools feel free to suggest it.

[bidmead]

Thanks, itimpi. Yes, you're right---I wasn't fond of calling a pool a cache if it wasn't being used for caching. And right again about "cache only" already being a standard way of handling appdata, domains and isos (effectively taking them off the parity-checked array), which is what I'm doing already.

 

On that basis, I suppose, calling an out-of-array pool a cache in order to give it individual SMB security, isn't so much of a kluge. And it seems to be the only way to do this, because the method suggested by trurl (which works fine and which I'm now using---thanks, trurl) seems to set user/pass security for ALL unassigned devices, which may not necessarily be what you want to do. Although, I assume one can individually set SMB user/pass to all/no pass on a per share basis (haven't investigated this yet).

 

It was interesting semantics that when my kluge calls a pool named Maxi a cache set to Cache Only there is actually a cache called Maxi. So the pool is caching on itself. And---if I'm right---setting a pool to be its own cache is so far the only way to apply SMB security to a particular pool without engaging it for the whole set of unassigned devices.

 

A corollary of this is that UnRAID (now?) seems to allow multiple caches with different names. Or, rather, that a pool called Cache is just a special case of a Pool Device.

 

And just when I was getting used to the idea of there being two classes of UnRAID devices, array devices and unassigned devices (three, if you count the Boot device), I now find that my one-drive pool called Maxi is neither of these, instead belonging to a new called called Pool.

 

> If you can think of a better name to refer to them than cache pools feel free to suggest it.

 

I think 6.9.0 answers this question for us. These things are called Pool Devices

 

For some reason I'm being flagged here as an "Advanced Member". Please ignore this. Obviously, I'm merely entering the edge of the jungle wielding a toy plastic machete.

 

-- 

Chris

[trurl]

I refer to them the same way the webUI does. The sections (or tabs if you have it set that way) on the Main page are Array Devices, Pool Devices, Boot Device, and Unassigned Devices. So I just talk about the array and the pools. Cache is just the original pool and you can have other pools named whatever you want. And each user share can use one of these pools in the same ways that cache was used (no, yes, prefer, only).

 

You see some of the same naming in the file paths, with /mnt/cache, or /mnt/fast for my pool named "fast". And in the config folder on flash there is now a pools folder with the .cfg for each pool (and of course that config folder appears in the diagnostics).

[itimpi]

Perhaps the answer will be to change the wording of “use Cache for mew files” setting to use “use Pool for New files” so that people do not get hung up on the word “cache”?