1 hour ago, zoggy said:

 

for those that use password managers, one failed login is too many.

Yes, but if you want to log in at the console and you use a complex password, then honest mistakes are quite possible.

I have tried to update several times over a few weeks with the "Update OS" option and the "Install Plugin" option but got this error

 

"plugin: https://s3.amazonaws.com/dnld.lime-technology.com/stable/unRAIDServer-6.9.2-x86_64.zip download failure (File I/O error)"

 

Can you help?

How much RAM do you have on your UnRaid server?  

I have 2 GB of Ram on the Server.

1 hour ago, TekDRu said:

I have 2 GB of Ram on the Server.

I don't even think that is enough to run it honestly. Would recommend it least 8 GB of RAM.

3 hours ago, TekDRu said:

I have 2 GB of Ram on the Server.

That is not enough to upgrade the OS via the GUI.    You would need to do it manually using the legacy method.

Ok Thank you.  I have been able to use the GUI to make upgrades in past versions of Unraid 6 but this version is not working for me.  I do need to upgrade my server though. I've had it for over 10 years. 

 

Thanks for the help.  

 

 

31 minutes ago, TekDRu said:

Ok Thank you.  I have been able to use the GUI to make upgrades in past versions of Unraid 6 but this version is not working for me.  I do need to upgrade my server though. I've had it for over 10 years. 

 

Thanks for the help.  

 

 

Yes, but the latest releases are larger than earlier ones and more RAM demanding.    The current recommendation for minimum RAM is now 4GB even though you can run the basic NAS capability in 2GB.

On 5/15/2021 at 8:10 PM, itimpi said:

The current recommendation for minimum RAM is now 4GB...

 

I would recommend at least 8GB RAM because with 4GB its terrible

3 hours ago, Zonediver said:

 

I would recommend at least 8GB RAM because with 4GB its terrible

In my experience if you are just going to run Unraid purely as a NAS then 4GB is sufficient.    It is when you start running VMs or any non-trivial docker containers that more RAM starts being required, and the majority of users now-a-days probably fall into this camp.

I run 16 Gigs, and that seems plenty enough.

 

19 hours ago, itimpi said:

In my experience if you are just going to run Unraid purely as a NAS then 4GB is sufficient.

 

What I often noticed, when the server has very little RAM, then uploading new files to the server becomes a game of patience. Hence my "8GB recommendation".

And because I often play more than 300GB on the server at once, I decided on 32GB

Edited May 30, 20215 yr by Zonediver

On 4/7/2021 at 4:46 PM, limetech said:

Unraid OS has come a long way since originally conceived as a simple home NAS on a trusted LAN. It used to be that all protocols/shares/etc were by default "open" or "enabled" or "public" and if someone was interested in locking things down they would go do so on case-by-case basis. In addition, it wasn't so hard to tell users what to do because there wasn't that many things that had to be done. Let's call this approach convenience over security.

 

Tom ---  I agree with what you are trying to do here but I have one change request that you implement prior to, or concurrent with, the increase in SMB security. 

 

That request is that you move the smb-extra.conf hook in the smb.conf file to be at the end of the file.  See the attached screen capture for details.

 

 

With the coming (long needed) changes in SMB and general share security coming, let's make sure that end user has the final word if some changes to SMB configuration is required.   (I have some old Netgear NTV-550 set top media players that I would like to continue to use!)

14 hours ago, Frank1940 said:

That request is that you move the smb-extra.conf hook in the smb.conf file to be at the end of the file. 

 

An update is made for Unraid version 6.10.

I was running 6.9.2 fine on one of my test systems. Since installing a IBM (Mellanox CX3) 10Gb machine randomly just locks up, no messages console or syslog. Writing to both local host and remote syslog server.

 

I have to hard reboot. If I revert to 6.9.1 I dont see the same behavour. Card is connected in a X1 slot with an adapter. I don't believe this is the cause as fine with 6.9.1.

 

Still testing and have removed nearly all plugins and will see if it crashes. If it does I will remove the card to see if stability is restored.

 

 

I haven't looked for any bugs in 5.10.28 kernel yet, but may be related to network drivers.

 

Looks like it may be caused by a plugin. Will continue to look for cause.

 

[15b3:1003] 03:00.0 Ethernet controller: Mellanox Technologies MT27500 Family [ConnectX-3]

Edited June 20, 20215 yr by SimonF

Updated from 6.8.3 to 6.9.2 and all my docker settings are wiped out.   Everything looks like it's been reinitialized.   I've looked and not seeing this unless i'm missing something obvious.  Need help!

44 minutes ago, Timmons said:

Updated from 6.8.3 to 6.9.2 and all my docker settings are wiped out.   Everything looks like it's been reinitialized.   I've looked and not seeing this unless i'm missing something obvious.  Need help!

Post your diagnostics

My cache drive with 6.9.2 is CacheSATA_SSD_PH191012004271 - 120 GB (sdt)91 F54200btrfsUnmountable: Too many missing/misplaced device   Nothing changed in my configuration.  

tower-diagnostics-20210612-1736.zip

 

I removed the cache drive from array, started then readded it and now it saying unmountable no pool uuid

 

I reformatted my cache and restored my appdata from backup and resolved the issues.   Some of the apps are wonky but seems to have worked on the most important ones.   Gotta redo plex and couchpotato.

Edited June 13, 20215 yr by Timmons
Figured out myself

10 hours ago, Timmons said:

Too many missing/misplaced device

There wasn't a valid btrfs filesystem on that SSD since boot, whatever happened it did before these diags, or it was a xfs filesystem.

Actually there should be two releases: one for LAN/Home based version which still make things open by default, another one is internet based so all features are closed or hardenning security by default, so user can choose base on their environment or using purpose.

1 hour ago, dust2k said:

Actually there should be two releases: one for LAN/Home based version which still make things open by default, another one is internet based so all features are closed or hardenning security by default, so user can choose base on their environment or using purpose.

 

I hope this does not happen.  As one who has attempted to provide forum support on SMB issues the past few years, the last thing I want to see is another variable in the mix.!!!     Most of the SMB issues today are the result of attempting modify the Windows 10 SMB by turning off the security changes that MS has added.  Most Unraid users would have had fewer SMB problems if we all would have modified our Unraid setup to accommodate those changes rather than working on the Windows side. 

 

Let me point out that the present default Unraid setup will serve up everything on your array to the entire world.  It is protected only by your router and the password on your Wireless Access Point.  Do you really want this situation?

 

The problem was that the SMB changes came slowly out of MS and the PC manufacturers (apparently) delayed incorporating some of the changes into the product they are  shipping.  Larger organizations which had people/departments with IT expertise and training knew how (or quickly learned) to incorporate these changes into their current practices.  MS did not help we little folks out by not providing any information/documentation on how to actually do this.  (If any one knows of any MS publicly available information, I would appreciate knowing of it!)  Further, complicating the problem is that you google about some SMB problem, you will probably find more bad information than good. 

 

A couple of us are working to prepare a set of How-to instructions setting up both the Unraid server and the Windows 10 Client to integrate the two more smoothly in a manner which embraces modern security. 

 

An even bigger point is that many folks are spending more time trying to bypass the Windows 10 SMB security than it takes to setup Unraid to accommodate it!

On 5/3/2021 at 9:53 AM, elcapitano said:

Attempted an update from 6.8.3 but I had the Webgui issue. No containers or VM's started.

Reverted to 6.8.3. All good.

Will be a while before I make another attempt . . 

Just made another attempt. All dockers and plugins updated.

Same result. System unresponsive. Unable to SSH in. Just doesn't boot.

Any suggestions?

Edited July 23, 20214 yr by elcapitano

1 hour ago, elcapitano said:

Just made another attempt. All dockers and plugins updated.

Same result. System unresponsive. Unable to SSH in. Just doesn't boot.

Any suggestions?

 

Not a lot to go on here, I'd suggest plugging a keyboard and monitor into the server so you can see what is shown on the screen during boot. Take a picture when the text stops scrolling and upload it here.

 

Also try booting in safe mode to disable all of your plugins.

6 minutes ago, ljm42 said:

 

Not a lot to go on here, I'd suggest plugging a keyboard and monitor into the server so you can see what is shown on the screen during boot. Take a picture when the text stops scrolling and upload it here.

 

Also try booting in safe mode to disable all of your plugins.

Wilco

Hi Guys,

 

Not sure it's a bug, but just updated from 6.8.3 to 6.9.2

1st thing I noticed which was OK but now isn't quite working is on the "Main" tab.

Under the SMB / NFS / ISO  shares section, the orange buttons labelled "Add Remote NFS/SMB share" and "Add ISO File Share" had disappeared & a debug line was displayed instead.

So I deleted my two NFS shares & the buttons re-appeared.

But if I add a NFS share back again, the "add" buttons disappear and I get this line of debug instead:

 

Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to undefined function _() in /usr/local/emhttp/plugins/dynamix/include/Helpers.php:35 Stack trace: #0 /usr/local/emhttp/plugins/unassigned.devices/UnassignedDevices.php(387): my_scale(0, NULL) #1 {main} thrown in /usr/local/emhttp/plugins/dynamix/include/Helpers.php on line 35

 

The share process works exactly as expected & the share is certainly working AOK.

However, I can't now add a 2nd share because the buttons have disappeared.

 

Suggestions welcome.