They seem to reference the same thing  but user0 does not have all the shares.  Seems to be anything with cache yes and cache no is on /user0 - but what is this used for ?

 

 

 

Edited November 20, 20214 yr by vw-kombi

Correct.

 

User 0 does NOT include cache.

20 minutes ago, vw-kombi said:

but what is this used for ?

Prior versions used it for the mover function, but now it's kept as a handy way to differentiate between files in a share that exist on the parity array or in a pool.

 

It was scheduled to be removed, but too many people still find it useful.

Thanks for that.

/mnt/user directory is the default directory for accessing user data, while /mnt/user0 directory is the backup directory. If your system configuration includes multiple user data disks, /mnt/user0 directory will point to the first user data disk, while /mnt/user directory will point to the other user data disks

1 hour ago, standin000 said:

/mnt/user directory is the default directory for accessing user data, while /mnt/user0 directory is the backup directory. If your system configuration includes multiple user data disks, /mnt/user0 directory will point to the first user data disk, while /mnt/user directory will point to the other user data disks

 

Incorrect.

So wrong as to be dangerous.

This is all covered in here in the online documentation accessible via the ‘Manual’ link at the bottom of the GUI or the DOCS link at the top of each forum page.

On 8/21/2023 at 12:17 AM, BRiT said:

 

Incorrect.

could you provide correction of my message, thanks!

11 hours ago, standin000 said:

could you provide correction of my message, thanks!

As already explained in other post in this thread.

/mnt/user is all user shares.

/mnt/user0 is all user shares excluding any files/folders that are not on the array.

 

 

From the documentation:

 

When viewed at the Linux level, user shares appear under the path /mnt/user. This includes the files on the main array and also any for the share on any pool. A user share is a logical view imposed on top of the underlying physical file system so you can see the same files if you look at the physical level, as described for Disk Shares.

 

Note that current releases of Unraid also include the mount point /mnt/user0 that shows the files in User Shares omitting any files for a share that are on any pool. This is a different view of the files on your server. However, this mount point is now deprecated and may stop being available in a future Unraid release.

I just came here from Google wondering the same thing. Perhaps the terminology is a little confusing.

We have /mnt/cache, so why not rename /mnt/user0 to /mnt/array? That way the naming is consistent and there's less confusion. I do think having the folder can be useful in some cases as it makes it easy to see at a glance what files are on your array and which are on your cache, if you wanted to reorganize or free up some space. But I see absolutely no reason why it needs to have what seems like a temporary placeholder name.

1 hour ago, Jdbye said:

I just came here from Google wondering the same thing. Perhaps the terminology is a little confusing.

We have /mnt/cache, so why not rename /mnt/user0 to /mnt/array? That way the naming is consistent and there's less confusion. I do think having the folder can be useful in some cases as it makes it easy to see at a glance what files are on your array and which are on your cache, if you wanted to reorganize or free up some space. But I see absolutely no reason why it needs to have what seems like a temporary placeholder name.

Its technical debt that would require dev time to change for little gain.
That said, it is likely to change when multiple arrays finally gets implemented, and at that point each array can get its own name like pools do currently.