Hey @SimonF I found a pretty reproducible bug.

In my setup I have two virtual NICs (one is just bound to a VLAN br0.2, the other is the main br0) and then all of my VirtioFS shares. I've found that when I set up my Windows VM and use it for a while and then need to maybe pass an additional VirtioFS share through to the VM, the main br0 NIC totally breaks and gets a 169.254 IP address. The only way I can fix it is by deleting the entire template and re-creating from scratch. It's been happening for quite a while and I'm not sure if I should report it here since it is related to VirtioFS or as a general bug report. Just thought I should make you aware since I know you do a lot of work on the VM manager as well as VirtioFS. If you'd like to see my current XML let me know.

40 minutes ago, mackid1993 said:

Hey @SimonF I found a pretty reproducible bug.

In my setup I have two virtual NICs (one is just bound to a VLAN br0.2, the other is the main br0) and then all of my VirtioFS shares. I've found that when I set up my Windows VM and use it for a while and then need to maybe pass an additional VirtioFS share through to the VM, the main br0 NIC totally breaks and gets a 169.254 IP address. The only way I can fix it is by deleting the entire template and re-creating from scratch. It's been happening for quite a while and I'm not sure if I should report it here since it is related to VirtioFS or as a general bug report. Just thought I should make you aware since I know you do a lot of work on the VM manager as well as VirtioFS. If you'd like to see my current XML let me know.

I would create a bug report under stable. Which version are you running?

10 minutes ago, SimonF said:

I would create a bug report under stable. Which version are you running?

Currently 7.0.1. I'll create a bug report.

I'm trying to give multiple gaming VMs a place to install games that they can share, so that games do not need to be installed multiple times.

 

First I tried mounting a Samba share but some software does not like to be installed or operate on mapped network drives.

 

So I turned to VirtIO-FS. I followed the instructions in SpaceInvader One video. But some software still doesn't like it. Battle.net refuses to install or operate on any game located there. I created a Reddit post about it looking for help. I've also tried to run Elden Ring and Deep Rock Galactic and both fail. For Elden Ring I've created a Steam discussion.

 

It appears that the issue is always with permissions. Every file in the VirtIO-FS drive is owned by "Everyone" and looks like by default "full control" permissions are given to "Everyone" as well. The permissions can be changed but the owner can't? So I'm guessing some games expect files to be owned by the "User" or the "Administrator" of the system and fail if they are not.

 

Is it possible to deal with this in some way? Or is it still impossible to have multiple VMs share a common place to install most games and programs?

Hey Guys,

 

Is is possible to use VirtIO-FS in combination with docker swarm -  with swarm you want all your docker-engine hosts(vms)/containers to point to the same storage. I know installing microceph on all the hosts does the trick but I was wondering if you can achieve the same with VirtIO-FS - or is VirtIO-FS not meant for this? 

 

Little background: I want to dive much deeper into docker/swam/kubernetes as my team-lead from work wants  to start containerizing a dozen of application (which is not a bad idea at all) but knowledge is minimal.

 

Regards,

Sjoerd

Hello,

I've tried to use Backblaze Personal Backup along with virtiofs shares, but I do have an issue with some files that are not being uploaded to Backblaze at all.

Seeing in the logs (IRC bztransmit one):

DID NOT find ChunkId: 00000000002ba2fa in hashTable, keeping oldValue=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx_20080101020304, fileName=Z:\backups\personal\project_X\database.pak

and in file: bz_done_internal_consistency.dat:

20250508144254 - NotEnoughChunkRecordsSeen - AfterBzdoneLargeFileAnalysis: totNumChunk=409, highestChunkSeqSeen=407, XYXBXXX_FILE_NAME: Z:\backups\personal\project_X\database.pakXYXBXXX_FULL_LINE: unknown

This example weight 4GB, but there are plenty of other files that are 256MB's each, and they are also not getting uploaded. It doesnt matter when I'll try to rescan once again the shares, or wait a week to let it run bz_tofix action in order to try to "fix them" and upload them again. Tested same files directly under barebone Windows machine and those were successfully uploaded.

Disabled writeback cache on VM, set cache to none on all of the shares, but it didn't help. My backup is like 4TB's, I am not trying to backup linux ISO's, as I don't want to waste space for Backblaze, but I do need to backup my Unraid along with other important files to me, as currently it is able to backup like 99% of the files (speaking of number of files not the size), and it's not enough to me, as for the backup I would like to have it done right.

Did anyone had similar issues with that?

Logfile_virtiofs.CSV

I’ve dug deeper and tried absolutely everything related to virtiofsd and the virtio parameter configuration in the XML from xattr, through cache mode=‘always’ or ‘none’, all the way to thread-pool-size, etc. and I still haven’t managed to solve this problem.

I even added a special parameter to virtiofs on Windows so that it recognizes the partition type as NTFS rather than virtiofs. I’m bypassing FUSE, for testing I’ve started using the share mounted directly at /mnt/cache.

Here’s the issue: I have a file called database.pak, and if I duplicate it on the share, Backblaze sees it but then skips it, so I never see it uploaded on their website. However, if the same file resides locally on the VM’s vdisk and I do the exact same copy, the problem doesn’t occur. I also tried copying the file from the VM straight onto the share, but in that case it’s still ignored.

For deeper diagnostics I ran Procmon, and in the log you can spot differences: for one, reading the file on the share ends with an “END OF FILE” result, which doesn’t happen with the local version; and there’s also a discrepancy in the fileAttributes flag (ANCI). I’m attaching a fragment of the Procmon log here hopefully someone will be able to pinpoint what’s going wrong…

I have no idea why BackBlaze doesn't see Virtiofs mounts. Maybe they cracked down since they aren't NTFS formatted. I don't even use VirtioFS anymore since the drivers suck.

It would sure be nice if random people would STOP DMing me every day asking why! I'm just another Unraid user.

Backblaze made an update to the client that is forced and now all mounted shares show as "not plugged in".

Did Backblaze crack that down or does anyone have an idea whats going on?

When I try to make a RAR file from or to a virtiofs share it becomes corrupted, every single time, I don't know how to fix it

On 11/23/2025 at 12:16 AM, gandalf15 said:

Backblaze made an update to the client that is forced and now all mounted shares show as "not plugged in".

Did Backblaze crack that down or does anyone have an idea whats going on?

I'm seeing this as well with the new client. Rolling back to an older version seemed to help, for now.

On 12/1/2025 at 1:21 AM, the.phd said:

I'm seeing this as well with the new client. Rolling back to an older version seemed to help, for now.

Came here to seek help and found out that it's not only me. What version is your Backblaze? Mine is below.

Edited December 10, 2025Dec 10 by HHUBS

On 12/10/2025 at 4:55 AM, HHUBS said:

Came here to seek help and found out that it's not only me. What version is your Backblaze? Mine is below.

I tried installing version 887, then restored my backup state. I haven't got it working again. It seems to have auto updated the control panel as soon as I restarted the computer. I cannot figure out how to turn off auto updates on the control panel software. Any ideas?

EDIT:

I was able to get 887 to stick by blocking the bzupdater.exe (That's not exactly what it's called, I forget, already shut down the VM) in windows firewall right after installation. I tried inheriting my old backup state, but still the drives show as unplugged. I tried rebooting the VM, nothing, I tried restarting virtio with the bat, nothing, I tried unmounting, then remounting, nothing.

Edited December 19, 2025Dec 19 by jojojoseph

Am I also running into the same issue with Backblaze and other workarounds?

So basically they have started to crack down on us, is it? They are trying to figure out if BB is running on a NAS and then block it. Even if we find another way to circumvent the block, they'll just close that loophole I suppose.

Oh well, it's been good while it lasted. Any alternatives?

Also, has someone talked to them about a refund yet? My 2 year plan was just renewed a few months ago. Their unannounced change makes the system useless for me (as well as users of Veracrypt etc., who may also have paid for something they won't be able to use anymore).

Edited January 9Jan 9 by kadajawi

On 1/9/2026 at 7:17 PM, kadajawi said:

So basically they have started to crack down on us, is it? They are trying to figure out if BB is running on a NAS and then block it. Even if we find another way to circumvent the block, they'll just close that loophole I suppose.

Oh well, it's been good while it lasted. Any alternatives?

Also, has someone talked to them about a refund yet? My 2 year plan was just renewed a few months ago. Their unannounced change makes the system useless for me (as well as users of Veracrypt etc., who may also have paid for something they won't be able to use anymore).

I think yes. But luckily, my 2-year plan is expiring in April, so I will not renew it anymore 😛. But I heard Jottacloud is good; however, there is a gradual reduction of upload speed after 5 TB. You can read it here https://docs.jottacloud.com/en/articles/3271114-reduced-upload-speed. Some suggest Hetzner Storage Box https://www.hetzner.com/storage/storage-box/

For me, my plan is just to buy a big HDD and make a local copy of my data.

.

Edited January 12Jan 12 by HHUBS

On 1/9/2026 at 5:17 PM, kadajawi said:

So basically they have started to crack down on us, is it? They are trying to figure out if BB is running on a NAS and then block it. Even if we find another way to circumvent the block, they'll just close that loophole I suppose.

Oh well, it's been good while it lasted. Any alternatives?

Also, has someone talked to them about a refund yet? My 2 year plan was just renewed a few months ago. Their unannounced change makes the system useless for me (as well as users of Veracrypt etc., who may also have paid for something they won't be able to use anymore).

On 1/9/2026 at 5:17 PM, kadajawi said:

So basically they have started to crack down on us, is it? They are trying to figure out if BB is running on a NAS and then block it. Even if we find another way to circumvent the block, they'll just close that loophole I suppose.

Oh well, it's been good while it lasted. Any alternatives?

Also, has someone talked to them about a refund yet? My 2 year plan was just renewed a few months ago. Their unannounced change makes the system useless for me (as well as users of Veracrypt etc., who may also have paid for something they won't be able to use anymore).

Well a real fix a havent found, but a work around that stops auto update is working for me, there is a file called bzautoupdate_2_hour_lock.lck if you change permission on that file to Read (remember to remove Inheritance) then Backblace service cant dele the file when its 2 hours old and the auto update will never run