Future Unraid Feature Desires

[Erich]

2 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

Going to Unraid GUI you land on either the dashboard or main page, which both have most of the useful information you need about your server without having to dig through things, not just an empty useless "desktop" or list of icons.

 

Sure changing settings needs going to the right place, but the everyday stuff is all at a glance right there straight away.

 

If you don't like it... don't use it, you have enough other options.

This is a forum to offer suggestions for improvement, so your statement.."if you don't like it..don't use it" is inappropriate at best. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to offer suggestions. That doesn't give you the right to cut down another person. But like I said when I posted this, I knew some people here can't handle new ideas and the daggers would be thrown.

[isvein]

As someone who have used both Synology, Unraid, OSX-Server (when that was its own OS) and OSX-Server after it just became an "app" (before Apple just cut server all together), I dont think the Unraid gui is hard to get at all.
True, DSM is nice looking, everything feels like an "app", just like on  any smartphone, but the Unraid gui is way more simple and things you need to know is way more "in your face"
Yes, what is an setting and what is a tool is a bit messy, but you dont need to be an linux expert to understand the Unraid GUI (Im not)

I for one does not want an Unraid gui that looks like an iPad.

[Erich]

2 minutes ago, isvein said:

As someone who have used both Synology, Unraid, OSX-Server (when that was its own OS) and OSX-Server after it just became an "app" (before Apple just cut server all together), I dont think the Unraid gui is hard to get at all.
True, DSM is nice looking, everything feels like an "app", just like on  any smartphone, but the Unraid gui is way more simple and things you need to know is way more "in your face"
Yes, what is an setting and what is a tool is a bit messy, but you dont need to be an linux expert to understand the Unraid GUI (Im not)

I for one does not want an Unraid gui that looks like an iPad.

I do agree with some of your points. I don't think the unRaid UI is "Hard to get at" once you become familiar with it. And yes the whole tool vs setting thing is just a mess. For me, it is more about things like installing apps. This is soooo much easier to do on DSM. I have sometimes spent hours trying to figure out how an app is to be installed on UNRAID, whereas I could install the same app on DSM in just a few clicks! And yes DSM is really pretty to look at!

[Lolight]

On 10/1/2023 at 3:12 PM, daithi said:

it would have been good for a lot of users if there was a 6.11.5 LTS with security updates/patches

This

 

LimeTech should really consider offering such an option, preferably at a lower price.

 

Many users are not interested in "advanced" features, especially at the cost of additional complexity and associated with it lower stability.

Would also greatly expand Unraid's adoption rates in the lower income countries.

[Ockingshay]

With all these new features it would be nice to go back to simple fundamental functionality as mentioned: array shrink and native integration of unbalance. I should be able to add drives, remove drives and change file systems via the webgui and unraid manages that safely behind the scenes.

 

all this new stuff is all very nice on newly rolled systems but those of us that have systems since the days of unraid 4 and earlier, need a little help moving with the times. I’ve upgraded my hardware several times on 2 pro servers that I have but struggle to control the arrays.

 

and so if the most popular request is multiple arrays, surely before that happens, tools should be in place to manage it?

 

after we have that, staying on the fundamental train of thought, data being the reason unraid began, as also mentioned, a way to back it up on or off site. Internet speeds have come a long way recently and it would be nice to backup my critical data to either another unraid server (extra sales) or cloud based storage.

Edited October 5, 2023 by Ockingshay

[daithi]

On 10/2/2023 at 5:15 PM, BVD said:

 

The Stats plugin does this pretty well

 

(Sorry for the crappy screenshot, I'm mobile currently)

I'll check it out thanks

 

On 10/4/2023 at 10:49 PM, Lolight said:

This

 

LimeTech should really consider offering such an option, preferably at a lower price.

 

Many users are not interested in "advanced" features, especially at the cost of additional complexity and associated with it lower stability.

Would also greatly expand Unraid's adoption rates in the lower income countries.

I don't think it will come at a lower price, and I'm fine with that. They would be maintaining 2 release channels it's not exactly a cost cutting opportunity.

[Lolight]

3 hours ago, daithi said:

I don't think it will come at a lower price, and I'm fine with that. They would be maintaining 2 release channels it's not exactly a cost cutting opportunity.

It shouldn't take much of an effort maintaining a frozen in time, "basic" version.

It would only make sense to offer it at a lower cost which is a common practice.

[ChatNoir]

4 hours ago, Lolight said:

It shouldn't take much of an effort maintaining a frozen in time, "basic" version.

New hardware would require a newer kernel, so things would have to change, be maintained, etc.

And with time features from a more advanced branch would have to be integrated (because users would complain).

[Lolight]

4 hours ago, ChatNoir said:

New hardware would require a newer kernel, so things would have to change, be maintained, etc.

And with time features from a more advanced branch would have to be integrated (because users would complain).

Well, but that's precisely the point that I'm trying to communicate.

Sorry for not being articulate enough.

I'd like to see a classic, limited in features (no ZFS, multiple arrays, VM snapshots, ARC drivers) Unraid version that is supported by up to a specific generation of hardware (e.g. up to the 12th gen Intel) which would still remain absolutely capable of serving as a platform for its intended use case as a "classic" Unraid NAS, for many years to come.

Priced at, say, half the cost of the main branch, as it should be considering the lack of capabilities and features.

I don't think anyone would complain.

They should also be allowed to upgrade to the main branch if/when they decide to require latest features, which could be done at they same time they upgrade to the latest hardware.

I think such branching design could becoming a hit, generating many more sales AND revenue as compared to what would be possible otherwise with the current, constantly evolving with new features but still fairly expensive current version.

Edited October 15, 2023 by Lolight

[Kilrah]

1 hour ago, Lolight said:

Unraid version that is supported by up to a specific generation of hardware (e.g. up to the 12th gen Intel)

The problem is that in 1 year there will be someone else wanting the same for 14th gen Intel, then in 2 years someone wanting it for 15th gen because that's what they bought... and then it's 5 different "perpetually stable" distros to maintain. Not to mention the underlying components go out of support too. Can't provide an OS with security updates for 5 years if some included libs only offer 2 year support.

That wouldn't be cheaper, that'd be more expensive since there is now specific work required in the long term for something old that's not useful to any new users and won't get any signifncant new sales.

 

Just... accept that self-hosting requires ongoing maintenance. If you don't want that then go the "standard way" of pay a cloud service to do it for you.

Edited October 15, 2023 by Kilrah

[Lolight]

16 hours ago, Kilrah said:

The problem is that in 1 year there will be someone else wanting the same for 14th gen Intel, then in 2 years someone wanting it for 15th gen because that's what they bought...

No need to maintain multiple distros.

The upgrade should be allowed to the main branch only, when/if required/needed.

When on the limited branch, the old hardware could support basic features for decades ..

Wanna move to the latest and greatest - then upgrade to the main branch.

 

And newcomers by then will only be able to utilize used hardware when deciding on the purchase of the cheaper limited branch since the upper limit CPU cutout will be out of production by then.

No confusion and savings all around...

Edited October 16, 2023 by Lolight

[Kilrah]

15 minutes ago, Lolight said:

When on the limited branch, the old hardware could support basic features for decades ..

Just install 6.9 or whatever version and never update then.

Edited October 15, 2023 by Kilrah

[Lolight]

1 minute ago, Kilrah said:

Just install 6.9 or something then.

But then it won't be LTS

[Kilrah]

And my previous post explains why LTS likely isn't viable.

[Lolight]

15 hours ago, Kilrah said:

And my previous post explains why LTS likely isn't viable.

Sure, an LTS option won't be popular on the new feature desire thread. 😉

[binhex]

My wish list (voted other), in no particular order:-

1. Native Docker Compose support and incorporate new functionality into the Web UI.
2. Create mobile friendly Web UI.
3. Create official API so that third party apps can link and control unRAID (Android/IOS app).

[I Enjoy Creating Videos]

I pick Multiple Unraid Array Pools for V6.14.0 

 

 

Thank you!😎 

[Lantesh]

I would love to be able to access an optical drive via my network direct from Unraid just like a share.  The reason for this is I no longer own a DVD or Blu-Ray stand alone player.  I do have my library ripped to mkv, and use Emby to access the library, but on occasion I'd like to be able to simply play a DVD or Blu-Ray direct from the server over the network, whether on another PC, tablet or Chromecast.

[bobbintb]

On 9/26/2023 at 1:27 AM, L0rdRaiden said:

 

5) Support for auditd (security purposes)  https://slackbuilds.org/repository/15.0/system/audit/

 

https://github.com/linux-audit

https://github.com/Neo23x0/auditd

 

I'm hoping for auditd support as well. There are things I have in mind that just aren't doable without it.

[bmartino1]

Mainly More options for better zfs setups...

 

Multiple array disk 1 parity vs disk 2 separate disk 2 parity. and multiple parity between parity

*Kinda like a Separate make shift raid 5/6/7:

^disk 0 and 1 and synced and their own array ... disk 2 and 3 are synced in their own separate array, disk 4 high capacity is parity to both arrays.

*321 backup solutions...

 

I would love ZFS to be an array instead of part of the cache disk setup.

 

ZFS dataset need revisited... Create/ deletion similar to truenas... possible within shares to fix wide symlink file patching.

 

AN Easier and more consistent flash GUID backup and restores.

^- issues with beta unraid connect. Should not have to have unraid 443 web ui outward facing...

*use of api tokens and ssh tunneling... ?What happened to the docker???

 

Fix to Samba extra configs

-some setting by default should be optional... I want root access to have access and do things. testparm shows many setting enabled.. if not, fix to use better crypto as default is using backwards compatibility incorrectly... using true samba conf and other samba script breaks unraid samba...

 

docker needs to have new security docker hub login credentials. Had to fight an erorr with how dockers grabbed form docker hub.

 

VM needs updated to use the ?metal load balance? by default instead of cputine and cpu pinning. Als updates to QEMU to use next gen standard fro arm emulation and new amd64.

 

 

 

 

[mans_]

I don't understand why the developers force us on having reliance on other software. Unraid devs simply force us users to using proxmox because there is no native VM backup and snapshot. Multiple unraid array pools is kind of a luxury to have with present options already available but native VM backup and snapshot is a necessity. There is complete lack of ignorance and no proper support for VMs by not giving us native VM backup and snapshot. This is the only reason why people virtulize unraid with proxmox. I love unraid and the thank the devs for their work but I'm deeply disappointed in this aspect. I hope this constructive feedback finds y'all well.

[L0rdRaiden]

3 hours ago, mans_ said:

I don't understand why the developers force us on having reliance on other software. Unraid devs simply force us users to using proxmox because there is no native VM backup and snapshot. Multiple unraid array pools is kind of a luxury to have with present options already available but native VM backup and snapshot is a necessity. There is complete lack of ignorance and no proper support for VMs by not giving us native VM backup and snapshot. This is the only reason why people virtulize unraid with proxmox. I love unraid and the thank the devs for their work but I'm deeply disappointed in this aspect. I hope this constructive feedback finds y'all well.

Or proxmox is forcing me to use unRAID because they don't have native docker support. Although unRAID doesn't support docker compose either

[BVD]

3 hours ago, mans_ said:

I don't understand why the developers force us on having reliance on other software. Unraid devs simply force us users to using proxmox because there is no native VM backup and snapshot. Multiple unraid array pools is kind of a luxury to have with present options already available but native VM backup and snapshot is a necessity. There is complete lack of ignorance and no proper support for VMs by not giving us native VM backup and snapshot. This is the only reason why people virtulize unraid with proxmox. I love unraid and the thank the devs for their work but I'm deeply disappointed in this aspect. I hope this constructive feedback finds y'all well.

 

This definitely isnt the only reason one might choose to virtualize unraid on proxmox... But as I understand it, your point is that "all NAS operating systems should have native virtual machine backup utilities" - is that correct?

 

Assuming yes, I'd frankly disagree. Unraid's primary target audience (I believe) is the average home user who's looking for an efficient NAS OS, and the "average" consumer's main usage for a VM would *typically* be relegated to a windows gaming machine - something that unraid actually handles as well or better than anything else ive tried... And for backing up that one VM? You can do this just as you would any other Windows machine.

 

Virtual machines are inefficient when compared to containerized workloads, and CA makes it extremely simple for even a novice to quickly spool up a container for any number of needs.

 

I understand your request is for built in VM backup functionality, and I certainly agree that this would have value - I'm simply saying I dont necessarily agree with the premise that it forces users to virtualize unraid, or that lacking native VM backups is something of an "Achilles heal" given its most common use cases and customers.

[mans_]

11 hours ago, BVD said:

 

This definitely isnt the only reason one might choose to virtualize unraid on proxmox... But as I understand it, your point is that "all NAS operating systems should have native virtual machine backup utilities" - is that correct?

 

Assuming yes, I'd frankly disagree. Unraid's primary target audience (I believe) is the average home user who's looking for an efficient NAS OS, and the "average" consumer's main usage for a VM would *typically* be relegated to a windows gaming machine - something that unraid actually handles as well or better than anything else ive tried... And for backing up that one VM? You can do this just as you would any other Windows machine.

 

Virtual machines are inefficient when compared to containerized workloads, and CA makes it extremely simple for even a novice to quickly spool up a container for any number of needs.

 

I understand your request is for built in VM backup functionality, and I certainly agree that this would have value - I'm simply saying I dont necessarily agree with the premise that it forces users to virtualize unraid, or that lacking native VM backups is something of an "Achilles heal" given its most common use cases and customers.

This definitely isnt the only reason one might choose to virtualize unraid on proxmox... But please browse through reddit, proxmox forums and other forums and you'll understand that it is the predominant reason that it pushes a user to use proxmox with unraid. Additionally, I mentioned both snapshots and backups are essential not just backups. Another thing, I'm really sorry, asking me to backup windows VM like any other windows machine is kind of corporate doublespeak for an essential feature that is not implemented. And windows VM is not the only VM an average user could be using. They could be using macos too and using proprietary tool for windows, macos and other VMs is a cumbersome process and definitely not an ideal way someone would backup a VM. The community backup plugins which are in beta for more than 2 years, too have issues and you can read about them in this very same forum. A lot of them wish to run unraid bare metal, I mean the ones who virtualize unraid. And that could be a possibility only if there is native backup and snapshot support.

[BVD]

3 hours ago, mans_ said:

This definitely isnt the only reason one might choose to virtualize unraid on proxmox... But please browse through reddit, proxmox forums and other forums and you'll understand that it is the predominant reason that it pushes a user to use proxmox with unraid. Additionally, I mentioned both snapshots and backups are essential not just backups. Another thing, I'm really sorry, asking me to backup windows VM like any other windows machine is kind of corporate doublespeak for an essential feature that is not implemented. And windows VM is not the only VM an average user could be using. They could be using macos too and using proprietary tool for windows, macos and other VMs is a cumbersome process and definitely not an ideal way someone would backup a VM. The community backup plugins which are in beta for more than 2 years, too have issues and you can read about them in this very same forum. A lot of them wish to run unraid bare metal, I mean the ones who virtualize unraid. And that could be a possibility only if there is native backup and snapshot support.

 

I think what you're experiencing is Confirmation Bias. And you sort of side-stepped my point, but that's alright, we can run with it -

 

Yes, a good number of people want VM snapshots and backups in the UI (and absolutely, it'd be a valuable feature) - no, it's not all, nor even a majority (as we can tell from the poll results here). When it comes to unraid user engagement, reddit is a ghostland compared to these forums. VM backups are quantifiably less desired by the unraid user base than... Well, multiple arrays in this case. 

 

I'd argue that the 'biggest reason' people move to virtualize unraid is actually two separate reasons - if you read through the history of this forum, the years of posts that've come through within that time, there are two recurring themes:

1. The handling of licensing is *extremely* annoying - having to effectively 'turn off my NAS' to replace or add a drive is utterly absurd. And worse, now that ZFS is 'included', you have to shut down everything in order to do any work on it as well. Any NAS OS should be able to remain online for anything short of a (non-media) hardware failure, or an OS update. This is a pretty huge failure in design IMO.
2. Having to work around all the various "unraid-isms" - if you want to make anything persistent, it takes a bunch of extra steps to do so, steps that are unnecessary on (literally anything else). Even simple things like keeping your bash history, installing a package, they're all so unnecessarily complicated that folks effectively 'graduate' to another OS. Used to be any user could easily recompile the kernel after installing whatever packages they might find useful to them, now you have this location you have to put the package, and wait for unraid to re-install it each time you reboot. More down time (see licensing above). Just a million little cuts like this.

 

In the last 6 months, all of 9k people have downloaded the macinabox image - across all of dockerhubs users, not just unraid. This isn't as common as you seem to be alluding to. In 4 years, it's had ~2.5m pulls, again, across all of dockerhub - how many of those are folks updating to a new image? Or pulling another copy on another machine?

 

What percentage of docker users are also unraid users?

 

If you can show me verifiable numbers that say otherwise, I'm absolutely open to them, and my apologies in advance if so; I just don't believe unraid users running macos in a vm alongside a windows vm is nearly as common as those simply running windows machines, especially given the OS's target audience.

 

 As for corporate doublespeak... Lol? I don't know how to respond to this honestly, and I don't mean to be rude here, it just feels more like someone lashing out than working to justify their position in a logical and reasoned way...? I don't have a horse in this race  🤷‍♂️