On 10/31/2024 at 9:08 AM, R720 said:

I would like to see a backup application, one click backup to use an external drive to backup your UNRaid server.  Plugin the drive, run the app to select the drives, or automatically backup all the data drives, unplug when finished.  

This exist through plugins and mutiple user scripts that can be found  the forum.

appdata plugin make a backup of your dockers and flash driver.

there a beta plugin for VM.

In terms of other data on disk that on you so copy / rsync and unasgned disk plugin...

 

On 10/31/2024 at 9:08 AM, R720 said:

I would like to see a backup application, one click backup to use an external drive to backup your UNRaid server.  Plugin the drive, run the app to select the drives, or automatically backup all the data drives, unplug when finished.  

there are other github and application like web rsync... out there ...

On 11/1/2024 at 2:26 PM, bmartino1 said:

there are other github and application like web rsync... out there ...

Rclone is what you're thinking of. essentially rsync for cloud/other dc backup

Multiple arrays would be godsend. I want one array of all NVME storage. ZFS zpool has been a bad experience for nvme

22 hours ago, Unoid said:

ZFS zpool has been a bad experience for nvme

 

What happened?

 

 

8 hours ago, Espressomatic said:

 

What happened?

 

 

Major slowdowns over time. a fresh z1 of 4x4tb nvme, fio speeds a good, except 4k sizes.

 

Load up the disks to 50% and fio tests show substancial speed regressions down to 200MB/s moving a 200GB.img file. scrubs get progressively slowers every month as well, started out at 45minutes with 50% used, down to 8 hours 9 months later. George helped me try to tune some things with recordsize etc but some options can't be changed after the fact like ashift or sync mode. 

 

in summary, I wish I could just add a 2nd array of 4x4tb nvme with 1 parity on btrfs. 

Id deffo like to see windows previous versions available through zfs snapshots - similar to how truenas does it through the GUi, nice and simple. For me, thats the only thing missing from a truely great software....

VMs in Unraid 7 support snapshots, with native ZFS snapshot support too.

 

 

What's the point of multiple arrays if you can just restrict shares to specific disks? I feel like then, you'd have to allocate more drives for parity.

Edited December 3, 20241 yr by MightyRufo

1 hour ago, MightyRufo said:

What's the point of multiple arrays if you can just restrict shares to specific disks? I feel like then, you'd have to allocate more drives for parity.

for me it be more gradual control of 2 d1 array with parity using 4 disks

I think more granualr control on what disk is party for x disk would be the feuatre or control set.

liek the ability to selct different disk as parity between multiple pools / disk in the array.

4 hours ago, MightyRufo said:

What's the point of multiple arrays if you can just restrict shares to specific disks? I feel like then, you'd have to allocate more drives for parity.

One very simple answer is if you have more than one arrays worth of disks (28+2) to manage.

8 hours ago, tjb_altf4 said:

One very simple answer is if you have more than one arrays worth of disks (28+2) to manage.

ohhhhh, and suddenly it makes complete sense. Damn people out here rocking storinators.

I've always wanted dynamic templates.

Unraid's CA templates make docker management easier than many competing platforms, but has a long running flaw.

If the maintainer changes aspects of the container through choice or is forced by upstream repo then your docker can miss out on features at best, or have security exploits or break outright at worst.

 

Having dynamically updating templates would mitigate these issues.

For security you can't have maintainers with the power to force updates to all Unraid user templates but you could build it into updates.

Like when a docker has an update the template could have its own indication of new changes.

The server owner selects into the docker and they select a compare button.

They're shown their current template and to the side in red the new proposed and/or additional values.

They can then select which ones individually to apply or apply them all.

Edited December 31, 20241 yr by ados

On 12/30/2024 at 2:48 AM, ados said:

I've always wanted dynamic templates.

This was a thing in the past and I really don't like it.

 

On 12/30/2024 at 2:48 AM, ados said:

If the maintainer changes aspects of the container through choice or is forced by upstream repo then your docker can miss out on features at best, or have security exploits or break outright at worst.

The same is also true in the complete opposite direction so to speak if a maintainer maybe adds:

--cap-add=SYS_ADMIN and --device=/dev and --v /sys and also the root from the server they could do whatever they like.

 

One downside to this was always that if a user removed a predefined path or port because they don't needed that or simply did it differently than the maintainer intended it and the maintainer pushed a update to the template the path or the port would be again in the template therefore maybe introduce a port conflict and the start from the container failed.

 

On 12/30/2024 at 2:48 AM, ados said:

For security you can't have maintainers with the power to force updates to all Unraid user templates but you could build it into updates.

This was mostly like how it was implemented but introduced the downside as explained above and also in my opinion introduces security risks.

 

On 12/30/2024 at 2:48 AM, ados said:

The server owner selects into the docker and they select a compare button.

They're shown their current template and to the side in red the new proposed and/or additional values.

They can then select which ones individually to apply or apply them all.

From my experience most users just want that the container runs with the least amount of maintenance and also don't forget not everyone is tech savvy and just want something that works.

 

If I for instance push an update to a container then I make sure to include all necessary features or new Variables are in the Dockerfile so that even users with old templates have a smooth experience and maybe also benefit from new features.

 

I completely see your point and it would be a quality of life improvement but I really don't like a maintainer being able to alter my settings for a Docker container, I for myself even don't want to being able to alter settings for templates from users who are using my containers.

Ability to roll back a docker update & or plugin update.

On 1/2/2025 at 6:09 AM, dopeytree said:

Ability to roll back a docker update & or plugin update.

I can see the plugin update. That more having it stay on a folder like a local cache...
--this would introduce extra read writes tot eh flash drive...

 

for dockers. due to appdata changes and other stuff that entriley up to the docker. the appdata backup plugin has a nice restore feature for this. you need to set it up correctly to back up. But I have been able to restore database to a snapshot with this plugin for dockers... 


 

On 1/1/2025 at 3:52 AM, ich777 said:

This was a thing in the past and I really don't like it.

 

The same is also true in the complete opposite direction so to speak if a maintainer maybe adds:

--cap-add=SYS_ADMIN and --device=/dev and --v /sys and also the root from the server they could do whatever they like.

 

One downside to this was always that if a user removed a predefined path or port because they don't needed that or simply did it differently than the maintainer intended it and the maintainer pushed a update to the template the path or the port would be again in the template therefore maybe introduce a port conflict and the start from the container failed.

 

This was mostly like how it was implemented but introduced the downside as explained above and also in my opinion introduces security risks.

 

From my experience most users just want that the container runs with the least amount of maintenance and also don't forget not everyone is tech savvy and just want something that works.

 

If I for instance push an update to a container then I make sure to include all necessary features or new Variables are in the Dockerfile so that even users with old templates have a smooth experience and maybe also benefit from new features.

 

I completely see your point and it would be a quality of life improvement but I really don't like a maintainer being able to alter my settings for a Docker container, I for myself even don't want to being able to alter settings for templates from users who are using my containers.

I would like to see the difference in a temple that was pushed to what I'm currently running. not force a change. some of the theses were older request with how templates were being added from the CA store... (more issues with manual add temples to flash drive)

Over the years, there were a few dockers that had major template overhauls and updates that changed templates and template updates were needed outside the norm of just a application/docker tag push pull for security updates.

I agree that a CA template maintain should not be dynamical, able to change settings on a system where things are running well. Especial if this is a production machine.

not your code not your system...

However, I could see a template location to see changes made in CA compared to your current running version. More like a change log or what was recently added that may not be in your template.

But This sounds more like a test/dev machine setup where you test applications in a environment... not a production use case.

@ados can you expand on a use case scenario that doesn't break security or a older system currently running a working docker where a dynamic push sends and not breaks the older system...

walk me through that though process as a feature...

Better security for example:

 

1. integrate Docker Engine Compose in Unraid Core instead of installation through Community Apps.

It's leaves a strange feeling, that Docker Compose is provided "by the community". Is this Docker Community Plugin supervised by limetech? Is the code of this central plugin viewable somwhere on github?

According to the support page of the developer @primeval_god it seems to be still a beta version and a work in progress.

 

2. Keep up with updated newer versions of Docker:

i think unraid 6.12. still runs with old docker version 24.0.9. But docker already released version 27.4.1 (!). Security support for Version 24.0.9 ended 7 months ago (08 Jun 2024):

https://endoflife.date/docker-engine

 

3. Maybe an integrated firewall or at least an integrated possibility, to better monitor network traffic of each docker container or each virtual machine.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 11, 20251 yr by DeeBop

4 hours ago, DeeBop said:

integrate Docker Engine in Unraid Core instead of installation through Community Apps

Docker is integrated do you mean compose?

 

4 hours ago, DeeBop said:

Version 24.0.9 e

V7 is currently using 27.0.3

I would love to see snapshots management added in future releases.

 

If i'm reading that corectly... i think they want the docker cli desktop implementation to do/use thigns from the docker docs.

https://docs.docker.com/desktop/use-desktop/

as a antoehr tab or abpart of unriads docker web ui.
 

ARM support 

Wifi support 

On 1/4/2025 at 5:32 PM, SimonF said:

Docker is integrated do you mean compose?

 

V7 is currently using 27.0.3

Which will probably soon be outdated again when Unraid stable version 7 will be released.

Would be great, if there will be a possiblity to update the docker engine by the user self.

(I know there's nothing like apt-get in linux slackware)

 

 

Edited January 11, 20251 yr by DeeBop

1. Integrated backup

2. An android/ios remote to control basic functions like shutdown

3. Better context help all the way through

4. A general strengthening of core functions like file handling to make Unraid more accessible for regular users who's not here to make tinkering a hobby in itself