41 minutes ago, JorgeB said:

You don't need to change anything. If the server has TPM 2.0, and is enabled, you have the option to transfer the license to it.

I had to transfer the license to TPM because 7.3.0 wouldn't load the GUI with the GUID of my USB enclosure containing a 120GB SSD...

But once transferred to TPM, I reinstalled UNRAID 7.3.0 in the USB enclosure and it works perfectly now—well, it works with any USB drive I plug in...

And if I remove the SSD from the enclosure and plug it into an internal SATA port, it also boots and works. 🤷‍♂️

I know this doesn't concern most users but I compile a custom kernel for some development work I am doing and 7.3.0 broke my process. I have a script that automatically builds the kernel but some changes were made to the bz* files. As far as I can tell:
bzroot - no change

bzimage - no change

bzfirmware - renamed tobzmodules

bzmodules>firmware (subfolder) - now bzfirmware

bzmodules - moved to bzmodules>lib

Have there been any other changes to those files I may have missed? I know this isn't the kind of thing that is typically documented so any help is appreciated.

On 5/18/2026 at 3:23 PM, SirCadian said:

Is there a requirement for functioning network when upgrading to 7.3? I run a Pihole docker and this usually means the network (more specifically, DNS) is unavailable when Unraid is rebooting. I backed up the flash and then upgraded from 7.2.6 to 7.3. Unraid booted to the OS selection screen but failed shortly after that. I left it for a 1600s or so while I went to get lunch but it was still unresponsive when I got back so I powered it down manually. I repointed the network to use 1.1.1.1 for DNS and tried to boot Unraid again and it booted without issue. Just posting here in case anyone else has seen similar behaviour?

For this reason, it’s better to have Pihole set up somewhere on the side, ideally on a Raspberry Pi

On 5/24/2026 at 2:47 AM, Wyorax said:

For this reason, it’s better to have Pihole set up somewhere on the side, ideally on a Raspberry Pi

This ☝️x100

@SirCadian I definitely recommend moving PiHole from your Unraid server to a Raspberry Pi.

Even an original Raspberry Pi can comfortably run PiHole (including with Unbound) - I did so for years.

You can pick up a second-hand Pi 3B+ for like £20-£30. It's so much easier/reliable than having your internet tied to your server's uptime.

PiHole is super easy to set up on a Pi, too: https://github.com/pi-hole/pi-hole/#one-step-automated-install

And if you want better anonymity, you can run Unbound as your own DNS, too (just don't expose it to the internet and accidentally make it a public DNS): https://docs.pi-hole.net/guides/dns/unbound/

7.3 upgrade as smooth criminal.

ZFS upgrade is very welcomed with rewrite -Prvx

Edited May 25May 25 by gyto6

On 5/12/2026 at 6:28 PM, SpencerJ said:

---

Known Issues

• During internal boot setup, the WebGUI may show Array Offline. DO NOT restart or remove your flash drive during this process.

• Some Docker containers on VLAN networks may still fail to receive DHCP after upgrading from 7.2.4 or 7.2.5. Under investigation.

• Some UPS devices may report "Online No battery detected." The NUT plugin may provide a workaround.

---

On this subject, I just got my server updated and didn't had a UPS until yesterday (yeah, I was living dangerously).

I just set everything up and connected the USB and I was very happy to see that the UPS was properly found just by setting the daemon running, BUT...
Uploading Attachment...

As you guys can see on screenshot, I set it to shutdown with 90% of battery (just for testing purpose), and it didn't started the shutoff.
There is something I'm missing? This config screen looks to simple for missing something so obviously as a "flag to shutdown thing".

Should I be using this "NUT" plugin, even for a USB connected UPS?

New to the forum and don't know if I'm setting this question on the proper place, sorry if it isn't.

Thanks in advance!

Set time on battery before shutdown to 300 seconds or even less.

The purpose of UPS isn't to allow you to continue to run on batteries during power outage. The purpose of UPS is to allow you to shutdown cleanly if power will be out indefinitely.

This 7.3.0 was issued on 12 May. On 21 May 7.2.7 was issued. 7.2.7 contains updates that to sections the were after made after the 12 May - e.g for different CME or higher numerical Docker version so items not fixed in 7.3.0. By conventional versioning nomenclature a higher numerical version (once at "stable" release or later) can be presumed by the user to contain all updates contained in numerically lower versions. This was not the case here. Does this mean that there will be a very soon to be released 7.3.1 to include all of the fixes contained in 7.2.7?

This matters to me because my licence happened to expire between 12 May and the 21 May and I, thinking that LimeTech follow conventional numbering downloaded 7.3.0 but will not be allowed to download 7.3.1. This to me summaries that security patch vs features improvement debate around licensed software. IMHO the vendor needs to make a clear distinction before purchase by the customer. 7.3.1 will clearly be a "catch-up" of security issues that should have been patched in 7.3.0 as evidenced by the fact that LimeTech issued a lower version upgrade to patch these security issues. To me LimeTech need to either follow convention or change their licensing to allow security only updates. Personally I think they should ethically only be the latter - putting the customer in a position of having to decide is a security update is worth paying for a new licence is not exactly the customer focus that most customers want - in my experience, and I pre-date Toms entry into the business by a few years. One has to be honest and accept that "security updates" is a euphemism for actually errors in the original programming (bugs) that have only been found recently. The concept that computer programs should be knowingly released with "bugs" from unchecked code was pioneered by Bill Gates - the customers may as well get value from the programs sooner with bugs than later with no bugs. A completely valid concept. But he committed to fix bugs for free for the life of the product (perpetual). Of course later management of Microsoft pushed for and forced though a concept of "program life" following on from the pioneering work of Adobe in this regard. The ethics of fairness - "an honest days work for an honest days pay" come into play when judging these concepts and the ethics of people that implementing them. Tom, IMHO LimeTech need to perform better than they did in May 2026. You should know this and have trained your successors properly.

38 minutes ago, zulu153 said:

This 7.3.0 was issued on 12 May. On 21 May 7.2.7 was issued. 7.2.7 contains updates that to sections the were after made after the 12 May - e.g for different CME or higher numerical Docker version so items not fixed in 7.3.0. By conventional versioning nomenclature a higher numerical version (once at "stable" release or later) can be presumed by the user to contain all updates contained in numerically lower versions. This was not the case here. Does this mean that there will be a very soon to be released 7.3.1 to include all of the fixes contained in 7.2.7?

This matters to me because my licence happened to expire between 12 May and the 21 May and I, thinking that LimeTech follow conventional numbering downloaded 7.3.0 but will not be allowed to download 7.3.1. This to me summaries that security patch vs features improvement debate around licensed software. IMHO the vendor needs to make a clear distinction before purchase by the customer. 7.3.1 will clearly be a "catch-up" of security issues that should have been patched in 7.3.0 as evidenced by the fact that LimeTech issued a lower version upgrade to patch these security issues. To me LimeTech need to either follow convention or change their licensing to allow security only updates. Personally I think they should ethically only be the latter - putting the customer in a position of having to decide is a security update is worth paying for a new licence is not exactly the customer focus that most customers want - in my experience, and I pre-date Toms entry into the business by a few years. One has to be honest and accept that "security updates" is a euphemism for actually errors in the original programming (bugs) that have only been found recently. The concept that computer programs should be knowingly released with "bugs" from unchecked code was pioneered by Bill Gates - the customers may as well get value from the programs sooner with bugs than later with no bugs. A completely valid concept. But he committed to fix bugs for free for the life of the product (perpetual). Of course later management of Microsoft pushed for and forced though a concept of "program life" following on from the pioneering work of Adobe in this regard. The ethics of fairness - "an honest days work for an honest days pay" come into play when judging these concepts and the ethics of people that implementing them. Tom, IMHO LimeTech need to perform better than they did in May 2026. You should know this and have trained your successors properly.

yes as explained earlier in post:

https://forums.unraid.net/topic/198745-unraid-730-stable-now-available/page/5/#findComment-1624234

1 hour ago, zulu153 said:

but will not be allowed to download 7.3.1

What makes you think this? As I understand it if you are on a 7.3.x stable release when your licence upgrade period expires then you are entitled to all updates within the 7.3.x series. What you are not allowed to do is go to a 7.4.x release or later.

On 5/13/2026 at 3:03 AM, GeorgeJetson20 said:

Is there any workaround? I need provoxyvpn to be operational - I hope this is resolved because I would like to get rid of usb drive finally

After upgrading to 7.3.1 my container having extra parameters "--network" and network type "none" also failed to start with the error message "Bad Parameter". Looks like there is already a bug report with a solution present here. The solution is to remove the extra parameter configuration and use network type "container". Posting this here, because I haven't found it in the forum yet. I also created a bug report for the problem, because I haven't found the other one. Still wonder why Unraid fails to start with the extra parameter configuration variant though. Hope this helps folks experiencing the same problem.

On 5/19/2026 at 2:34 PM, starbetrayer said:

and the cookie is coming from Unraid correct?

Yes. When using Private Browsing, we need to close all Private Windows and start a new Private Browsing to fix the issue - with Firefox Private Browsing we can't remove cookies.

Issue still exists with Unraid 7.3.1.

On 5/16/2026 at 7:04 AM, Stiibun said:

Also updated my two Unraid servers to 7.3.0 without issues, one was running the beta for a while and no problems at all in my setup. Well on that one I lost my key due to my own stupidity though as I thought it was bound to TPM where it was not and I removed the USB stick and had it actually blacklisted. But that was quickly solved by Limetech support 👍

Will need to check if my Supermicro based server can actually have it's key bound to TPM, I suspect not and I will need to get a TPM module for the header.

Looks like you need this guy:

https://www.supermicro.com/en/products/accessories/addon/AOM-TPM-9665V.php

https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256807866404942.html

Edited June 1Jun 1 by craigr