July 2, 201214 yr I recently had an issue (due to user error) as covered in this thread As an enhancement request could we make it so that if you are trying to create a User Share on diskx, but diskx has either not been included in supporting shares (Settings->Share Settings) or explicitly excluded (Settings->Share Settings) then the UI should display a message such as: 'This disk has not been set up to support shares. Please go to Settings->Share Settings' Rather than currently the situation which is: no message displayed on UI syslog entry written saying "....No space left on device" thanks Alex
July 2, 201214 yr the UI should display a message such as: 'This disk has not been set up to support shares. Please go to Settings->Share Settings' Which UI are you referring to? (Or rather, what are you using to create the user-share folder on a specific disk?) Joe L.
July 2, 201214 yr Author The standard UnRaid web interface. Currently no message is displayed. I can do screen shots this evening if my suggestion is unclear. Alex
July 2, 201214 yr The standard UnRaid web interface. Currently no message is displayed. I can do screen shots this evening if my suggestion is unclear. Alex they would help. as well as the version of unRAID you are running.
July 2, 201214 yr Author Running 5.0RC5 1. Go to Settings->Share Settings In the "Included disk(s):" include the disks that are you are using for shares (other than disk19 which we will purposefully omit for now) 2. Create a new Share "Backup" on disk19 in Shares->Add Share When you click on the "Add Share" button the screen refreshes and displays: The share has not been created and Syslog has the line: Jul 1 12:41:08 NAS-03 shfs/user: shfs_mkdir: assign_disk: Backup (28) No space left on device Whereas if the share had been created it would display: The enhancement request is therefore to have step 2 check whether the disk (disk 19) has been included/excluded in step 1 and then present a user friendly message on the web UI. e.g. "disk 19 has not been included in Share Settings. Please go to Share Settings and add this disk" The advantage of this would be that the less experienced user would know what has happened and why. Alex
July 3, 201214 yr Why even have 2 different spots for the include and exclude disks which can conflict with each other?
July 3, 201214 yr Why even have 2 different spots for the include and exclude disks which can conflict with each other? Generally you would only use one mask and not both. Which one you use depends on how you think about the share. For example, suppose you have shares which you want to restrict to a certain set of disks, and some shares for which you want to have storage automatically available when you add a new disk without having to change any config data. Say, "Photos" is restricted to disk1, but "Movies" is allowed to use any disk except disk1... For "Photos" you would use only the include mask set to "disk1". For "Movies" you would use only the exclude mask set to "disk1".
July 3, 201214 yr Why even have 2 different spots for the include and exclude disks which can conflict with each other? Generally you would only use one mask and not both. Which one you use depends on how you think about the share. For example, suppose you have shares which you want to restrict to a certain set of disks, and some shares for which you want to have storage automatically available when you add a new disk without having to change any config data. Say, "Photos" is restricted to disk1, but "Movies" is allowed to use any disk except disk1... For "Photos" you would use only the include mask set to "disk1". For "Movies" you would use only the exclude mask set to "disk1". Tom, He is not complaining about having both an include and exclude list for a specific user-share, but complaining about a global include/exclude list that can conflict with individual specific-user-share include/exclude lists with no error or warning other than "no space on device" from windows when trying to use the share. To be honest, I did not even remember (or know) the global user-share include/exclude list existed (they do not seem to exist on the 4.7 version of unRAID) , and that is why I asked him to provide more detail. I have no idea when you added the global include/exclude list in addition to the user-share specific include/exclude lists. (based on release notes it might have been in 5.0-beta3) Having both sets of include/exclude lists (global and user-share-specific) with the ability for them to conflict is the issue. I'm glad you concur, but your response made me think you forgot about the global include/exclude list too.
July 3, 201214 yr Why even have 2 different spots for the include and exclude disks which can conflict with each other? Generally you would only use one mask and not both. Which one you use depends on how you think about the share. For example, suppose you have shares which you want to restrict to a certain set of disks, and some shares for which you want to have storage automatically available when you add a new disk without having to change any config data. Say, "Photos" is restricted to disk1, but "Movies" is allowed to use any disk except disk1... For "Photos" you would use only the include mask set to "disk1". For "Movies" you would use only the exclude mask set to "disk1". Tom, He is not complaining about having both an include and exclude list for a specific user-share, but complaining about a global include/exclude list that can conflict with individual specific-user-share include/exclude lists with no error or warning other than "no space on device" from windows when trying to use the share. To be honest, I did not even remember (or know) the global user-share include/exclude list existed (they do not seem to exist on the 4.7 version of unRAID) , and that is why I asked him to provide more detail. I have no idea when you added the global include/exclude list in addition to the user-share specific include/exclude lists. (based on release notes it might have been in 5.0-beta3) Having both sets of include/exclude lists (global and user-share-specific) with the ability for them to conflict is the issue. I'm glad you concur, but your response made me think you forgot about the global include/exclude list too. Understood. The issue he's seeing could happen with either set of "include/exclude" masks: the global ones or the per-share ones, or a combination of both. The reason the global ones were introduced was to partition off a set of disks that user shares could never expand into, without having to specify that on every single share. In hindsight perhaps it's a bit of overkill since a php function could achieve the same functionality.
July 3, 201214 yr Author thanks for the responses. I can't remember when I set up the global share include however it caught me out a couple of days ago when I couldn't figure out why I was unable to make a share on disk19. Not a urgent enhancement, so please don't delay 5.0 :-) :-) Alex
July 4, 201214 yr Why even have 2 different spots for the include and exclude disks which can conflict with each other? Generally you would only use one mask and not both. Which one you use depends on how you think about the share. For example, suppose you have shares which you want to restrict to a certain set of disks, and some shares for which you want to have storage automatically available when you add a new disk without having to change any config data. Say, "Photos" is restricted to disk1, but "Movies" is allowed to use any disk except disk1... For "Photos" you would use only the include mask set to "disk1". For "Movies" you would use only the exclude mask set to "disk1". Yes, what you wrote is correct. It doesn't answer why there are global masks and per user share masks which can interfere with each other. Actually, the easy way around it is to use the global mask unless a user share mask is entered. It would make sense to do it this way too.
September 11, 201312 yr Has functionality changed since 5RC. I just upgraded to 5.0 final and I am seeing this exact message when trying to create new shares. only a few a top level dirs create user shares. This system was upgraded from 4.7 this week. The movies share has only 2 disks listed in it but should have 8. john
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.