This post will serve as an up-to-date feature list along with approximate priority.  We'll keep this thing updated as time marches on.

 

Current stable release: 4.2.1

 

The List:

- increase write performance

- support multi-core processors & memory beyond 1GB

- get S3 powermode (standby) working

- add cpuspeed support

- support additional file systems such as XFS, NTFS

 

- automatic save/restore of Flash 'config' directory to a designated hard disk file

- UPS monitoring

- email alerts

 

- add option to let Parity Check be a true 'check', ie, don't write corrected data, just report occurrences of sync error(s)

- better 'clearing' of new disks

- support more than 1 array (parity group) in same system

- permit some disks to be outside the array. This will let you select devices which will not be included in the parity-protected array. 

- concatenated parity drives

- hot spares

 

- implement shorter disk spin down delays and per-disk control

- add function to execute 'file system check' on the data drives

- implement drive over-temp spin-down

 

- add interface to let user easily specify jumbo frame sizes

- add support for 2 (or more?) network interfaces

 

- NFS support

- AFP support

- an ftp server (looking at vsftpd)

- http sever (perhaps apache!)

- UPnP

- Integrated wizd server

- Slimserver 6.5.0. support

- other misc servers, eg, "Galleon"

- hamachi vpn

- iSCSI

 

- get time from the internet (ntpd)

- Tally used/free space totals on Main page

- Provide some help info with Management Utility, eg, using alt tags, etc.

- Let user select display units (in bytes, KB, MB, GB, etc).

- provide internationalization support, e.g., in System Management Utility

- integrate css in management utility. This will permit "skinning" and customization

- make array management more "script friendly", e.g, fix 'powerdown' command

 

- implement theft-deterrence encryption system

 

Hi Tom,

 

You describe "concatenated parity drives" as a possible feature you could be talked into for $. What exactly is a 'concatenated parity drive'?

 

-PGPfan

Hi Tom,

 

You describe "concatenated parity drives" as a possible feature you could be talked into for $. What exactly is a 'concatenated parity drive'?

 

-PGPfan

 

I belive that may be two smaller drives used together for parity instead of the requirement for one drive as large as the largest drive in the array...

Hi Tom,

 

You describe "concatenated parity drives" as a possible feature you could be talked into for $. What exactly is a 'concatenated parity drive'?

 

-PGPfan

 

I belive that may be two smaller drives used together for parity instead of the requirement for one drive as large as the largest drive in the array...

 

Right.

Ok, now that I know what it is, how much of a 'bribe' might be necessary to bump this feature up in priority since many of us have expressed interest in this? I'm assuming that women and children are off limits?

 

-PGPfan

I concur... a bump in priority of "concatenated parity drives" is appropriate.    It is FAR more important to many of us who are populating our unRaid arrays incrementally by taking advantage of sales than several of the other items on the laundry list.  We still have empty slots in the case, and a bargin on a single new high capacity drive can't be as easily used without it.  Its addition will make the unRaid array far more flexible and far easier to incrementally grow.

 

If I could add my comments on the current laundry list, I would put "css" skinning of the unRaid  admin interface at the very bottom. It adds no additional functionality, and in my opinion, will never used by 99.999% of unRaid owners since the main user-interface to the files on the unRaid server are the media-players on the LAN used to play them, and the file-browsers and explorers used to organize them, not the unRaid admin interface.

 

Top of the list for additional features (after any bug fixes) should be "security"  Currently, anyone can browse to the unRaid admin page and take the array off-line.  This page should be "display only" until an administrative password is entered.  Currently the Linux "root" login is not password protected when using telnet.  At a minimum, all Linux IDs and administrative features should have a password configurable by the end-user. As it is today, anybody can do anything to any files on the array... anybody on the LAN can erase all the files on the array using the telnet login... This should not be the case.

 

Adding security would open up new markets for the unRaid software that would not otherwise use it today. (No business would trust ALL users of its LAN with the root password) 

 

Joe L.

 

 

 

 

 

... I'm assuming that women and children are off limits?

 

-PGPfan

 

Yes they are - I already have enough of both! 

Joe L. - Thanks for the feedback.  We're releasing 3.0 'final' soon & I'll update the Laundry List then, incorporating all the user feedback we've recieved.

Thanks Tom for keeping the "laundry" list and working it as you can.

 

I don't have any children, so I could not offer any to you as a bribe....  and I'm still married to my first wife and would not give her up for anything. (she looks at me funny when I introduce her as my "first wife" though ... I wonder why? We've been married 32 years.)

 

In any case, I need to order myself a new pair of flash drives so I can use the new version of unRaid with the new features.

 

Joe L.

 

 

 

 

This post will serve as an up-to-date feature list along with approximate priority.  We'll keep this thing updated as time marches on.

 

Current release: 3.0 (final)

 

Next release: 3.1

 

Main Features:

- Get the User Shares to be fully writeable

 

Other features partially done & will probably get into 3.1

- Implement directory caching to some configurable level.

- email alerts

- an ftp server (looking at vsftpd)

- UPS monitoring

- Tally used/free space totals on Main page

- Let user select display units (in bytes, KB, MB, GB, etc).

- Integrated wizd server

- Add 'spinup' and 'spindown' all drives buttons

 

For release: 3.2

 

- security (want to have User Shares completed first)

- permit some disks to be outside the array. This will let you select devices which will not be included in the parity-protected array. 

- better 'clearing' of new disks

- additional file systems

 

Beyond that, here's what's on the list, in no particular order:

- get S3 powermode (standby) working

- Slimserver 6.5.0. support

- http sever (perhaps apache!)

- get time from the internet (ntpd)

- NFS support (anyone want this?)

- increase write performance

- support SATA hot swap

- concatenated parity drives [moving up the list]

- support up to 16 drives

- integrate css in management utility. This will permit "skinning" and customization. [last on list per Joe L.  ]

 

Features I don't know much about:

- UPnP

- other misc servers, eg, "Galleon"

 

Features I don't really want to do because their usefulness isn't worth the amount of effort required (IMHO), or for which I find it unexciting to write the code for, but for which I could be talked into if there's $ involved 

- hot spares

- iSCSI

 

Nagging bugs that are hard to reproduce and thus hard to fix:

- sporadic DMA errors (seem to be drive/controller specific)

- Case of the mysterious shrinking parity disk

[What other companies publish their 'nagging bug list'?]

 

The primary challenge in most of these features, and in all existing features, is to keep it simple and intuitive (and also not break stuff).

I would like to second Joe L.'s security point.  The system is great but just waaaayyyy to open right now.

This might be in the flyf**king department, but I would like a link on the mainpage to open the forumpages.

The point is to make the mainpage, the startpage for unRAID issues.

 

Regards Rene

NB: "flyf**king" is directly transated from a danish term "flueknepperi", and is about "paying too much attention to small things".

 

Sorry, I have no idea what you're requesting 

 

Which 'mainpage' are you referring to?

I believe parsec is asking for a hyperlink on the System Management Utility webpage (i.e., http://tower/main.htm) which points to the unRAID user forums (i.e.,  http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php).

Here's another vote for concatenated parity drives. It would (1) allow better utilization of space if your parity drive is much bigger than your data drives (could instead use two more more data drives for parity, and the big drive for data), (2) I think it could improve write performance (and maybe read performance) (3) obviously give more flexibility in upgrading with less time spent recomputing parity.

 

BTW, one thing you could do for voting/features is what Bram does for VIM: you get X votes for free, but you get more votes if you give money. I hope you get stinking rich, and I'm willing to help if it means I get more voice in future development. (I also hope one avenue for getting stinking rich is a buyout---perhaps pursuing patents before your time runs out is wise?)

I really need NFS (UDP & TCP) support.

Aside from a 2.6.x kernel, (which is happening anyway, right?) the only other thing on my "wishlist" is allowing some disks to be outside of the array. Other than that, the software is perfect.

Tom,

 

When you're ready to work on the UPS interface, I found a GPL source for the APC product lines.  Just bought a BR1200.

 

http://www.apcupsd.com/manual/index.html

 

Kevin

I desperately need S3 support.  I just powered up everything in my machine room at once and blew the circuit. Now I'm waiting for my unraid machines to spin down before I power up anything else.

 

And I guess I'm calling an electrician.

 

Any hope on the APC UPS? I think this should be added before a 4.0 final build because power failure is rather important and I would like my tower to shut down if my power is out for an extended period of time.

I'll look into this.

Now that security is on the near horizon I'd like to bump the idea of an ftp program for unraid, I can lose my windows server then

Tomm, what do you think about adding a Recycle bin feature to unraid?

 

I always use VFS:Recycle ( http://www.samba.org/samba/docs/man/Samba-HOWTO-Collection/VFS.html#id380094 ) on my samba servers. It creates a directory on the root of the share that acts just like a Windows Recycle bin: any deleted files on the share will be moved to the recycle bin, before it can get deleted permanently.

Just thought I would post my view on the 2 top priority features (writable user shares & security):

 

The top priority unRAID development appears to be writable user shares.  At first I thought this was a great 'must have'  idea, but in practice I prefer to write data to a specific drive (via a hidden writeable share), and make my 'User Shares' read-only for other home users to access. 

 

The thought of writing a backed up DVD folder (for example) via the proposed writable user shares, and having different files within the folder ending up on different drives, does not appeal to me.  I would prefer to dictate which drive I am putting each related collection of files onto (so they are all in one place).  As I fill up each drive before moving onto the next, this approach is not actually an an inconvenience in practice.

 

It probably comes down to what you are using unRAID for, but in my view there does not appear to be any real need for Writable User Shares for the primary intended unRAID purpose of a media archive storage server (ie. write once - read many).

 

My vote would probably therefore go to adding Security as the top priority.  ie. So that we could password protect selected folder shares etc. and also hopefully be able to individually select which folders were published or hidden.

 

Not only do I want to be able to secure all of my writable shares with a password, but I also would like to have a password on selected read-only folder shares (or selected 'user shares'), along with the option of whether these individual password protected shares are hidden or published.

 

I can see this as being necessary for example, where you might have younger children that you want to restrict from age restricted media shares, or if you have backup data that you do not want to share with everyone.

 

My 2c.

 

 

 

I concur with Koolkiwi - security is a must-have foundational feature, writable user shares is a nice-to-have interesting feature.

 

 

Bill

I agree 100% as well here Tom. I am setting up an unRAID for a friends store and it freaks me out a bit thinking that someone morons might hop into the server and do some serious damage to all of her backup info. We are lucky that its her family who work at the shop, but still... the idea really frightens me!