February 23, 201511 yr I need a sanity check. In the process of upgrading to b14 + rsync swapping SSD cache + changing for btrfs to XFS + recreating docker images I have managed to do something silly. For examples /mnt/cache/apps is set to cache only and I can browse it via cifs //server/apps/ However I cant browse //server/cache/ its simply empty. I dont think its a perms thing as i ran new perms on it just to be safe. This will be something silly but I cant see it
February 23, 201511 yr I dont have a "cache" share setup, I believe this is done at the system level and you dont need to create a share for the cache.
February 23, 201511 yr Author Yeah thats the bit that confuses me... I I didn't create that cache share unRAID did.
February 23, 201511 yr Yeah thats the bit that confuses me... I I didn't create that cache share unRAID did. Perhaps you accidentally created a folder called 'cache' on one of the drives? This would have the effect of creating the user share 'cache', which would then hide the default 'cache' share that maps to the cache drive. unRAID should probably stop you from creating user shares called 'cache' or 'disk??' as these can hide the shares that already exist mapped to the physical drives.
February 23, 201511 yr Author I stopped and deleted the cache.cfg let me go and cehck disk by disk just to see if a cache fodler somehow got created on my array... few mins
February 23, 201511 yr Author OK thanks all I found the issue. When I was rsync'ing the new cache dir ended up with a backup copy of the cache drive under /sdb/cache So when this was introduced to unRAID as the new cache drive unRAID created a config file for it and promptly made it a root level share. I believe this is a bug
February 23, 201511 yr OK thanks all I found the issue. When I was rsync'ing the new cache dir ended up with a backup copy of the cache drive under /sdb/cache So when this was introduced to unRAID as the new cache drive unRAID created a config file for it and promptly made it a root level share. I believe this is a bug I think technically this is expected behaviour However there is a lot to be said for the behaviour being changed so that user shares cannot have the same name as one of the device level shares.
February 23, 201511 yr Author Yeah your probably right... looked at from one direction it would be expected but from the other its kinda odd and potentially risky. Raised a bug report anyway as its an edge case we should squash. ta for the sanity check
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.