Jump to content
limetech

Licensing Changes

115 posts in this topic Last Reply

Recommended Posts

@limetech: Would it be possible to also get a size limited trial mode (even if limited to 20GB or something small...) IF user doesn't register for the 30-day trial? And that mode working even if no usb attached at all. Such mode would be useful for small test environments on VM's, etc... i.e. user would need to apply for registered trial to get rid of the size limits but then would have 30-day time limit, else he would be able to keep the size limited mode forever, for tests, etc... best of both worlds? :)

How would you boot without a USB? More importantly, how would limetech benefit from this that would justify the effort?

Share this post


Link to post

@limetech: Would it be possible to also get a size limited trial mode (even if limited to 20GB or something small...) IF user doesn't register for the 30-day trial? And that mode working even if no usb attached at all. Such mode would be useful for small test environments on VM's, etc... i.e. user would need to apply for registered trial to get rid of the size limits but then would have 30-day time limit, else he would be able to keep the size limited mode forever, for tests, etc... best of both worlds? :)

How would you boot without a USB? More importantly, how would limetech benefit from this that would justify the effort?

 

In essence this is asking for a free license for all the non-NAS features of UnRAID [Dockers, VM's, etc.].    I see no reason to do this, and doubt that Limetech will either.    Easy enough to get the capabilities for free with the 30-day trial ... and if you want them permanently just buy a license.

 

Share this post


Link to post

@trurl: It was always possible to boot the FREE version without USB, with a FAT partition on an HDD... concerning the effort I would expect that being a simple thing for limetech to implement... else forget.

 

@garycase: Indeed may be a true point! but then I do also ask myself if such virtualization features doesn't really work without being able to start the array? (i.e. without registering), anyway if that is the problem, then I think would be acceptable on such trial mode to prevent using virtualization features completely, most users needing such mode would be to run on a VM for tests then not requiring virtualization features for anything for sure...

Share this post


Link to post

@trurl: It was always possible to boot the FREE version without USB, with a FAT partition on an HDD... concerning the effort I would expect that being a simple thing for limetech to implement... else forget.

 

@garycase: Indeed may be a true point! but then I do also ask myself if such virtualization features doesn't really work without being able to start the array? (i.e. without registering), anyway if that is the problem, then I think would be acceptable on such trial mode to prevent using virtualization features completely, most users needing such mode would be to run on a VM for tests then not requiring virtualization features for anything for sure...

What's your issue with registering the free trial? They even said you could request extensions of the trial.

Share this post


Link to post

Please don't get me bad, I have no issue at all with registering. I do think the new trial model is really good! New users will be able to fully test it for 30-days, perfect and I would not change that at all.

 

My suggestion would be just an extra trial mode (if user doesn't register for the full trial mode) that would be far more restrictive (size limit, and eventually no virtualization...) but would run forever and not require GUID, then allowing to easily run such trial on anything, even VMWare/VBox VM's for testing etc... I can tell that I did myself always had a VMWare Workstation VM to test new unRaid beta versions, etc before installing them on real server and to compile new things (without the need to be installing dev tools on real server), etc, etc... I guess more people do similar things... surely it would make no sense to require an extra license (despite I actually own a spare one...) for such purposes as it would not be actual unRaid usage but something to be used from time to time when new unraid version available, or testing something, etc... also would make no sense to ask trial license extensions for such testing purposes... you see my idea?

 

P.S. theone user on 1st page on this same topic describes the same problem, he seems to also use a testing environment on VBox for similar purposes as I do...

Share this post


Link to post

What you've described is exactly what the $30 extra key offer was designed for -- but that offer expired with the release of RC1.    Prior to the price increases that also occurred concurrent with the release of RC1, the Basic license would have been perfect for that as well (at only $29).    But that has also expired.

 

Hopefully there will be some sales or special offers for 2nd/test keys that you can take advantage of to get a key for this purpose.    Otherwise, you could just use a new flash drive each time you need a test key for a month or two and register a trial install on it.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd recommend reaching out directly to Tom via email when/if you are interested in buying another license. Neither Gary nor I work for or speak for LimeTech, but I can say Tom is very fair and I expect if you ask for something reasonable, he will work with you. Talking in the forum about hypotheticals is not going to help you.

Share this post


Link to post

With all this discussion about the new licensing scheme I am surprised that little has been said about the price points?  Just to put things in perspective I already have multiple Pro licenses so this is not me trying to be 'cheap'.

 

The original price for the Basic license at $29 seemed an easy 'no-brainer' decision for anyone who was even serious about trying out unRAID.  However the new one at $59 seems just a bit above the price for an 'impulse' buy although at 8 attached devices it is good value for money.

 

I wonder if at some point it will be worth doing something like:

- Rename the Basic license to be called 'Standard'.  This is to reflect that the fact that it is probably the level that a lot of new users will opt for.  Keep this as an 8 attached devices limit.

- Introduce a new Basic level at around the $30 mark that has something like a 4 attached devices limit.  This might be attractive to those who are otherwise going to be continually renewing the free license for the Trial version.  I would think that if users use unRAID seriously they would outgrow the 4 attached devices limit and want to upgrade.  It would also be an ideal license to use with test systems (I see that extra attached device over the free license being quite important when testing).

 

Since the new free Trial license requires users to register for a key file I guess it means that Limetech will start getting some stats for how many users stay on the free Trial version and thus whether a lower priced entry point for a non-trial key is likely to be effective.  Still I thought it was worth airing my thoughts anyway.  Since it looks like this might be something that is post the 6.0 release anyway there is time to think about it.

Share this post


Link to post

@bjp999/garycase: Thanks for your comments. I didn't want to take all these posts about such a small suggestion, as it was just that, a very small suggestion of a very simple thing... however I don't like to leave people without a reply :) and wanted to make sure you got my idea correctly... Again it was just a small suggestion, on a topic that limetech was apparently following, just that, if limetech finds it a good one or not it's with him... and I will accept his decision whatever it is.

 

Again, I don't need an extra license, as I said above I own an extra spare license, that was never actually assigned to any GUID at all, I did purchased it just to support Tom and to keep it if I do ever need it... If the only way to run a tests version from now would be to use a license, then sure I will use it for that... however I just think it is makes no sense (or is fair even for some others) to require a license for that kind of usage (tests, development, ...), where we don't need any relevant storage amounts, etc...

 

@garycase: I disagree with you when you say that was the purpose of the extra license, it wasn't. The purpose of the extra license was for tests (v6 betas) on systems with actual storage, and with a reasonable amount of HDD's... else Basic one would do it... right? my suggestion was to allow a minimal tests/development environment without allowing relevant storage amounts... very different thing...

 

Just one last note, garycase, do you remember... right before 5.0 final being released, when I did found and reported the reiserfs issue that caused data corruption on hard reboot even long time after data written (then intensively tested by webootech, you, me, jonathanm...)? I wouldn't have found it without the tests I was doing on VM's... and I didn't owned an extra license at that time... think on that kindly ;)

 

--

 

Btw, I do also understand itimpi point for a cheaper license for 3 or 4 hdd's... why not? Many users will probably start with such amount of hdd's... later they will upgrade almost for sure... and anyway some other feature(s) could also be disabled on such cheaper license.

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if at some point it will be worth doing something like:

- Rename the Basic license to be called 'Standard'.  This is to reflect that the fact that it is probably the level that a lot of new users will opt for.  Keep this as an 8 attached devices limit.

- Introduce a new Basic level at around the $30 mark that has something like a 4 attached devices limit.  This might be attractive to those who are otherwise going to be continually renewing the free license for the Trial version.  I would think that if users use unRAID seriously they would outgrow the 4 attached devices limit and want to upgrade.  It would also be an ideal license to use with test systems (I see that extra attached device over the free license being quite important when testing).

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post

I agree that $29 is a great price point to bring in more users.

 

I also see (maybe) Tom's point of view that the 'standard' features of v5 pales by comparison to the 'standard' v6, given all the Docker and KVM framework in place. So the price increase is brought in by KVM, Docker, polish, etc...

 

I think it would be interesting to spinoff a VM\Docker-centric product, and less on the unraid front, if that's possible without incurring huge development overhead.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it would be interesting to spinoff a VM\Docker-centric product, and less on the unraid front, if that's possible without incurring huge development overhead.

 

I would be interested in this. If my unRAID machine should die, I would like to have the ability to plugin a USB key and boot off of it for the purpose of just running a VM. Or maybe just need to run a VM on another machine temporarily, like a laptop. I know some people use VM's for development purposes so being able to run the same VM that they have on their unRAID server on another machine would be really cool. I can see other use cases like an OpenElec VM that has been setup on unRAID copied to another PC and then running off of that.

 

Gary

Share this post


Link to post

I think it would be interesting to spinoff a VM\Docker-centric product, and less on the unraid front, if that's possible without incurring huge development overhead.

 

I would be interested in this. If my unRAID machine should die, I would like to have the ability to plugin a USB key and boot off of it for the purpose of just running a VM. Or maybe just need to run a VM on another machine temporarily, like a laptop. I know some people use VM's for development purposes so being able to run the same VM that they have on their unRAID server on another machine would be really cool. I can see other use cases like an OpenElec VM that has been setup on unRAID copied to another PC and then running off of that.

 

Gary

 

Me too. Strapping the awesome Docker+KVM framework to Unraid cuts off a lot of market that doesn't care about media storage. Unraid is really great for media, not so much for most other big data storage use that requires higher performance (ie: database, cctv, etc).

 

Personally, I use the KVM+Docker on one unraid server for media-related stuff (sabnzbd, torrents, etc) and a couple other docker/kvm use that don't require large resource. I still need one more unraid machine (home automation, cctv, etc) and I would LOVE to have multiple arrays of zfs (or I'll settle for raid-5/btrfs) on that second box.

Share this post


Link to post

How about preclear?

I would like to be able to preclear on a trail unraid installation and not keep the production server offline for the long preclear cycles.

 

Share this post


Link to post

How about preclear?

I would like to be able to preclear on a trail unraid installation and not keep the production server offline for the long preclear cycles.

 

I believe that the license only affects operation of the server AFTER the array is started. Remember that to get the GUID you need to create a bootable USB and boot. I believe that you could boot the trial version with new disks present, never define or start an array, and proceed to preclear disks without issue.

 

I have not tried it so cannot say with authority, but this would be my educated guess.

Share this post


Link to post

How about preclear?

I would like to be able to preclear on a trail unraid installation and not keep the production server offline for the long preclear cycles.

 

I believe that the license only affects operation of the server AFTER the array is started. Remember that to get the GUID you need to create a bootable USB and boot. I believe that you could boot the trial version with new disks present, never define or start an array, and proceed to preclear disks without issue.

 

I have not tried it so cannot say with authority, but this would be my educated guess.

 

Certainly seems like it would work that way ... so just for grins I took a couple minutes and created a new flash drive; booted to it; and run a quick  preclear_disk.sh -?  => which simply shows the available commands.    That worked just fine, so I suspect actually doing a pre-clear would as well.

 

But just as Brian said, that doesn't actually guarantee with any authority that it will work long-term.    I don't THINK the 30 day timer would impact this, but unless I keep the flash configured like this for 31 days (which I don't plan to do) I can't say for sure it will work long-term.    But I strongly suspect it would.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

The easiest way is just use a v5.0.6 prepared flash to Preclear.

Share this post


Link to post

The easiest way is just use a v5.0.6 prepared flash to Preclear.

 

Slap forehead with a "Duh !!"  8) 8) 8)

 

Of course that's the best way to do this  :)

Share this post


Link to post

Using the 5.0 release is not a long term solution.

 

I believe Gary showed that 6.0 trial would allow preclearing.

Share this post


Link to post

How about preclear?

I would like to be able to preclear on a trail unraid installation and not keep the production server offline for the long preclear cycles.

I think you may be confused about clear and preclear. Preclear does not keep the server offline, that is its whole point. It preclears a disk so unRAID won't have to clear it. While preclearing, the server is not offline because the disk has not yet been added to the array.

 

When you add a disk to a parity array and that disk is not clear, unRAID clears it so parity will remain valid. While unRAID clears a disk it takes the server offline.

 

When you add a disk to a parity array and that disk is already clear, unRAID does not have to clear it for parity to remain valid. So the server is not offline.

 

So, as long as you have a free SATA port you don't need another server to do a preclear.

 

However, many people like to use the preclear script to test disks that will be used to replace other disks that are already in the array. If you don't have any free SATA ports then it would be useful to use another computer for this.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the clarification, I was using the second option where preclear runs on a separate machine, not yet comfortable to do a hot swap on the production server.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the clarification, I was using the second option where preclear runs on a separate machine, not yet comfortable to do a hot swap on the production server.

Hot swap not needed. Just stop array, shutdown, put in new drive, reboot. Then you can preclear as usual and it won't affect the server.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the clarification, I was using the second option where preclear runs on a separate machine, not yet comfortable to do a hot swap on the production server.

Hot swap not needed. Just stop array, shutdown, put in new drive, reboot. Then you can preclear as usual and it won't affect the server.

And to expand on that, no need to power down the array a second time to add the newly precleared drive. Once it's physically connected, you can preclear the new drive with the rest of the array running, after the preclear is done you can stop the array, add the drive into the logical slot, and start the array. It should be back online a few minutes later, and you can then tell it to format the new drive.

 

It's always a better option to preclear using the exact physical slot you want to use for the drive, that way if the preclear gives issues you can solve them before trusting the rest of your array to the new drives integrity. Bad power or sata cables should be pretty obvious during a preclear cycle.

Share this post


Link to post

It would have been nice if Pro users not only got a price increase, but also some (even if only out of the array) increased device limit...

 

I have now very limited use of all the new features, so much for paying pro prices...

 

Yes, while device limits have been increased for the 'lesser' licence versions, I think that this is not, easily, achievable for Pro.  The limit is dictated by the fact that unRAID currently(?) only allows for device names from sda to sdz - this imposes a limit of 24 data drives (or 23 + cache).  Will this change in the future, just to please a small percentage of users?  Only Tom can answer that one.  Perhaps if/when we get p+q parity.  There are many who hold the view that 24 data drives, with single parity, is too little redundancy and offers very poor protection.

 

I wonder what unRAID does if it finds an sdaa drive (outside of the protected array)?  Of course, there is a problem that drive letter assignments cannot be dictated.

 

Please read this thread from top till bottom: https://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=38189.msg353870#msg353870

We have and limetech has commented on it there. Why rehash it in this thread?

 

 

Trurl,

 

Have you read this message? http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=39808.msg376059#msg376059

 

Do you now understand why i rehash this?

 

Share this post


Link to post

Wimpie =>  Note that in RC3 the following change was made: 

 

"- emhttp: let Pro start regardless of attached device count"

 

So it's no longer an issue.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.