jphipps Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Yeah, I am running that plugin.. The intended behavior is NO settings page for any disks outside of the array, these disks are not controlled by unRAID. Some settings don't make sense/work, while threshold and SMART settings only work on a global level, i.e. no individual disk settings. The stock unassigned devices page will not show the settings page, the plugin however does... Makes sense... thanks for clearing that up.. Quote Link to comment
Ashe Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 If I set the users to show in the settings page on the latest update, it shows it twice in the settings page, one on the user preferences and one on the system settings line Quote Link to comment
Squid Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 If I set the users to show in the settings page on the latest update, it shows it twice in the settings page, one on the user preferences and one on the system settings line Not sure whether or not this may be related to CA's method of moving the user's tab around (I assume that bonienl is doing it in a similar way), but one thing that I would really suggest is this: If you want to move the users menu around, I would tell CA to leave it where it is, reboot (so that all the system files are 100% stock), then have this plugin move it. Quote Link to comment
Ashe Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Good point, it has overridden CA settings. Reboot is required if disabling CA option and using through dynamix Quote Link to comment
Squid Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Good point, it has overridden CA settings. Reboot is required if disabling CA option and using through dynamix Two plugins modifying the same system settings (and presumably creating backups of the same original files) just isn't going to work correctly. I've also posted in CA's thread the procedure if you're using this plugin. Bonienl's settings are more "official" than mine and should take precedence if you need to move the tab. Quote Link to comment
Squid Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Bonienl, something which you probably haven't completely tested, but for a bleeding edge plugin I think is a very valid use case: Uninstallation. After uninstalling, the pop up tells you to reboot the server (which I can understand), however at that point the entire GUI is completely unavailable and you have to drop down to a command line to do it. Since you've got to reboot anyways, why even bother uninstalling the files from RAM. Just delete the .plg and txz from the flash drive. That way the UI will stay active Quote Link to comment
bonienl Posted January 9, 2016 Author Share Posted January 9, 2016 Bonienl, something which you probably haven't completely tested, but for a bleeding edge plugin I think is a very valid use case: Uninstallation. After uninstalling, the pop up tells you to reboot the server (which I can understand), however at that point the entire GUI is completely unavailable and you have to drop down to a command line to do it. Since you've got to reboot anyways, why even bother uninstalling the files from RAM. Just delete the .plg and txz from the flash drive. That way the UI will stay active Yeah, you are right. It is kind of habit of me to include the same removal procedure as is done in all other plugins. Uninstalling I never did/tested and became overlooked. I have issued a new version 2016.01.09b, this fixes the "Users menu" setting gets lost after reboot. At the same time the PLG file is updated and allows for proper uninstallation, if required. In case you are wondering ... The solution I have made, is the introduction of a dynamic menu reference, this eliminates the need to create "backup" files. The syntax is: Menu="file-reference key-name=default-value" For an example, have a look at the Users.page file, it might be handy for CA too. Quote Link to comment
CHBMB Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Bonienl, something which you probably haven't completely tested, but for a bleeding edge plugin I think is a very valid use case: Uninstallation. After uninstalling, the pop up tells you to reboot the server (which I can understand), however at that point the entire GUI is completely unavailable and you have to drop down to a command line to do it. Since you've got to reboot anyways, why even bother uninstalling the files from RAM. Just delete the .plg and txz from the flash drive. That way the UI will stay active I just got caught by this, wouldn't update because of bad md5, so I thought uninstall and reinstall.... BOOM no webui... No massive problem just dropped to cmd line and installplg.... but I can see how it's less than great. My wife was watching TV at the time, so a reboot wasn't an option.... Quote Link to comment
archedraft Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Did this latest update change anyone else's "unassigned devices" free space to all red color? Quote Link to comment
bonienl Posted January 9, 2016 Author Share Posted January 9, 2016 Did this latest update change anyone else's "unassigned devices" free space to all red color? There is an extra parameter introduced for the color coding, this is done because it is now possible to set individual disk settings which overrule the general settings. I don't have the unassigned devices plugin installed myself, but I imagine the plugin needs an update to get the coloring right. Quote Link to comment
dlandon Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Did this latest update change anyone else's "unassigned devices" free space to all red color? There is an extra parameter introduced for the color coding, this is done because it is now possible to set individual disk settings which overrule the general settings. I don't have the unassigned devices plugin installed myself, but I imagine the plugin needs an update to get the coloring right. The problem is that gfjardim is nowhere to be found right now so I doubt unassigned devices will be updated. Because of some outstanding issues I have that haven't been fixed, I cannot use unassigned devices newer that 2015.09.19. If this stands for the next release of unraid, there will be many annoyed people. Quote Link to comment
jphipps Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Just happened to notice that the parity check history doesn't show the corrected sector count. Can that be added? Quote Link to comment
JonathanM Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 The problem is that gfjardim is nowhere to be found right now so I doubt unassigned devices will be updated. Because of some outstanding issues I have that haven't been fixed, I cannot use unassigned devices newer that 2015.09.19. If this stands for the next release of unraid, there will be many annoyed people. Since limetech counts unassigned devices towards the license total, I feel it is totally unfair to the community to leave the functionality to an enthusiast authored plugin. Either change the licensing back to assigned array devices only, or take responsibility for managing unassigned devices within unraid itself. This has really irritated me since that change was announced months ago. gfjardim shouldn't need to worry about it, limetech should have either written its own manager or absorbed and updated gfjardim's work with permission. Quote Link to comment
jumperalex Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 that's actually a really good point. Quote Link to comment
CHBMB Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 The problem is that gfjardim is nowhere to be found right now so I doubt unassigned devices will be updated. Because of some outstanding issues I have that haven't been fixed, I cannot use unassigned devices newer that 2015.09.19. If this stands for the next release of unraid, there will be many annoyed people. Since limetech counts unassigned devices towards the license total, I feel it is totally unfair to the community to leave the functionality to an enthusiast authored plugin. Either change the licensing back to assigned array devices only, or take responsibility for managing unassigned devices within unraid itself. This has really irritated me since that change was announced months ago. gfjardim shouldn't need to worry about it, limetech should have either written its own manager or absorbed and updated gfjardim's work with permission. Hadn't thought of this before, as I have a Pro licence and I'm only just above 50% of my drive "allowance" but I think you have a very valid point and one which perhaps LT haven't considered in quite this way.... It may be worth a gentle nudge of jonp to this point to see what LT's feeling is... Quote Link to comment
bonienl Posted January 12, 2016 Author Share Posted January 12, 2016 Just to rub a bit of salt here... When counting all devices for the license, it doesn't imply you need to support all these! But maybe LT wants to make a statement about this! Quote Link to comment
BRiT Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 It may be worth a gentle nudge of jonp to this point to see what LT's feeling is... "Why would anyone need that many devices on a gaming rig?" Quote Link to comment
jphipps Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 How is that limit actually enforced? I have 24 drives in my actual array, and another drive as a ZFS volume for my dockers. Quote Link to comment
itimpi Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 How is that limit actually enforced? I have 24 drives in my actual array, and another drive as a ZFS volume for my dockers. Sounds like you have a Pro license with that many drives? With the Pro license there is no limit on attached drives - just on the number of drives that can be managed by unRAID. Quote Link to comment
jphipps Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I didn't realize the pro version didn't have a limit, I thought it was all of versions... That is good to know.. Quote Link to comment
CHBMB Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I didn't know that either.... Quote Link to comment
itimpi Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I didn't realize the pro version didn't have a limit, I thought it was all of versions... That is good to know.. I am not sure that the Limetech documentation is that clear about it! It came up during the beta phase when at one point unRAID WAS applying such an attached devices limit and it affected a number of users. By the v6 final release the attached devices limit had been removed for the Pro license. Quote Link to comment
bonienl Posted January 13, 2016 Author Share Posted January 13, 2016 It was announced with the release of V6.1rc1, see here Quote Link to comment
archedraft Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 It was announced with the release of V6.1rc1, see here Whoa I misread that to V6.2 and was like wait what?!?!? In that 5 seconds I was far too excited... Quote Link to comment
CHBMB Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 It was announced with the release of V6.1rc1, see here Whoa I misread that to V6.2 and was like wait what?!?!? In that 5 seconds I was far too excited... I hope you didn't let out a bit of wee.... Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.