the software is a bit relaxed if it has already authenticated before. If it has, then it gives an additional period of time of purchased features before it get's mad that it can't contact home. This would be an acceptable solution.

 

Definitely not for me. I use unRAID as just a NAS, I don't use any of the features. I have zero use for it to have network access, so to protect my data, I have it only accessible internally. There's no reason I should have to change that now, and I'm not going to reconfigure it on the firewall every time it stops working. It should work like it's been working

Anyone else that has empty user shares? GUI show none. only disk shares shows up under disk share tab. I have just started up my array with the second parity disk.

 

yeah i had to reboot to fix it.

Important: Your server will require internet access upon boot in order to validate with the LimeTech key server.

 

What the hell?

 

so how do i get my internet if i cant boot Unraid? since i use Pfsense in a VM running ON UNRAID LOL ???????

In regards to the dual parity slot, you should be able to disable it if you don't intend to use it. 

 

I started my array with parity 2 set to unassigned and it stays visible with a big red X and an alert notification that parity 2 is in error state.

 

This also an issue with a brand new system, it shows the red X and an alert notification is sent out.

the software is a bit relaxed if it has already authenticated before. If it has, then it gives an additional period of time of purchased features before it get's mad that it can't contact home. This would be an acceptable solution.

 

Definitely not for me. I use unRAID as just a NAS, I don't use any of the features. I have zero use for it to have network access, so to protect my data, I have it only accessible internally. There's no reason I should have to change that now, and I'm not going to reconfigure it on the firewall every time it stops working. It should work like it's been working

 

I get that, and this is an assumption, but if you have a router that supports iptables, you could easily setup a firewall rule to allow outgoing from unraid's ip to limetech's key server ip. I still don't think it should be calling home at all, but I get it, they are trying to protect themselves against pirates and that's hard to do these days.

the software is a bit relaxed if it has already authenticated before. If it has, then it gives an additional period of time of purchased features before it get's mad that it can't contact home. This would be an acceptable solution.

 

Definitely not for me. I use unRAID as just a NAS, I don't use any of the features. I have zero use for it to have network access, so to protect my data, I have it only accessible internally. There's no reason I should have to change that now, and I'm not going to reconfigure it on the firewall every time it stops working. It should work like it's been working

 

I get that, and this is an assumption, but if you have a router that supports iptables, you could easily setup a firewall rule to allow outgoing from unraid's ip to limetech's key server ip. I still don't think it should be calling home at all, but I get it, they are trying to protect themselves against pirates and that's hard to do these days.

 

but how do i connect to the internet? if i use Pfsense on Unraid as a VM? i have to have Unraid let me run the VM first before it can connect to the internet.

Important: Your server will require internet access upon boot in order to validate with the LimeTech key server.

 

What the hell?

 

so how do i get my internet if i cant boot Unraid? since i use Pfsense in a VM running ON UNRAID LOL ???????

 

I was wondering about that as well.

the software is a bit relaxed if it has already authenticated before. If it has, then it gives an additional period of time of purchased features before it get's mad that it can't contact home. This would be an acceptable solution.

 

Definitely not for me. I use unRAID as just a NAS, I don't use any of the features. I have zero use for it to have network access, so to protect my data, I have it only accessible internally. There's no reason I should have to change that now, and I'm not going to reconfigure it on the firewall every time it stops working. It should work like it's been working

 

I get that, and this is an assumption, but if you have a router that supports iptables, you could easily setup a firewall rule to allow outgoing from unraid's ip to limetech's key server ip. I still don't think it should be calling home at all, but I get it, they are trying to protect themselves against pirates and that's hard to do these days.

 

but how do i connect to the internet? if i use Pfsense on Unraid as a VM? i have to have Unraid let me run the VM first before it can connect to the internet.

 

I think you are among a very small amount of users that do this with unraid as the vm host... most people use ESXI or Proxmox for that. Unraid doesn't even officially support multiple ip addresses on a single card without having to run a command in the boot script.

Important: Your server will require internet access upon boot in order to validate with the LimeTech key server.

 

What the hell?

 

so how do i get my internet if i cant boot Unraid? since i use Pfsense in a VM running ON UNRAID LOL ???????

 

I was wondering about that as well.

 

Genius, i would never have thought of that scenario.

 

I also fall into the camp where one of my unRAID boxes specifically sits on a separate air-gapped network. Internet access is simply not an option I would have to decommission the box.

The phone home makes sense on a closed private elite rockstart beta program. It makes no sense at all for a public beta. Let's all hope it gets removed.

The phone home makes sense on a closed private elite rockstart beta program. It makes no sense at all for a public beta. Let's all hope it gets removed.

 

if i buy a guitar and wear tight trousers will i be elite ?

The phone home makes sense on a closed private elite rockstart beta program. It makes no sense at all for a public beta. Let's all hope it gets removed.

 

if i buy a guitar and wear tight trousers will i be elite ?

 

I think if you wear tight trousers you'll probably get arrested for obscene behaviour..... 

 

I also think this is a bad move, my internet connection can be flaky and now if I need to reboot the box during an outage, I'll lose access to all Live TV, all stored movies, tv and music as well as my ebook library....

 

Dear God, it's unbearable to think, but I may actually have to talk to Mrs CHBMB!!! 

The phone home makes sense on a closed private elite rockstart beta program. It makes no sense at all for a public beta. Let's all hope it gets removed.

 

if i buy a guitar and wear tight trousers will i be elite ?

 

I think if you wear tight trousers you'll probably get arrested for obscene behaviour..... 

 

I also think this is a bad move, my internet connection can be flaky and now if I need to reboot the box during an outage, I'll lose access to all Live TV, all stored movies, tv and music as well as my ebook library....

 

Dear God, it's unbearable to think, but I may actually have to talk to Mrs CHBMB!!! 

I'm so lucky that I don't have to talk to my Mrs, just say mhmm,  as she does all the talking 

I will be waiting till this is out of beta but I thought the phone home thing only had to connect once a week and if it didn't connect on start up it would try for like a week before it would lock you out.  Or am I thinking of different software?

Let's try to stay on topic here. We will address the phone home licensing stuff soon but for now, let's not derail this thread with that discussion. We are actively looking into some of the other issues that have been found here.

Quick question about the update to docker; does this mean that docker can now have their own IP address? If so, I assume it will require support built by each keeper of dockers for some custom config to each docker, correct?

 

This would be fantastic since it would allow to direct a specific dockers's traffic over a VPN tunnel on my pfsense router.

 

Pretty excited about this!

 

NOTE:  If you do NOT have a cache device, you will need to add those three shares manually if you wish to utilize apps or VMs on unRAID.

 

This confuses me a bit. I don't use a cache disk, and run docker from a mounted SSD. What do I need to do to add these shares? Are they SMB Shares? User Shares?

 

Has anyone without a cache disk tried the upgrade?  Any further details on the above?  My docker lives outside the array on a separately-mounted disk.  I don't really want or need a cache drive, but don't want docker on the array, either.  Has support for that configuration been eliminated?

Let's try to stay on topic here.

 

Uhm, how is that off topic? It's something new you introduced into the product and people who are having issues with it are talking about it.

 

Whatever...

Dockers also needed updated, and they took forever.

 

From the Docker 1.10 release notes:

https://github.com/docker/docker/releases/tag/v1.10.0

IMPORTANT: Docker 1.10 uses a new content-addressable storage for images and layers.

A migration is performed the first time docker is run, and can take a significant amount of time depending on the number of images present.

Refer to this page on the wiki for more information: https://github.com/docker/docker/wiki/Engine-v1.10.0-content-addressability-migration

 

Maybe this should be added to the OP?

What about the idea to have a setting to select either single or dual parity operation?

 

This would also suppress a non-present second parity disk when not used.

 

Attached some examples

What about the idea to have a setting to select either single or dual parity operation?

 

This would also suppress a non-present second parity disk when not used.

 

Attached some examples

 

that would address my concerned brought up about the matter.

What about the idea to have a setting to select either single or dual parity operation?

 

This would also suppress a non-present second parity disk when not used.

 

Attached some examples

 

that would address my concerned brought up about the matter.

 

Or 'No Parity' to suppress both?

What about the idea to have a setting to select either single or dual parity operation?

 

This would also suppress a non-present second parity disk when not used.

 

Attached some examples

 

I was actually going to automatically hide Parity2 (and Parity) if they are unassigned instead of looking like they're invalid.  It's something on the todo list that didn't make it in to this beta.

I can't get the libvirt working after the update.

Log:

Mar 12 19:11:41 serverramon emhttp: shcmd (205): /etc/rc.d/rc.libvirt start |& logger

Mar 12 19:11:41 serverramon root: no image mounted at /etc/libvirt

Mar 12 19:11:54 serverramon emhttp: shcmd (213): /etc/rc.d/rc.libvirt start |& logger

Mar 12 19:11:54 serverramon root: no image mounted at /etc/libvirt

Mar 12 19:12:10 serverramon emhttp: shcmd (221): /etc/rc.d/rc.libvirt start |& logger

Mar 12 19:12:10 serverramon root: no image mounted at /etc/libvirt

Mar 12 19:12:12 serverramon emhttp: shcmd (229): /etc/rc.d/rc.libvirt start |& logger

Mar 12 19:12:12 serverramon root: no image mounted at /etc/libvirt

Mar 12 19:17:29 serverramon emhttp: shcmd (237): /etc/rc.d/rc.libvirt start |& logger

 

Does anyone have this problem too?

Mar 12 19:17:29 serverramon root: no image mounted at /etc/libvirt

I can't get the libvirt working after the update.

Log:

Mar 12 19:11:41 serverramon emhttp: shcmd (205): /etc/rc.d/rc.libvirt start |& logger

Mar 12 19:11:41 serverramon root: no image mounted at /etc/libvirt

Mar 12 19:11:54 serverramon emhttp: shcmd (213): /etc/rc.d/rc.libvirt start |& logger

Mar 12 19:11:54 serverramon root: no image mounted at /etc/libvirt

Mar 12 19:12:10 serverramon emhttp: shcmd (221): /etc/rc.d/rc.libvirt start |& logger

Mar 12 19:12:10 serverramon root: no image mounted at /etc/libvirt

Mar 12 19:12:12 serverramon emhttp: shcmd (229): /etc/rc.d/rc.libvirt start |& logger

Mar 12 19:12:12 serverramon root: no image mounted at /etc/libvirt

Mar 12 19:17:29 serverramon emhttp: shcmd (237): /etc/rc.d/rc.libvirt start |& logger

 

Does anyone have this problem too?

Mar 12 19:17:29 serverramon root: no image mounted at /etc/libvirt

 

I had this problem also, I just entered put the img file on my cache ie Libvirt storage location: /mnt/cache/VM/libvirt.img and that got it back.