file browser in webui


136 posts in this topic Last Reply

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, NoobSpy said:

It was a figure of speech. I dont think 10 years on UnRaid will even be relevant.

You cant keep supporting people who use ancient equipment without growing stagnant and stale.

I would support a GoFundme and strech goals just to get some often requested things rolling.

By all means, go fund yourself.

Link to post
  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

unraid really needs a better way of browsing files than using a docker file manager, using the command line or using another pc on the network.  would be great to have a simple file browser built into

We are a bunch of grumpy old bastards that don't like changes 

UnRaid is already more than just network attached storage.  Why not also give users the ability to easily manage files without dealing with docker or network privilege settings? Kinda seems like the w

Posted Images

9 minutes ago, TheBeast said:

+1

On 9/15/2020 at 5:58 PM, NoobSpy said:

I think 10 years later we still be debating something basic like this.

The obvious question here is why do you need it?  What use case is there that say Windows Explorer cannot accomplish?

Link to post
10 hours ago, Squid said:

The obvious question here is why do you need it?  What use case is there that say Windows Explorer cannot accomplish?

- Deleting a folder with thousands of files (Windows Explorer needs ages)

- moving files between two folders that are in different shares (Windows Explorer would down- and upload them)

- creating a zip (ages)

- create, delete, move, etc in a folder that has no user access

- etc

Link to post
9 hours ago, Squid said:

What use case is there that say Windows Explorer cannot accomplish?

I'm pretty sure you know that: All copy operations with Windows Explorer will go thru LAN. The only exception are copy operations between identical disk shares. ALL copy operations with a file manager running on Unraid will stay local - at full Unraid speed.

 

Link to post
3 hours ago, hawihoney said:

I'm pretty sure you know that: All copy operations with Windows Explorer will go thru LAN. The only exception are copy operations between identical disk shares. ALL copy operations with a file manager running on Unraid will stay local - at full Unraid speed.

 

Actually any copy operation, even initiated over the network will not traverse the network when using smb3

 

I just wanted to see why people wanted this

Link to post
4 hours ago, Squid said:

I just wanted to see why people wanted this

Just my own experience - why I vote for a native Unraid file commander:

 

Because I don't want to use the console and start CP/MV/MC. Whenever I need to start the console I'm in alarm-mode. It's way beyond my knowledge. There are so many things that I can do wrong. Uaahhh - I don't want that. I'm using Unraid since 2008 - up until now I never found out when to use / at the end of a directory and when it's better to leave it out. And that's only one thing out of trillions.

 

Everything is dockerized here. 99,9% of my apps are working in the browser. The browser is my desktop. But whenever I need to copy something on the server I have to open the console (or the web console).

 

Don't know if my Windows 10 uses SMB v3 and I don't know if Unraid uses SMB v3, but all server-side file operations walk slowly thru LAN. My desktop is a WLAN notebook. Whenever I copy a file on the server it's send thru WLAN - what a waste of time and resources.

 

I tried Krusader: OMG, I ended up with a deleted directory. Til today I have no clue what I did wrong. Many times the copy popup windows simply disappeared. I didn't find out if the copy operation is still in progress or not. Had to look on Unraids Main page to see if there's progress. Bah, terrible.

 

I tried CloudCommander?: It's using more space than Unraid. 200MB last time I looked. It's faster to open the garage and use an USB-stick than starting that dockerized app. On top I never found out how to select something, mark something. Try it with a touch screen - nearly impossible.

 

Just my own experience, I don't want to blame anybody or a tool. I do see Unraid as a user with - say 1% - Linux knowledge. The Unraid GUI is - mostly - intuitive and beautiful. It deserves a file commander.

 

+1 for a buildin file commander.

 

Link to post
  • 2 weeks later...

+1 for me. One of the first thing I was looking for when I bought unraid and I was migrating data from others hard drive. I’m used to the file browser of QNAP and I am really missing the option. The current workaround of using docker is really clunky for me.

Edited by SkinnyV
Link to post
  • 3 weeks later...

+1

I can understand that lots of people say that you can use the client to move, but in that case you are moving files over the network. Using krusader is better because you are moving files directly in the array, but why use a docker for such a basic feature? 

Having it on the unRaid guy would be good, but then you can only access it in the server itself.

 

Conclusion: would be great to have a file browser with normal copy/move/delete in the webUI. There are a lot of web components already made that help with the design, so why not use one

Link to post
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
On 11/11/2020 at 8:14 PM, Nexius2 said:

Man would it be great to have something like the Synology DSM (File Station) in Unraid !

I'm personnaly using a Syno just to manage file on the unraid server 😞

global needs, downloads, uploads, move, edit ...

This.

 

Synology could find usecases for this, because the usecases are there. What they are, is open to speculation, and not awefully relevant to the question whether we should have this feature in a future version, or not.

Also keep in mind that if you specifically DON'T want a file manager built graphically into the WebUI, power to you - you're free to ignore it, and it won't get in your way.

 

Everyone is different, and since unRAID is being used in a variety of scenarios, you can't say something always makes sense, or indeed never makes sense. I think this topic has proven that many people would like this built into the WebUI (and it could even be offered as an official plugin) so it makes sense to, at the very least, get this onto some sort of todo list for the authors, if not already.

Edited by thany
Link to post
1 hour ago, thany said:

it won't get in your way.

Except that every feature added directly to the OS consumes RAM, whether you use it or not. Unraid isn't like pretty much any other OS that runs from a drive, everything is installed into fresh into RAM at boot time. That's why Unraid doesn't include drivers for everything normally supported in linux, because all that space in RAM would be wasted for 90% of users.

 

Every feature that is included in the stock base of Unraid must be carefully evaluated whether or not the increase in RAM required to store the files used is worth it. It's kind of a double whammy, the files consume space on the RAM drive, whether or not you use them. When you run it, it uses RAM as well, but as you said, that part is optional, you don't have to run it.

 

Features added using the docker container system DON'T take up RAM, as those reside on the regular storage drives, and only use RAM when run.

 

As Unraid has added more features, the RAM requirements have increased significantly. As a NAS only, 1GB of RAM was plenty. Currently, even if somebody only needs the NAS functionality, the bare minimum is 4GB, and even that is too tight for some operations. That's because all of the added features take up RAM, even though they aren't used.

 

As time goes on, and the normal amount of RAM in older systems that people want to repurpose as NAS devices increases, then adding features becomes less of an issue. Right now though, we still regularly see people trying to get Unraid to run on 2GB of RAM.

 

Link to post

Just thought I would mention in case anybody is unaware. Midnight Commander (mc from the command line), a textGUI file manager, is built-in and isn't difficult to figure out, google it.

 

And of course, there are file manager docker apps.

Link to post
  • 1 month later...

+1, moving and unzipping (rar, tar, zip, z, etc...) files is a pain in the neck or at least is not as simple as I -personally- consider it should be. A great alternative for Krusader is FileBrowser docker app.

Link to post

I agree and disagree. I personally currently have more ram then I know what to do with so I could care less how much ram unraid uses. BUT, I'm also looking at changing that in the future and I do also help with builds for others with different requirements and I am looking to do a straight stripped down, lowest specs just NAS type build. So I do see the need to be conservative also. At the same time minimum specs builds are getting to have more memory then they used to, but that is still evolving.

I've even noticed now on an old machine older version of unraid that were lighter run better then the more recent builds.

Maybe outside of the scope of this thread but ever since unraid has become more feature rich there has been this "battle" between raw minimalistic NAS and full feature rich NAS. I think it we might be getting to the point where 2 versions would be better. A "light" and a full. That would be the simplest, that would probably cover most of the two different groups. You could also go down the customize your install route and get to choose what you want included before your image is built. That would be great for more advanced or particular users.

Of course this requires more work and development. That doesn't come for free.

Except that every feature added directly to the OS consumes RAM, whether you use it or not. Unraid isn't like pretty much any other OS that runs from a drive, everything is installed into fresh into RAM at boot time. That's why Unraid doesn't include drivers for everything normally supported in linux, because all that space in RAM would be wasted for 90% of users.
 
Every feature that is included in the stock base of Unraid must be carefully evaluated whether or not the increase in RAM required to store the files used is worth it. It's kind of a double whammy, the files consume space on the RAM drive, whether or not you use them. When you run it, it uses RAM as well, but as you said, that part is optional, you don't have to run it.
 
Features added using the docker container system DON'T take up RAM, as those reside on the regular storage drives, and only use RAM when run.
 
As Unraid has added more features, the RAM requirements have increased significantly. As a NAS only, 1GB of RAM was plenty. Currently, even if somebody only needs the NAS functionality, the bare minimum is 4GB, and even that is too tight for some operations. That's because all of the added features take up RAM, even though they aren't used.
 
As time goes on, and the normal amount of RAM in older systems that people want to repurpose as NAS devices increases, then adding features becomes less of an issue. Right now though, we still regularly see people trying to get Unraid to run on 2GB of RAM.
 

Not sure how well known this is so it's good to be brought up. It is definitely helpful. I've been using mc forever for managing my files server side/locally. Also a tip, if you're doing large transfer use screen so the transfer will continue if for some reason you loose connection to the server or your machine you are running mc from goes to sleep.

But I will also say it's a bit of a pain/slow. It would be much quicker (and easier for a large group of people) to just click on an icon in the web ui, copy and paste (or drag and drop) and be done.

With mc you still have to open a terminal and type mc and navigate to the file/folder you want to move on pane and then do the same in the other pane, then hit the correct F key. It's really not the most arduous task but of course it could be much better/nicer/easier. Would all's be nice to have a bit more protection. Accidental deletion is definitely possible on a large scale. Though this is true for most why people manage their files.
Just thought I would mention in case anybody is unaware. Midnight Commander (mc from the command line), a textGUI file manager, is built-in and isn't difficult to figure out, google it.
 
And of course, there are file manager docker apps.
Link to post
On 9/21/2020 at 9:51 AM, hawihoney said:

I tried CloudCommander?

Thank you for telling me about this. I just wanted something that lets me upload and download files as well as do basic file functions and this works nicely. The only problem is that the bottom panel buttons don't work when accessing remotely behind a reverse proxy (e.g. files.mydomain.com). They work when accessing the IP:PORT directly within the LAN.

 

On 9/21/2020 at 9:51 AM, hawihoney said:

I never found out how to select something, mark something.

You can select an item by clicking on it.

Not sure what you mean by "mark".

You can select multiple items by holding Cmd (on Mac) and clicking on multiple items at the same time. The pink files are the ones I selected:

 

image.png.392f2c67a21a36de4f5a22be0e67eaa9.png

 

Right clicking and selecting (Un)Select All actually inverses the selection which is really cool.

 

I haven't tried a touch screen.

 

On 9/21/2020 at 9:51 AM, hawihoney said:

It's faster to open the garage and use an USB-stick than starting that dockerized app.

 

Weird, it took no time at all to boot up for me.

 

The full feature set is documented here for reference: http://cloudcmd.io/

 

Edited by frakman1
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.