September 29, 20187 yr 12 minutes ago, Zonediver said: Where can i find this setting??? I dont have it... 7 hours ago, johnnie.black said: It's not there yet, it will be on the next release.
September 29, 20187 yr Author Just now, Zonediver said: Ah - ok - thanks 🤣 You want it now? I'll see about getting another release out...
September 29, 20187 yr 1 hour ago, limetech said: You want it now? I'll see about getting another release out... Hardcore, you guys really are awesome, to consider rolling out another release so soon to please your customers - on a Friday. 6.6.0-rc4 to 6.6.1-stable nice and boring. 4K versus 1080p versus 1024x768, and everything else, that's got to be tricky with scaling. Thank you Devs for your hard work and expertise, I can't wait to see what's next.
September 29, 20187 yr 2 hours ago, limetech said: You want it now? I'll see about getting another release out... A new version of Unraid with NO linux Kernel to update too? Is this going to be 6.6.6
September 29, 20187 yr 3 hours ago, Zonediver said: Where can i find this setting??? I dont have it... Not surprising - it is in the next release
September 29, 20187 yr There is not possible still to encrypt a drive without loosing the data on it?
September 29, 20187 yr 4 hours ago, isvein said: There is not possible still to encrypt a drive without loosing the data on it? What does this even mean? I'm guessing you are referring to something else you have posted somewhere but I don't know what.
September 29, 20187 yr 41 minutes ago, trurl said: What does this even mean? I'm guessing you are referring to something else you have posted somewhere but I don't know what. I assumed it was asking about in-place encryption of drives. It is definitely not possible at the moment and I am not sure if it has even been suggested as a likely future enhancement.
September 29, 20187 yr 22 hours ago, bonienl said: No, all sizes are relative to the default font size set in the browser. This is normally 16px (medium). This translates to the following root font sizes: very small = 8px small = 9px normal = 10px large = 11px very large = 12px The styling sheets in the GUI make use of the 'rem' unit, which scales a font based on the root font size. E.g. root font size = normal = 10px default text = 1.3rem = 13px header text = 1.4rem = 14px besides the new font sizes I would love to be able to change / invert the background and text just below the banner in the dark theme! I've already made a black banner
September 29, 20187 yr Just updated from 6.5.3 to 6.6.1. basic dockers (in sig) no VM's ... all is well. I ran the update assistant before hand which let me know the ancient dynamix plug-in was on my flash so I commented that out (though I don't think it was actually be used since I had all the CA based dynamix plug-ins installed and they stayed after reboot and after upgrade) and made sure all my plugins were up-to-date (CA was out of date). All works well and I mostly like the new UI. Running at 90% scale on a 1920x1200 is pretty close to what I like. In all cases I always prefer "compact" spacing so as not to waste space and get more info. If that means using contrasting colors / borders etc to delineate UI element groups that's my preference over lots of blank space. Well done! Edited September 29, 20187 yr by jumperalex
September 29, 20187 yr 4 hours ago, itimpi said: I assumed it was asking about in-place encryption of drives. It is definitely not possible at the moment and I am not sure if it has even been suggested as a likely future enhancement. That what was I wondered Thanks for the answer.
September 29, 20187 yr hello Anyone facing VM initialization issues after upgrade from 6.5.3 to 6.6.0 / 6.6.1 ? My vm's are not starting up. in the boot log of vm's i get errors like this one: Begin: Running /scripts/local-block ... mdadm: CREATE group disk not found Also i saw in another vm, an error like: Guest has not initialized the display (yet) (screenshots attached) This is caused by 6.6.0/6.6.1 since i can revert to 6.5.3 and the issue gets solved. No GPU passthrough. I could not find any similar error in the forum. Thanks, -d
September 30, 20187 yr On 9/27/2018 at 11:23 PM, limetech said: webgui: Docker: cap cpu+memory load at 100% Just trying to understand this - are the stats now a % of total system CPU load and available memory, or are they still a % of the allocated cores? Throwing in a quick feature request - it'd be much more helpful if the CPU and memory load column was sortable. I have a lot of dockers and I have to keep scrolling up and down to view the percentages to look for high numbers Edited September 30, 20187 yr by DZMM
September 30, 20187 yr 3 minutes ago, DZMM said: Just trying to understand this - are the stats now a % of total system CPU load and available memory, or are they still a % of the allocated cores? CPU load as reported by Docker is divided by the number of available cores in the system, basically undoing the multiplication done by Docker and making the scale go from 0% to 100% Docker reports memory load as a percentage of the total memory. Ps. Docker containers are always listed in order of autostart. Can not be made sortable.
September 30, 20187 yr 4 minutes ago, bonienl said: CPU load as reported by Docker is divided by the number of available cores in the system, basically undoing the multiplication done by Docker and making the scale go from 0% to 100% Docker reports memory load as a percentage of the total memory. Ps. Docker containers are always listed in order of autostart. Can not be made sortable. Thanks. I preferred the other way which was a percent of the allocated cores as the numbers are very low for me as I isolate the majority of my dockers to 3 of my 14 cores, so most of my dockers are never going to exceed 20% whereas the few that have access to all cores e.g. plex could hit 100% - I'm now on the lookout for dockers say exceeding one core 7% on a scale showing 0-100.... I'd rather have a consistent view that shows which dockers are taking up a high percentage of their allocated resources i.e. the old view. I think the confusion in 6.6.0 with the old view was there wasn't any explanation of the numbers or no tooltips/help in the GUI to explain
September 30, 20187 yr 18 hours ago, LammeN3rd said: I've already made a black banner Upgrade to Unraid 6.6.1. It allows you to set a custom color for the header text.
September 30, 20187 yr On 9/28/2018 at 6:53 PM, Zonediver said: Where can i find this setting??? I dont have it... as mentioned a couple posts up its coming in the next release
September 30, 20187 yr I am still having issue with NFS on my User shares corrupting the user/ directory updating very early this morning and started watching some shows on my Plex server (same server with NFS enabled so a fedora VM running my reversea proxy with Sonaar, Sabnzb etc. running on my other unRAID server can connect to manage the downloads and moving of files. the most i get out of this is about 2 hours after that plex crashes Sab on the other server cant see any mounts at all and i have to reboot. I have since downgraded back again to 6.5.3 on the server that hosts plex and other content but left the one with the Fedora VM on 6.6.1 and has no issues at this time drwxrwxrwx 5 root root 140 Sep 30 01:59 RecycleBin/ drwxrwxrwx 1 nobody users 50 Sep 30 02:09 cache/ drwxrwxrwx 9 nobody users 139 Sep 30 02:09 disk1/ drwxrwxrwx 3 nobody users 19 Sep 30 02:09 disk10/ drwxrwxrwx 5 nobody users 67 Sep 30 02:09 disk2/ drwxrwxrwx 4 nobody users 46 Sep 30 02:09 disk3/ drwxrwxrwx 6 nobody users 66 Sep 30 02:09 disk4/ drwxrwxrwx 7 nobody users 102 Sep 30 02:09 disk5/ drwxrwxrwx 6 nobody users 84 Sep 30 02:09 disk6/ drwxrwxrwx 7 nobody users 102 Sep 30 02:09 disk7/ drwxrwxrwx 10 nobody users 161 Sep 30 02:09 disk8/ drwxrwxrwx 5 nobody users 68 Sep 30 02:09 disk9/ drwxrwxrwx 2 nobody users 40 Sep 30 01:59 disks/ d????????? ? ? ? ? ? user/ drwxrwxrwx 1 nobody users 139 Sep 30 02:09 user0/ ***edit....I had a thought could that fact that unraid 1 (with fedora VM) that uses NFS mounts to Server 2 be conflicting with a samba mount to the same user share on Server 1 to Server 2 using Unassigned devices? im updating server 2 back to 6.6.1 to test that theory Edited September 30, 20187 yr by Can0nfan
September 30, 20187 yr 7 hours ago, bonienl said: Upgrade to Unraid 6.6.1. It allows you to set a custom color for the header text. and here is a great site to get the hex codes for your colour choiceshttps://htmlcolorcodes.com/
September 30, 20187 yr On 9/29/2018 at 2:41 PM, trurl said: What does this even mean? I'm guessing you are referring to something else you have posted somewhere but I don't know what. On 9/29/2018 at 3:24 PM, itimpi said: I assumed it was asking about in-place encryption of drives. It is definitely not possible at the moment and I am not sure if it has even been suggested as a likely future enhancement. Limetech said itself that they plan on adding in-place encryption of devices in 6.4.0 release notes "ALL PREVIOUS DATA ON THAT DEVICE WILL BE DESTROYED. Hence it is not possible, in this release, to encrypt in-place. We plan to add a utility in a future release to accomplish this however." https://forums.unraid.net/topic/65494-unraid-os-version-640-stable-release-available/
October 1, 20187 yr 7 hours ago, Can0nfan said: I am still having issue with NFS on my User shares corrupting the user/ directory updating very early this morning and started watching some shows on my Plex server (same server with NFS enabled so a fedora VM running my reversea proxy with Sonaar, Sabnzb etc. running on my other unRAID server can connect to manage the downloads and moving of files. the most i get out of this is about 2 hours after that plex crashes Sab on the other server cant see any mounts at all and i have to reboot. I have since downgraded back again to 6.5.3 on the server that hosts plex and other content but left the one with the Fedora VM on 6.6.1 and has no issues at this time drwxrwxrwx 5 root root 140 Sep 30 01:59 RecycleBin/ drwxrwxrwx 1 nobody users 50 Sep 30 02:09 cache/ drwxrwxrwx 9 nobody users 139 Sep 30 02:09 disk1/ drwxrwxrwx 3 nobody users 19 Sep 30 02:09 disk10/ drwxrwxrwx 5 nobody users 67 Sep 30 02:09 disk2/ drwxrwxrwx 4 nobody users 46 Sep 30 02:09 disk3/ drwxrwxrwx 6 nobody users 66 Sep 30 02:09 disk4/ drwxrwxrwx 7 nobody users 102 Sep 30 02:09 disk5/ drwxrwxrwx 6 nobody users 84 Sep 30 02:09 disk6/ drwxrwxrwx 7 nobody users 102 Sep 30 02:09 disk7/ drwxrwxrwx 10 nobody users 161 Sep 30 02:09 disk8/ drwxrwxrwx 5 nobody users 68 Sep 30 02:09 disk9/ drwxrwxrwx 2 nobody users 40 Sep 30 01:59 disks/ d????????? ? ? ? ? ? user/ drwxrwxrwx 1 nobody users 139 Sep 30 02:09 user0/ ***edit....I had a thought could that fact that unraid 1 (with fedora VM) that uses NFS mounts to Server 2 be conflicting with a samba mount to the same user share on Server 1 to Server 2 using Unassigned devices? im updating server 2 back to 6.6.1 to test that theory I think I finally figured out the issue here @limetech on my server 'unRAIDPro' that this user/ permissions issue was happening on. my setup that i had this issue on was unRAIDPlus VM with NFS mounts to unRAIDPro's /mnt/user/Media unRAIDPlus unassigned devices SMB mount to unRAIDPro /mnt/user/Media I unmounted the SMB from unassigned devices and mounted as NFS and I have a solid 6 hours of uptime (previous record was 2hrs 45min before the user folder permissions issue) never had an issue access same share via SMB and NFS prior to 6.6 so looks like a new bug I will submit it as a bug report
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.