Hi everyone,

 

I have a NAS with 2 x 14 TB IronWolf and 1 x 512GB NVMe as cache. I deliberately chose NO parity as I backup the VM on a remote storage via rsync every night. So here is my question with shares and drives. When I check the /mnt folder structure, I see:

 

Quote

root@DATA-NAS:~# cd /mnt
root@DATA-NAS:/mnt# ls
RecycleBin/  cache/  disk1/  disk2/  disks/  user/  user0/

 

disk1 = 14 TB IronWolf #1

disk2 = 14 TB IronWolf #2

disks = mounted external USB drives (unassigned devices)

user = not sure

user0 = not sure either

 

A few questions:

• Q1: My hope was that the 2 x 14 TB drives would be mounted as an array of 1 disk, rather than 2.  Is that not the case? Should I worry about that at all or just continue using my SMB mounts that DO show the total available space? I.e. leave everything to unraid and forget about the two disks?
• Q2: Why are there two user folders? I DO have an unraid user called "user" but that explains only one of the two folders. Also, there are no folders for the other users that I have created. 
  • the user sub-dir shows a few SMB shares, excluding the system folders (i.e. only the shares I manually created)
  • the user0 sub-dir shows all shares

 

Sorry if this has been asked a thousand times but searching the forum for things with "user" leads to less than optimal search results...

 

• Q3: more related to permissions. As I am using rsync to restore my data as the root user, I understand that all the data in the NAS is now owned by root. Would a simple " chown -R nobody:users /mnt/user/* " be enough to sort this out, or should I apply the SMB directives "force user" and "force group"? That is what I used to do on my ubuntu server and it worked very well. Just not sure that will be messing around with UNRAID too much?
• I've used the "New Permissions" script on the shares for now, that seemed to have worked o.k. Any concerns as I didn't upgrade from UNRAID 5 but still used it?

 

Thanks everyone!

 

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, theunraidhomeuser said:

Q1: My hope was that the 2 x 14 TB drives would be mounted as an array of 1 disk, rather than 2.  Is that not the case? Should I worry about that at all or just continue using my SMB mounts that DO show the total available space? I.e. leave everything to unraid and forget about the two disks?

/mnt/diskX and /mnt/cache is where you will see all physical drives mounted.

/mnt/user if where user shares are located.  They can provide a logical view that can span multiple drives plus the cache.

/mnt/user0 is user shares but excluding anything located on the cache.   Limetech have warned this is deprecated and may be removed in the future.

Q3/Q4.  New Permissions is the recommended way to fix permission issues as it dose not require you to use the command line.   If you know what you are doing then using the command line also works.

great, thanks a lot, wasn't aware of the user0 thing and it all makes sense. Script worked well and I also know my way around the CLI but was more reassuring and easier to select the various shares.

 

As a little follow-up, the appdata, system folders should all be CHOWN'ed by root, right?

5 hours ago, theunraidhomeuser said:

As a little follow-up, the appdata, system folders should all be CHOWN'ed by root, right?

In principle the owner/permissions on appdata folders and contents should be determined by the docker container.    I think the folders directly under appdata always end up owned by root, but that is definitely not always true of any files/sub-folders.    That is why there is a Docker Safe New Permissions script that acts like the standard New  Permissions except for the fact it always leaves appdata folders and files alone.