Sticky: Ye Olde Laundry List

[coppit]

Here's another vote for concatenated parity drives. It would (1) allow better utilization of space if your parity drive is much bigger than your data drives (could instead use two more more data drives for parity, and the big drive for data), (2) I think it could improve write performance (and maybe read performance) (3) obviously give more flexibility in upgrading with less time spent recomputing parity.

BTW, one thing you could do for voting/features is what Bram does for VIM: you get X votes for free, but you get more votes if you give money. I hope you get stinking rich, and I'm willing to help if it means I get more voice in future development. (I also hope one avenue for getting stinking rich is a buyout---perhaps pursuing patents before your time runs out is wise?)

[melechmet]

I really need NFS (UDP & TCP) support.

[Contact-DXM]

Aside from a 2.6.x kernel, (which is happening anyway, right?) the only other thing on my "wishlist" is allowing some disks to be outside of the array. Other than that, the software is perfect.

[stchas]

Tom,

When you're ready to work on the UPS interface, I found a GPL source for the APC product lines.  Just bought a BR1200.

http://www.apcupsd.com/manual/index.html

Kevin

[smeehrrr]

I desperately need S3 support.  I just powered up everything in my machine room at once and blew the circuit. Now I'm waiting for my unraid machines to spin down before I power up anything else.

And I guess I'm calling an electrician.

[teamhood]

Any hope on the APC UPS? I think this should be added before a 4.0 final build because power failure is rather important and I would like my tower to shut down if my power is out for an extended period of time.

[limetech]

I'll look into this.

[rhinoman]

Now that security is on the near horizon I'd like to bump the idea of an ftp program for unraid, I can lose my windows server then

[ysss]

Tomm, what do you think about adding a Recycle bin feature to unraid?

I always use VFS:Recycle ( http://www.samba.org/samba/docs/man/Samba-HOWTO-Collection/VFS.html#id380094 ) on my samba servers. It creates a directory on the root of the share that acts just like a Windows Recycle bin: any deleted files on the share will be moved to the recycle bin, before it can get deleted permanently.

[Koolkiwi]

Just thought I would post my view on the 2 top priority features (writable user shares & security):

The top priority unRAID development appears to be writable user shares.  At first I thought this was a great 'must have'  idea, but in practice I prefer to write data to a specific drive (via a hidden writeable share), and make my 'User Shares' read-only for other home users to access. 

The thought of writing a backed up DVD folder (for example) via the proposed writable user shares, and having different files within the folder ending up on different drives, does not appeal to me.  I would prefer to dictate which drive I am putting each related collection of files onto (so they are all in one place).  As I fill up each drive before moving onto the next, this approach is not actually an an inconvenience in practice.

It probably comes down to what you are using unRAID for, but in my view there does not appear to be any real need for Writable User Shares for the primary intended unRAID purpose of a media archive storage server (ie. write once - read many).

My vote would probably therefore go to adding Security as the top priority.  ie. So that we could password protect selected folder shares etc. and also hopefully be able to individually select which folders were published or hidden.

Not only do I want to be able to secure all of my writable shares with a password, but I also would like to have a password on selected read-only folder shares (or selected 'user shares'), along with the option of whether these individual password protected shares are hidden or published.

I can see this as being necessary for example, where you might have younger children that you want to restrict from age restricted media shares, or if you have backup data that you do not want to share with everyone.

My 2c.


 

[Billped]

I concur with Koolkiwi - security is a must-have foundational feature, writable user shares is a nice-to-have interesting feature.


Bill

[teamhood]

I agree 100% as well here Tom. I am setting up an unRAID for a friends store and it freaks me out a bit thinking that someone morons might hop into the server and do some serious damage to all of her backup info. We are lucky that its her family who work at the shop, but still... the idea really frightens me!

[limetech]

There's a per-share config file for setting up security, which is also needed for "write-able user shares".  Both features are being tested now.

[melechmet]

Any chance to have NTFS native partition support? I know this is problematic on a number of levels but it would be so much easier in some circumstances to troubleshoot or even update drives locally and then sync.

[bubbaQ]

Concatenated parity drives would be cool, but it seems there is a decent work around.   I'll start my UnRaid with four or five 500GB WD drives and add more as needed.  At some point, I'll start using 750GB drives.  I'll add the first 750, and delete the old parity drive, and make the new 750 the new parity drive, then add the old 500gb parity drive as a new data drive.  Doesn't seem much work compared to the potential concatenated process of adding the 750 as data, and a 250 for additional concatenated parity.

That solved, my vote is for S3 suspend support!