unRAID "Phone Home" discussion


Recommended Posts

Ok. I've made a boo boo.

 

I updated main server to RC2. Have since upgraded through to RC4. I've just moved home and had to relocate servers to new address.

 

I've had to say bye bye to fibre and go back to ADSL2. As much of a bummer that is, it doesn't compare to this one ....

 

Can anyone guess???

 

Yep. My ADSL2 service connection has been delayed until Tuesday. Meaning the Server can't "call home" and therefore by all accounts I won't be able to start it.

 

Am I really " ... attached to another object by an inclined plane, wrapped helically around an axis?"

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
My ADSL2 service connection has been delayed until Tuesday. Meaning the Server can't "call home" and therefore by all accounts I won't be able to start it.

 

Am I really " ... attached to another object by an inclined plane, wrapped helically around an axis?"

Pretty much, yep. However, if you are sufficiently motivated, you should be able to cobble together a solution using a smartphone as a hotspot, and a wifi gaming adapter, or connecting your phone to another PC to share the phone's internet across the lan. I leave the details as an exercise for the reader.  ;D
Link to comment

Now that I think about it, maybe Limetech could eventually change things up a bit with the online requirement, maybe have the server generate a challenge code if it couldn't directly reach the internet that you could enter into their website using another device, and it would generate a response code that would allow the server to start. Valid only for a limited time window ~24 hours, and non-repeating. Challenge codes generated with wrong date would generate a date error and tell the user to fix the time on the server and refresh another code. Codes from blacklisted versions or serial numbers could also flagged. Code entry on the website would probably need to be captcha'd and rate limited to prevent abuse.

Link to comment

Ok. I've made a boo boo.

 

I updated main server to RC2. Have since upgraded through to RC4. I've just moved home and had to relocate servers to new address.

 

I've had to say bye bye to fibre and go back to ADSL2. As much of a bummer that is, it doesn't compare to this one ....

 

Can anyone guess???

 

Yep. My ADSL2 service connection has been delayed until Tuesday. Meaning the Server can't "call home" and therefore by all accounts I won't be able to start it.

 

Am I really " ... attached to another object by an inclined plane, wrapped helically around an axis?"

 

 

Noob...  ;D  Now if we'd known that before you joined.......  ;)

Link to comment

Ok. I've made a boo boo.

 

I updated main server to RC2. Have since upgraded through to RC4. I've just moved home and had to relocate servers to new address.

 

I've had to say bye bye to fibre and go back to ADSL2. As much of a bummer that is, it doesn't compare to this one ....

 

Can anyone guess???

 

Yep. My ADSL2 service connection has been delayed until Tuesday. Meaning the Server can't "call home" and therefore by all accounts I won't be able to start it.

 

Am I really " ... attached to another object by an inclined plane, wrapped helically around an axis?"

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I understand this was my fault. I also understand that the limitation of the RC requiring Internet access on boot was well documented.

 

However, as I sit in my new home waiting for my internet to be connected - unable to access my data - I am finding myself getting more annoyed with this "feature".

 

Firstly, I have to ask why was it included in the RC? A RC is a pre release version which has the potential to be a final product. Meaning surely it is almost ready to release. I would imagine all features to be included are in there already and we have already tested them thoroughly through the many beta cycles over a long period of time and we have had no known showstoppers.

 

Secondly, I know this is supposed to stop me from running a version which could result in a loss of data but as I sit here having another wine I'm finding that less and less palatable. You announce it is unstable software anyway and shouldn't be used in production so why should you worry this much about our data. This is our responsibility.

 

Maybe (if you still want to persist with this "feature" - allow us an opt in / opt out in future). If it truley is all about the users and preventing us from running at risk then allow us the ability to accept that risk if we want. It is in fact our risk to own and deal with anyway !!!???!!

 

Finally, I do think (if you won't implement something like I suggest) then it's time you removed this little gem from the feature set. All it is doing for me is preventing me from accessing my array. Thankfully my backup strategy allows me access to my data in that I have a duplicate redundant server but that's not the point.

 

#Annoyed

Link to comment

I understand this was my fault. I also understand that the limitation of the RC requiring Internet access on boot was well documented.

 

However, as I sit in my new home waiting for my internet to be connected - unable to access my data - I am finding myself getting more annoyed with this "feature".

 

Firstly, I have to ask why was it included in the RC? A RC is a pre release version which has the potential to be a final product. Meaning surely it is almost ready to release. I would imagine all features to be included are in there already and we have already tested them thoroughly through the many beta cycles over a long period of time and we have had no known showstoppers.

 

Secondly, I know this is supposed to stop me from running a version which could result in a loss of data but as I sit here having another wine I'm finding that less and less palatable. You announce it is unstable software anyway and shouldn't be used in production so why should you worry this much about our data. This is our responsibility.

 

Maybe (if you still want to persist with this "feature" - allow us an opt in / opt out in future). If it truley is all about the users and preventing us from running at risk then allow us the ability to accept that risk if we want. It is in fact our risk to own and deal with anyway !!!???!!

 

Finally, I do think (if you won't implement something like I suggest) then it's time you removed this little gem from the feature set. All it is doing for me is preventing me from accessing my array. Thankfully my backup strategy allows me access to my data in that I have a duplicate redundant server but that's not the point.

 

#Annoyed

 

I don't suppose you have a 6.1.9 installer zip file lying around in the downloads folder of your computer, do you?

 

Link to comment

Ok. I've made a boo boo.

 

I updated main server to RC2. Have since upgraded through to RC4. I've just moved home and had to relocate servers to new address.

 

I've had to say bye bye to fibre and go back to ADSL2. As much of a bummer that is, it doesn't compare to this one ....

 

Can anyone guess???

 

Yep. My ADSL2 service connection has been delayed until Tuesday. Meaning the Server can't "call home" and therefore by all accounts I won't be able to start it.

 

Am I really " ... attached to another object by an inclined plane, wrapped helically around an axis?"

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I understand this was my fault. I also understand that the limitation of the RC requiring Internet access on boot was well documented.

 

However, as I sit in my new home waiting for my internet to be connected - unable to access my data - I am finding myself getting more annoyed with this "feature".

 

Firstly, I have to ask why was it included in the RC? A RC is a pre release version which has the potential to be a final product. Meaning surely it is almost ready to release. I would imagine all features to be included are in there already and we have already tested them thoroughly through the many beta cycles over a long period of time and we have had no known showstoppers.

 

Secondly, I know this is supposed to stop me from running a version which could result in a loss of data but as I sit here having another wine I'm finding that less and less palatable. You announce it is unstable software anyway and shouldn't be used in production so why should you worry this much about our data. This is our responsibility.

 

Maybe (if you still want to persist with this "feature" - allow us an opt in / opt out in future). If it truley is all about the users and preventing us from running at risk then allow us the ability to accept that risk if we want. It is in fact our risk to own and deal with anyway !!!???!!

 

Finally, I do think (if you won't implement something like I suggest) then it's time you removed this little gem from the feature set. All it is doing for me is preventing me from accessing my array. Thankfully my backup strategy allows me access to my data in that I have a duplicate redundant server but that's not the point.

 

#Annoyed

 

100% agree. This code as-is cannot be put into the release product and since this is a candidate for release it should not be in it either.

 

I think the idea of being able to deprecate Alpha and Beta versions is good.... in fact I will go as far to say that I think its a critical new option and a great idea but if we still need it by the 4th RC then we are doing something wrong with the release cycle.

Link to comment

There's no hope you'll get that info, danioj.  What you're asking for is similar to asking Microsoft how Windows activation works.  You'll get either silence or "f**k off".

 

I do agree with you, the whole internet activation under RC is a wee bit backwards?  Surely it'd be more important to 'activate' the final version?  And when I mean activate, I mean activate once so that future reboots don't require internet connection.  Perhaps an activation file on the USB stick that ties the GUID of the stick to the serial number of the CPU, or something similar?

Link to comment

To be fair this is a 99.999% open Linux product so I am not sure the 100% closed Microsoft activation analogy holds. More than that the feature is in place for deprecation and not activation. Two sides of the same coin but they are not the same.

 

I think it is fair to ask for this information, I cant see why what is being sent and received should be a secret.

Link to comment

There's no hope you'll get that info, danioj.  What you're asking for is similar to asking Microsoft how Windows activation works.  You'll get either silence or "f**k off".

 

I do agree with you, the whole internet activation under RC is a wee bit backwards?  Surely it'd be more important to 'activate' the final version?  And when I mean activate, I mean activate once so that future reboots don't require internet connection.  Perhaps an activation file on the USB stick that ties the GUID of the stick to the serial number of the CPU, or something similar?

It is not activation. It is a potential kill switch. That is why it is needed to verify during boot every time. It is only for the betas and rcs.

 

If there is a critical bug introduced in a beta that results in data loss, limetech wants to be able to flip the switch (once the bug is discovered) so that servers will no longer boot into it, preventing (potentially, hopefully) data loss.

 

If limetech introduced such a bug and people kept using their servers not realizing it and had significant data loss, there would be a lot of angry unraid users screaming.

Link to comment
I know this is supposed to stop me from running a version which could result in a loss of data but as I sit here having another wine I'm finding that less and less palatable. You announce it is unstable software anyway and shouldn't be used in production so why should you worry this much about our data. This is our responsibility.

 

I would support your sentiments.

 

I have always been keen to be involved in testing - usually jumping in at around beta3/beta4.  However, I have refrained from installing 6.2 because of the unreliability of Internet connections here in Philippines.

 

beta/rc versions always come with a "government health warning" and any user who knowingly installs such a release cannot hold LT responsible for any untoward results.  Also, the onus is on any user, who gets involved in the testing phases, to keep abreast of all developments and reports, and revert/update as necessary in order to protect their data.

 

On the other hand, I also understand that Tom feels a moral responsibility, despite the warnings, to minimise any ill-effects, and with this mechanism in place he can reduce the risks and support commitments.

Link to comment

 

<<< snip >>>

I would support your sentiments.

 

I have always been keen to be involved in testing - usually jumping in at around beta3/beta4.  However, I have refrained from installing 6.2 because of the unreliability of Internet connections here in Philippines.

 

beta/rc versions always come with a "government health warning" and any user who knowingly installs such a release cannot hold LT responsible for any untoward results. 

 

<<< snip  >>

 

I hope you have made your specific issue known to Tom...

 

Link to comment

re: the general discussion and not a specific person or issue but ...

 

This is why LT has considered using closed betas and probably does for really early stuff. Without the Kill Switch I imagine we'd be lucky to even get access to RC's no less Betas.

 

As for an RC not having the kill switch code because its supposed to be "release ready" ... um ... reasonable coding practice says that the code is easily commented out or the check disabled via a true/false toggle. Having it in RC code has hardly coding faux pas.

Link to comment

Ok. I've made a boo boo.

 

I updated main server to RC2. Have since upgraded through to RC4. I've just moved home and had to relocate servers to new address.

 

I've had to say bye bye to fibre and go back to ADSL2. As much of a bummer that is, it doesn't compare to this one ....

 

Can anyone guess???

 

Yep. My ADSL2 service connection has been delayed until Tuesday. Meaning the Server can't "call home" and therefore by all accounts I won't be able to start it.

 

Am I really " ... attached to another object by an inclined plane, wrapped helically around an axis?"

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I understand this was my fault. I also understand that the limitation of the RC requiring Internet access on boot was well documented.

 

However, as I sit in my new home waiting for my internet to be connected - unable to access my data - I am finding myself getting more annoyed with this "feature".

 

Firstly, I have to ask why was it included in the RC? A RC is a pre release version which has the potential to be a final product. Meaning surely it is almost ready to release. I would imagine all features to be included are in there already and we have already tested them thoroughly through the many beta cycles over a long period of time and we have had no known showstoppers.

 

Secondly, I know this is supposed to stop me from running a version which could result in a loss of data but as I sit here having another wine I'm finding that less and less palatable. You announce it is unstable software anyway and shouldn't be used in production so why should you worry this much about our data. This is our responsibility.

 

Maybe (if you still want to persist with this "feature" - allow us an opt in / opt out in future). If it truley is all about the users and preventing us from running at risk then allow us the ability to accept that risk if we want. It is in fact our risk to own and deal with anyway !!!???!!

 

Finally, I do think (if you won't implement something like I suggest) then it's time you removed this little gem from the feature set. All it is doing for me is preventing me from accessing my array. Thankfully my backup strategy allows me access to my data in that I have a duplicate redundant server but that's not the point.

 

#Annoyed

 

Honestly I'd expect this from a big name vendor but not from LT. This is horrible idea and, in my humble opinion, should be removed immediately.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

 

Honestly I'd expect this from a big name vendor but not from LT. This is horrible idea and, in my humble opinion, should be removed immediately.

 

I can already picture the tumbleweed. 

 

But, alienating the community is fine now that they have Linus on the job shilling the product.  What could possibly go wrong?

Link to comment

 

Honestly I'd expect this from a big name vendor but not from LT. This is horrible idea and, in my humble opinion, should be removed immediately.

 

It's a very smart feature to have, even in an RC.

 

Nobody comes into this beta/RC blindfolded and unaware of the risks.

Link to comment

Ok. I've made a boo boo.

 

I updated main server to RC2. Have since upgraded through to RC4. I've just moved home and had to relocate servers to new address.

 

I've had to say bye bye to fibre and go back to ADSL2. As much of a bummer that is, it doesn't compare to this one ....

 

Can anyone guess???

 

Yep. My ADSL2 service connection has been delayed until Tuesday. Meaning the Server can't "call home" and therefore by all accounts I won't be able to start it.

 

Am I really " ... attached to another object by an inclined plane, wrapped helically around an axis?"

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I understand this was my fault. I also understand that the limitation of the RC requiring Internet access on boot was well documented.

 

However, as I sit in my new home waiting for my internet to be connected - unable to access my data - I am finding myself getting more annoyed with this "feature".

 

Firstly, I have to ask why was it included in the RC? A RC is a pre release version which has the potential to be a final product. Meaning surely it is almost ready to release. I would imagine all features to be included are in there already and we have already tested them thoroughly through the many beta cycles over a long period of time and we have had no known showstoppers.

 

Secondly, I know this is supposed to stop me from running a version which could result in a loss of data but as I sit here having another wine I'm finding that less and less palatable. You announce it is unstable software anyway and shouldn't be used in production so why should you worry this much about our data. This is our responsibility.

 

Maybe (if you still want to persist with this "feature" - allow us an opt in / opt out in future). If it truley is all about the users and preventing us from running at risk then allow us the ability to accept that risk if we want. It is in fact our risk to own and deal with anyway !!!???!!

 

Finally, I do think (if you won't implement something like I suggest) then it's time you removed this little gem from the feature set. All it is doing for me is preventing me from accessing my array. Thankfully my backup strategy allows me access to my data in that I have a duplicate redundant server but that's not the point.

 

#Annoyed

 

Honestly I'd expect this from a big name vendor but not from LT. This is horrible idea and, in my humble opinion, should be removed immediately.

 

I couldn't agree more. I think the phone home is ridiculous and pitching it as a safety feature is just as bad. I don't need protected from myself and it's clear that the betas are betas.

 

I don't like the idea of a killswitch like this at all. What happens if LT goes out of business tomorrow?

 

As LT jams in more features this not only keeps my server from booting, but my VM that is also my primary desktop PC.

 

Unraid wouldn't be worth using without the community contributions and I think it's safe to say this kind has the potential to alienate a lot of people.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
I don't like the idea of a killswitch like this at all. What happens if LT goes out of business tomorrow?

 

You do realize this only applies to Betas and RC's right? If they went out of business today you could roll back to the last Production release and go on your merry way.

 

Seriously, one guy has a problem, of his own making, by his own admission "I made a boo boo", and everyone grabs their pitch forks?!? This is not new, and if anyone thinks it is new then they clearly have not been reading the release notes. In fact this entire topic was hashed out already when it was first instituted. Don't like it? Don't run Beta/RC. Period. Don't have a dependable internet connection? Don't run Beta/RC. Used to have a dependable connection but are at risk of losing it? Revert to production and live a happy life. Don't want any info, whatever it is, being sent to LT on machine boot? Don't run Beta/RC.

 

In short, literally every single complaint lodged on the phone-home/kill-switch topic is solved by "Don't run Beta/RC".

Link to comment

I don't like the idea of a killswitch like this at all. What happens if LT goes out of business tomorrow?

 

You do realize this only applies to Betas and RC's right? If they went out of business today you could roll back to the last Production release and go on your merry way.

 

Seriously, one guy has a problem, of his own making, by his own admission "I made a boo boo", and everyone grabs their pitch forks?!? This is not new, and if anyone thinks it is new then they clearly have not been reading the release notes. In fact this entire topic was hashed out already when it was first instituted. Don't like it? Don't run Beta/RC. Period. Don't have a dependable internet connection? Don't run Beta/RC. Used to have a dependable connection but are at risk of losing it? Revert to production and live a happy life. Don't want any info, whatever it is, being sent to LT on machine boot? Don't run Beta/RC.

 

In short, literally every single complaint lodged on the phone-home/kill-switch topic is solved by "Don't run Beta/RC".

 

 

Well Said!!  I have to agree 100%.  Personally I think it is a great idea during Beta/RC to have this ability in case a bug that had the potential to damage data can be switched off and not allowed to run.

Link to comment

Honestly I'd expect this from a big name vendor but not from LT. This is horrible idea and, in my humble opinion, should be removed immediately.

 

If you are running under a TRIAL key I can see it, if you have a PAID LICENSE KEY, then it should be OPTIONAL (ie. "oh tried to check in but couldn't, but since you have a paid key, I'll run but put a big "INTERNET VALIDATION FAILED" in glowing red letters on the banner of the WebGui)

Link to comment

 

 

Honestly I'd expect this from a big name vendor but not from LT. This is horrible idea and, in my humble opinion, should be removed immediately.

 

If you are running under a TRIAL key I can see it, if you have a PAID LICENSE KEY, then it should be OPTIONAL (ie. "oh tried to check in but couldn't, but since you have a paid key, I'll run but put a big "INTERNET VALIDATION FAILED" in glowing red letters on the banner of the WebGui)

 

You paid for the latest stable. Not the beta/rc

 

The stables don't have that.

 

And once again, it is NOT activation or license validation. It is a safety measure only intended for beta and rc releases. Please read the beta/rc announcement messages to find out why internet connection is required before grabbing your pitchfork

Link to comment

I take a somewhat middle of the road stance on this, I do believe that LT have implemented this with the best of intentions, and I believe them when they say they will remove it before Final. 

 

danioj is a mate of mine, and he admits that he made a "boo boo" but he does raise an interesting point.  If this is a RELEASE candidate then perhaps the call home should be removed, although for the early beta cycle it makes sense.

 

As for a closed beta/rc cycle?  I can't personally see how an OS that is run on such a diverse array of hardware could be adequately tested in a limited closed beta.  We're talking people running hardware that is low powered and somewhat aged with limited memory to others running dual CPU behemoths and just about everything in between.  There was an early beta closed phase remember which is why the first 6.2 Beta published was Beta 18. 

 

Maybe something happened in the Beta 1 -17 phase that we don't know about that led to the implementation of the call home facility for the reason that LT have said... to mitigate against data loss?

 

My opinion is give LT the benefit of the doubt as they have said multiple times when asked that this is not going to be a feature of the final release.

 

Link to comment

Other than generating a bunch of extra non-core development time for Limetech, would this solution appease the pitchfork wielders?

 

Maybe Limetech could eventually change things up a bit with the online requirement in the beta/rc, maybe have the server generate a challenge code if it couldn't directly reach the internet that you could enter into their website using another device, and it would generate a response code that would allow the server to start. Valid only for a limited time window ~24 hours, and non-repeating. Challenge codes generated with wrong date would generate a date error and tell the user to fix the time on the server and refresh another code. Codes from blacklisted versions or serial numbers could also flagged. Code entry on the website would probably need to be captcha'd and rate limited to prevent abuse.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.