• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Good

About danioj

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 07/25/1980


  • Gender
  • URL
  • Location
    Melbourne, Australia
  • Personal Text
    Your arrogance blinds you, Master Yoda ...

Recent Profile Visitors

483 profile views
  1. This was a great post and i dont want to wake a old post. But i just want to make sure i am clear. What you are saying is it's best to run the VPN software/service off my router. Then once i have that setup i then add my Unraid to one of the ports on the router and then i be protect. Because I'm already in a VPN bubble because of my router.


    Once logged into openvpn logging into my router. I should then access my unraid then. 


    I'm about to get open vpn for my router. Then on my device i use to download or watch movies use PIA to just move around the world to watch different show in multiple areas.


    Thakk you



  2. To much of a good thing

    I think if we were to talk features. My unRAID life would be complete if we had: - ability to run a VM independantly of Array status (to facilitate pfSense use and or primary desktop) - formal support for virtualising unRAID as a guest
  3. There is no reason why you cannot have all the space available to you if you buy a 1TB SSD. If you format the SSD's as BTRFS you can run them in RAID0 and unRAID will treat them as 1 big drive. I run 3 x 250GB SSD's and unRAID see's them as 1 big 750GB cache disk. I don't run anything outside the array (utilising unassigned devices plugin) anymore as I prefer to use unRAID as it was intended (VM's, Docker etc) from the Cache device. As for the type of SSD, I don't think you can go past the Samsung EVO range. I find them to be excellent value for money.
  4. Please grab and post your diagnostics file. From the GUI: Tools>Diagnostics>Download. From the CLI: Type diagnostics then go and get the generated file from the flash drive.
  5. To much of a good thing

    Interesting feedback for LimeTech. I am interested to know what was the driver behind the post? Has a recent feature (or promise of a feature) given you cause for concern? I have always felt (like you it seems) that unRAID should maintain its position as a storage centric product first and all the other things it is (can can be) second. So much so, that I was concerned myself when they started integrating Docker and KVM. I remember feeling at the time that their efforts were best served concentrating on more "storage related" features such as Dual Parity. On reflection, I feel that Limetech made a great move. If they had listened to me, it would have had them loosing ground (and custom) on other competing products. Dual Parity came eventually (and they did a great job ensuring that this was implemented correctly), but not before they made great strides to keep the product relevant and current in meeting with what many new customers want from a NAS appliance (e.g. application hosting). It's worth noting, that we now refer to Docker as a means of ensuring that the core product remains as it is BUT in fact Docker itself was just a short time ago one of those such features that was integrated into unRAID which really had nothing to do with its original product. jm2c.
  6. Me too. However ... These days a disk Clear (to get that flag on the disk) doesn't take the Array down - or make it or the GUI unresponsive (more appropriate explanation). As the disk I was using was from another unRAID server (and had already been through many rigorous tests) I knew it was fine - so had no need to clear outside the array (especially as I note above, this does not result in downtime anymore) hence why I just added it. What I was unclear (no pun intended - happy accident) was what was recorded in that history log, which made my post look nuts. I have cleared (again - no pun intended - another happy accident) up the original post. All makes sense now. Sigh. Sorry folks.
  7. Something required a clear .... I remember it! EDIT: Oh crap, I have seriously got brain fog. I did add another 8TB disk too. Sigh. So it goes something like this: Entry 1: Parity Check Entry 2: Parity Sync as a result of adding another 8TB Parity disk Entry 3: Clear as a result of additional 8TB disk Entry 4: Monthly parity check Entry 5: 3TB => 8TB disk rebuild Entry 6: 3TB => 8TB disk rebuild God, I feel like I have just spammed this beloved thread! I will make the edits to the original post. What fluff.
  8. OK - sorry all, I completely screwed that post up. Please let me assure you, it was all coming from a good place. I didn't realise that clears were recorded in the parity check log as well. NB: I think I will be asking LT for a change to the logging to indicate what it was that was actually run. But Ill get to that later .... So based on my log and the timeline of events (before I edit the post again and get it wrong) my log is this .... 2017-04-03, 16:22:17 19 hr, 48 min, 40 sec 112.2 MB/s OK 0 2017-04-02, 19:13:52 22 hr, 54 min, 43 sec 97.0 MB/s OK 0 2017-04-01, 21:00:28 20 hr, 30 min, 27 sec 108.4 MB/s OK 0 2017-03-30, 09:57:57 14 hr, 59 min, 16 sec 148.3 MB/s OK 0 2017-03-29, 18:35:46 21 hr, 3 min, 48 sec 105.5 MB/s OK 0 2017-03-01, 20:02:50 19 hr, 32 min, 49 sec 113.7 MB/s OK 0 I am confused if Clears are logged as well why there are not more entries. I did the following (working from the bottom up): - Added new 8TB parity disk (no clear was required just a sync) - I assume that was entry 2 - Replaced 3TB data disk with another 8TB disk (required a clear) - Disk rebuild 3TB disk => 8TB disk - Parity Check ran in that time - I assume that was entry 4 - Replaced 3TB disk with another 8TB disk (required another clear) - Disk rebuild 3TB disk => 8TB disk Given that list of events I am finding it difficult to see what that 148.3MB/s is? If it was a clear then surely I would have a similar one as I added a second 8TB disk that required a clear. I am confused.
  9. [Plugin] Ransomware Protection

    Yorkshire Aussie @ that! Double trouble! LOL!
  10. [Plugin] Ransomware Protection

    Let me start this off by saying, I have NOT read the entire thread for this issue. I searched for .DS to see if anything was posted and there was nothing. That might give some clue as to why I am posting. I have been doing some general updating to the server (along with installing some new excellent plugins - of which I think this is) and I found a conflict between this plugin and user scripts. I ran the included "This script will delete all .DS_Store files on your array created by Apple's Finder" script on the user scripts plugin and the ransomware plugin kicked in. Doh! When I say "conflict" I believe the ransomware plugin is behaving as intended BUT the files in question are inconsequential. Are we able to set an exclusion list? or a safe plugin list? .... Just thinking out loud!? EDIT: also, is it possible for everything to work as intended and still have the SMB folders hidden. It bugs me that when I open my share list up I have this huge list of "dummy" shares and I have to "scan" to find what I want!?
  11. You're right. That was the Parity Sync. I didn't realise there was a parity check that occurred in there (obviously as it was the 1st). I am correcting the post now.
  12. I am posting this to continue my contribution to this thread. As you all know I am a big supporter of these drives for the typical unRAID use case. My bi-directional transfer speeds are rock solid and the server supports several clients running concurrently 24 hours per day as well as early morning progressive backups. For those who don't want to read up, as of 29th March my Array configuration consisted of: Parity: 1 x Seagate 8TB Shingle Data: 5 x WD 3TB Red and 2 x WD 3TB Green and 1 x Seagate 8TB Shingle My monthly parity checks are: 2017-03-01, 20:02:50 19 hr, 32 min, 49 sec 113.7 MB/s OK 2017-02-01, 19:54:16 19 hr, 24 min, 15 sec 114.5 MB/s OK 2017-01-01, 19:47:18 19 hr, 17 min, 17 sec 115.2 MB/s OK 2016-12-01, 19:47:09 19 hr, 17 min, 8 sec 115.2 MB/s OK 2016-11-06, 06:49:45 19 hr, 42 min, 11 sec 112.8 MB/s OK On the 29th March 2017 I added a second Seagate 8TB Shingle as a second Parity. The subsequent Sync record was: On the 30th March 2017 I added a further Seagate 8TB Shingle as a data disk. The subsequent Clear record was: On the 1st April 2017 my monthly parity check ran. The record was: Following the parity check (as I rebooted to update to 6.3.3) one of the WD 3TB Green's failed. So I replaced it with a new Seagate 8TB Shingle. The subsequent rebuild record was: I then went on to replace the second WD 3TB Green from the system (as they were from the same batch as the one that had just failed) with another Seagate 8TB Shingle. The subsequent rebuild record was: For those not keeping score my new configuration is: Parity: 2 x Seagate 8TB Shingle Data: 5 x WD 3TB Red and 4 x Seagate 8TB Shingle I am satisfied with these figures. I am currently running a parity check on the system to see if my ~ 19 hour average remains. I will post when it does.
  13. Updated from 6.3.2 to 6.3.3 without issue as usual. I am interested to see an answer to @johnnie.black post above though regarding the "additional" diagnostic information captured (if indeed it wasn't captured before). I can't see reference to this in the changelog. The only thing referenced relating to diagnostics is:

Copyright © 2005-2017 Lime Technology, Inc. unRAID® is a registered trademark of Lime Technology, Inc.