xycmu

Members
  • Content count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About xycmu

  • Rank
    Newbie

Converted

  • Gender
    Undisclosed
  1. Requesting IPV6 in unRAID kernel.

    Thank you for prioritizing IPv6 support. I access many of my internal network devices at home via native IPv6 from my ISP (Cox) to avoid IPv4 NAT translation. I one-day hope to reach my Docker services directly via IPv6. (e.g. Streaming Plex content via IPv6)
  2. Why do you want to do this? The UD mounted device is not protected by parity. Time Machine for my usage case is only backup data; which is only important in the event that my workstation HD dies or I lose files. My backup data is easily replaceable by creating a new backup if necessary. I don't want to waste valuable array storage and would rather keep a large dedicated Time Machine disk outside of the array. I do not understand the logic. If you have the disk in the server anyway, it doesn't matter if the disk is in the array or in UD. You still have the same amount of space available. If you worry about the time machine share using more than one disk, just make the what only include the one disk. My array slots/devices are maxed out (can not add any more disks to the array) with the purpose of storing media and other data. Additionally, there is no room to add other drives inside the server chassis. Unassigned Devices makes it easy to add additional external disks via USB. I want to dedicate my large external disk as Time Machine data. I'm feeling mentally switch-tracked by having to defend my particular use case. My array is fully allocated. I have an external non-array USB drive mounted using Unassigned Devices that I intend on using for Time Machine backups over the network. I am looking for a solution not involving SMB. Since UD doesn't support AFP, I suppose this plugin won't help. It's a very useful plugin otherwise. I'll attempt to symlink within an AFP share (from an array device) to a non-array mounted device. This wouldn't inherently depend on the UD plugin, so it is outside the scope of this thread.
  3. Why do you want to do this? The UD mounted device is not protected by parity. Time Machine for my usage case is only backup data; which is only important in the event that my workstation HD dies or I lose files. My backup data is easily replaceable by creating a new backup if necessary. I don't want to waste valuable array storage and would rather keep a large dedicated Time Machine disk outside of the array.
  4. Is AFP share support on the roadmap for Unassigned Devices? What are the best methods/practices for using Time Machine via AFP on a non-array disk? I prefer to avoid using Time Machine via SMB. Has anyone set up Time Machine within an array share and symlinked it to a non-array mounted drive controlled by Unassigned Devices?
  5. Time Machine Outside the Array??

    Have you found a solution? I've been considering symlinking to a mounted drive outside of the array. I had hoped the Unassigned Devices plugin would work, but it does not currently create AFP shares. I prefer to avoid using time machine over SMB.
  6. I wasn't aware of this issue until my 10GB Docker image filled completely. The Docker daemon no longer starts: time="2015-12-30T13:43:49.173704466-08:00" level=fatal msg="Error starting daemon: Insertion failed because database is full: database or disk is full" I can still use the CLI to browse /var/lib/docker. Is it possible to copy these containers into another docker.img, or have I pretty much lost all of the containers?
Copyright © 2005-2017 Lime Technology, Inc. unRAIDĀ® is a registered trademark of Lime Technology, Inc.