JustinAiken Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Awesome! Excited for dual parity... time to watch HD deals again! Also excited for modern Docker version... Question though.. My docker's are merrily humming along - most have shares mounted such as `/config` -> `/mnt/cache/apps/sabnzbd` With all the new 'Default volume mapping for appdata' and 'auto-share creation', what will happen to my existing setup? I'd rather keep everything where it is... Link to comment
jonp Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Awesome! Excited for dual parity... time to watch HD deals again! Also excited for modern Docker version... Question though.. My docker's are merrily humming along - most have shares mounted such as `/config` -> `/mnt/cache/apps/sabnzbd` With all the new 'Default volume mapping for appdata' and 'auto-share creation', what will happen to my existing setup? I'd rather keep everything where it is... It won't fuddle with existing containers. It's just a setting that affects when you add new containers from scratch, not edit existing containers or add containers from an existing user-template. Link to comment
limetech Posted March 11, 2016 Author Share Posted March 11, 2016 I'm very concerned about the total lack of security in the unRAID GUI boot mode, specifically the ability to use the launched FireFox application to browse the internet. Um, then don't boot in that boot mode? Better yet, what do you suggest? This isn't for me, this is for your basic user who doesn't know about security and best practices or the pitfalls of browsing the internet as super-user on a server. I can already see the horror support threads about unknowing consumers' systems being pwned. We talked about marking this "experimental" because that's kinda how it is right now. The main reason for its existence is to handle the case where someone is using their unRaid server as their sole machine, functioning as a NAS as well as running one or more VM's, e.g., a Windows VM. In this config in order to do certain maintenance tasks, such as replacing a disk, it requires array to be stopped, which will stop the VM's. Now there is no browser available to use the webGui to do the maintenance tasks. Sure, the current solution is to use another PC or laptop to bring up the webGui in a browser. But with the console GUI, these tasks can be handled without doing that. Also, having a console GUI eases some initial setup tasks such as configuring a static IP address. Full internet access is enabled because it can be, and lets you do everything you would normally do such as download new releases or update containers, etc. Firefox was chosen because the memory footprint, while still pretty large at around 200MB (including all support libraries), is smaller than what's needed for Chrome. Link to comment
jbrodriguez Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 so with turbo write, do we even really need to use a cache disk for anything other than cache-only shares for docker/vms? If you don't mind all your disks spinning when writes are occurring, some users can forego using cache-enabled shares because turbo-write can often times saturate the performance of a network when using fast-enough devices. However, the slowest performing disk in your array because your performance bottleneck with this feature enabled. It is also possible that when the array is wide enough (# of disks in the array), the performance of this feature may be even LESS than with it turned off. In short, Turbo Write is a great feature when having to bulk copy large sums of data to the array directly. Enable it, do your big bulk copies and then turn it back off. That's its current recommended use. We have plans to incorporate the use of Turbo Write in other ways in the future, but it'd be premature to discuss details just yet. Is there a way to enable/disable it programatically ? Link to comment
JorgeB Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Doing some tests and every time I do a new config, Unraid crashes, I then reboot and array auto starts and I can stop and start without issue, but when doing another new config same thing happens: Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: md1: running, size: 31266616 blocks Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: md2: running, size: 31266616 blocks Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: md3: running, size: 31266616 blocks Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: md4: running, size: 31266616 blocks Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 emhttp: shcmd (717): udevadm settle Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 emhttp: Mounting disks... Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 emhttp: shcmd (718): /sbin/btrfs device scan |& logger Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at 0000000700000025 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: IP: [<ffffffff8134b146>] generic_make_request_checks+0x1e/0x346 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: PGD 2095a8067 PUD 0 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: Oops: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: Modules linked in: md_mod x86_pkg_temp_thermal coretemp kvm_intel kvm i2c_i801 ahci libahci mvsas libsas e1000e ptp pps_core mpt3sas raid_class ipmi_si scsi_transport_sas [last unloaded: md_mod] Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: CPU: 1 PID: 11508 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 4.4.4-unRAID #1 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: Hardware name: Supermicro X9SCL/X9SCM/X9SCL/X9SCM, BIOS 2.2 02/20/2015 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: task: ffff8800c97c3700 ti: ffff8802095e0000 task.ti: ffff8802095e0000 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff8134b146>] [<ffffffff8134b146>] generic_make_request_checks+0x1e/0x346 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: RSP: 0018:ffff8802095e3938 EFLAGS: 00010202 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: RAX: 0000000000000008 RBX: ffff880200d78150 RCX: 0000000000000000 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: RDX: ffff880200d78150 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: 000000070000001d Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: RBP: ffff8802095e3978 R08: 0000000003ba2e70 R09: ffff880224a1cf10 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: R10: 0000000000000000 R11: ffff8800b5421af0 R12: ffff880200d78150 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: R13: ffff880200d781d8 R14: 00000000ffffffff R15: ffff880224a1cf10 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: FS: 00002b2064cb1d40(0000) GS:ffff88022fd00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: CR2: 0000000700000025 CR3: 000000020961b000 CR4: 00000000001406e0 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: Stack: Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: 0000000000000086 ffff8802095e3998 ffffffff810edbac ffff8800c9b1d4e8 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: ffff880200d78150 0000000000000000 ffff880200d781d8 00000000ffffffff Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: ffff8802095e39c0 ffffffff8134c73f ffffffff8106b622 ffff8802095e39a0 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: Call Trace: Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: [<ffffffff810edbac>] ? dma_pool_alloc+0x184/0x1b1 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: [<ffffffff8134c73f>] generic_make_request+0x1d/0x159 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: [<ffffffff8106b622>] ? set_next_entity+0x54/0x603 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: [<ffffffffa03c3354>] handle_stripe+0x10c3/0x1206 [md_mod] Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: [<ffffffffa03c39de>] unraid_make_request+0x453/0x4d8 [md_mod] Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: [<ffffffffa03beb40>] md_make_request+0x92/0xa1 [md_mod] Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: [<ffffffff8134c7dd>] generic_make_request+0xbb/0x159 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: [<ffffffff8134c97f>] submit_bio+0x104/0x10f Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: [<ffffffff811373db>] mpage_bio_submit+0x25/0x2c Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: [<ffffffff81137a21>] mpage_readpages+0x10e/0x11f Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: [<ffffffff81132286>] ? I_BDEV+0xd/0xd Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: [<ffffffff810ee9de>] ? alloc_pages_current+0xbe/0xe8 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: [<ffffffff811329f3>] blkdev_readpages+0x18/0x1a Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: [<ffffffff810c3224>] __do_page_cache_readahead+0x157/0x1fb Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: [<ffffffff810c35cd>] force_page_cache_readahead+0x9d/0xb7 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: [<ffffffff810c35cd>] ? force_page_cache_readahead+0x9d/0xb7 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: [<ffffffff810c3613>] page_cache_sync_readahead+0x2c/0x3a Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: [<ffffffff810b97a2>] generic_file_read_iter+0x184/0x50b Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: [<ffffffff81132b7e>] blkdev_read_iter+0x33/0x38 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: [<ffffffff811094f8>] __vfs_read+0x8d/0xb1 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: [<ffffffff811099f0>] vfs_read+0x98/0x123 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: [<ffffffff8110a200>] SyS_read+0x49/0x84 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: [<ffffffff81617fee>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x12/0x6d Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: Code: f2 c8 d6 ff 48 83 c4 28 5b 41 5c 5d c3 55 48 89 e5 41 56 41 55 41 54 49 89 fc 53 48 83 ec 20 8b 47 28 48 8b 7f 08 c1 e8 09 74 29 <48> 8b 57 08 48 8b 52 48 48 c1 fa 09 74 1b 89 c1 48 39 ca 73 0a Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: RIP [<ffffffff8134b146>] generic_make_request_checks+0x1e/0x346 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: RSP <ffff8802095e3938> Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: CR2: 0000000700000025 Mar 11 21:48:02 Testv6 kernel: ---[ end trace 0261b5873e61650d ]--- OK, I think I narrowed this down, crash only happens when doing a new config with dual parity and starting the array with trust parity checked. I believe this is a bug. Link to comment
gundamguy Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Automatic System Shares When starting the array with at least one cache device, a share called "system" will be automatically created. Inside, two subfolders will be created (docker and libvirt respectively). Each of these folders will contain a loopback image file for each service. Upon adding your first application via Docker, the appdata share will be created (set to cache=only). Upon downloading your first VirtIO driver ISO through the webGui (under Settings -> VM Manager), the isos share will be created (set to cache=no). If you do not need the VirtIO drivers (meaning you are only using Linux-based guest VMs), you will need to manually add the isos share. Upon adding your first VM with a virtual disk, the domains share will be created automatically (set to cache=only). NOTE: If you do NOT have a cache device, you will need to add those three shares manually if you wish to utilize apps or VMs on unRAID. Question: Does this mean that if you have a cache drive it will create the Docker.img and libvert.img even if you don't have docker enabled and don't have any VM's? I'm not sure how I feel about this... Link to comment
jonp Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Automatic System Shares When starting the array with at least one cache device, a share called "system" will be automatically created. Inside, two subfolders will be created (docker and libvirt respectively). Each of these folders will contain a loopback image file for each service. Upon adding your first application via Docker, the appdata share will be created (set to cache=only). Upon downloading your first VirtIO driver ISO through the webGui (under Settings -> VM Manager), the isos share will be created (set to cache=no). If you do not need the VirtIO drivers (meaning you are only using Linux-based guest VMs), you will need to manually add the isos share. Upon adding your first VM with a virtual disk, the domains share will be created automatically (set to cache=only). NOTE: If you do NOT have a cache device, you will need to add those three shares manually if you wish to utilize apps or VMs on unRAID. Question: Does this mean that if you have a cache drive it will create the Docker.img and libvert.img even if you don't have docker enabled and don't have any VM's? I'm not sure how I feel about this... This applies on a fresh install of trial, but not on an existing installation. Link to comment
limetech Posted March 11, 2016 Author Share Posted March 11, 2016 OK, I think I narrowed this down, crash only happens when doing a new config with dual parity and starting the array with trust parity checked. I believe this is a bug. Yup, -beta19 coming... Link to comment
sparklyballs Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 spinning up an opensuse VM from the template, i had to change OS Install CDRom Bus: to virtio from ide or it error out about unsupported controller. Link to comment
gundamguy Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Automatic System Shares When starting the array with at least one cache device, a share called "system" will be automatically created. Inside, two subfolders will be created (docker and libvirt respectively). Each of these folders will contain a loopback image file for each service. Upon adding your first application via Docker, the appdata share will be created (set to cache=only). Upon downloading your first VirtIO driver ISO through the webGui (under Settings -> VM Manager), the isos share will be created (set to cache=no). If you do not need the VirtIO drivers (meaning you are only using Linux-based guest VMs), you will need to manually add the isos share. Upon adding your first VM with a virtual disk, the domains share will be created automatically (set to cache=only). NOTE: If you do NOT have a cache device, you will need to add those three shares manually if you wish to utilize apps or VMs on unRAID. Question: Does this mean that if you have a cache drive it will create the Docker.img and libvert.img even if you don't have docker enabled and don't have any VM's? I'm not sure how I feel about this... This applies on a fresh install of trial, but not on an existing installation. Glad to hear it. Link to comment
Squid Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Is there anyway to have the array start automatically at boot when only running a single parity device? Link to comment
JorgeB Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Can start (and complete) a parity check with 2 missing disks on a dual parity array? Same for single disk missing in a single parity array. Link to comment
jonp Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Can start (and complete) a parity check with 2 missing disks on a dual parity array? Same for single disk missing in a single parity array. Yes, that does a read check. Link to comment
JorgeB Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Is there anyway to have the array start automatically at boot when only running a single parity device? My test server still auto starts with single parity. Link to comment
Squid Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Is there anyway to have the array start automatically at boot when only running a single parity device? My test server still auto starts with single parity. weird then... Doesn't matter. I only installed it to test CA compatibility and have already reverted. I'll wait a couple of Betas to be released before I install onto my production servers Link to comment
soana Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Little hiccup here... During the first boot after installing 6.2beta18 I get the following message: waiting for /dev/disk/by-label/UNRAID (will check for 30sec)... Did check the flash drive but no issues found. Link to comment
JorgeB Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 This may be connected to the earlier bug but in case it isn’t: -New config, create array with single parity (parity1), trust parity and start array -Start a correcting parity check, lots of sync errors like this: Mar 12 00:03:59 Testv6 kernel: md: recovery thread: Q corrected, sector=680 Mar 12 00:03:59 Testv6 kernel: md: recovery thread: Q corrected, sector=688 Mar 12 00:03:59 Testv6 kernel: md: recovery thread: Q corrected, sector=696 Mar 12 00:03:59 Testv6 kernel: md: recovery thread: Q corrected, sector=704 Mar 12 00:03:59 Testv6 kernel: md: recovery thread: Q corrected, sector=712 Mar 12 00:03:59 Testv6 kernel: md: recovery thread: Q corrected, sector=720 Mar 12 00:03:59 Testv6 kernel: md: recovery thread: Q corrected, sector=728 Mar 12 00:03:59 Testv6 kernel: md: recovery thread: Q corrected, sector=736 Mar 12 00:03:59 Testv6 kernel: md: recovery thread: Q corrected, sector=744 Mar 12 00:03:59 Testv6 kernel: md: recovery thread: Q corrected, sector=752 Mar 12 00:03:59 Testv6 kernel: md: recovery thread: Q corrected, sector=760 Mar 12 00:03:59 Testv6 kernel: md: recovery thread: Q corrected, sector=768 Mar 12 00:03:59 Testv6 kernel: md: recovery thread: Q corrected, sector=776 Mar 12 00:03:59 Testv6 kernel: md: recovery thread: Q corrected, sector=784 (I assume these are parity2 sync erros as no correcting writes are done to parity1) -Cancel parity check, start another one and same errors are found again -Stop array, start array, start new parity check and this time no Q parity errors are found Link to comment
CHBMB Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Little hiccup here... During the first boot after installing 6.2beta18 I get the following message: waiting for /dev/disk/by-label/UNRAID (will check for 30sec)... Did check the flash drive but no issues found. That message normally appears, it's checking the USB for the presence of a key file. Link to comment
JorgeB Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Can start (and complete) a parity check with 2 missing disks on a dual parity array? Same for single disk missing in a single parity array. Yes, that does a read check. OK, this could be useful but shouldn’t the “write corrections to parity” check box be disable? Link to comment
soana Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Little hiccup here... During the first boot after installing 6.2beta18 I get the following message: waiting for /dev/disk/by-label/UNRAID (will check for 30sec)... Did check the flash drive but no issues found. That message normally appears, it's checking the USB for the presence of a key file. Narrowed it down to the flash drive, looks like my god old sandisk cruzer did not agree with 6.2 Link to comment
mostlydave Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 I'm very concerned about the total lack of security in the unRAID GUI boot mode, specifically the ability to use the launched FireFox application to browse the internet. Um, then don't boot in that boot mode? Better yet, what do you suggest? This isn't for me, this is for your basic user who doesn't know about security and best practices or the pitfalls of browsing the internet as super-user on a server. I can already see the horror support threads about unknowing consumers' systems being pwned. We talked about marking this "experimental" because that's kinda how it is right now. The main reason for its existence is to handle the case where someone is using their unRaid server as their sole machine, functioning as a NAS as well as running one or more VM's, e.g., a Windows VM. In this config in order to do certain maintenance tasks, such as replacing a disk, it requires array to be stopped, which will stop the VM's. Now there is no browser available to use the webGui to do the maintenance tasks. Sure, the current solution is to use another PC or laptop to bring up the webGui in a browser. But with the console GUI, these tasks can be handled without doing that. Also, having a console GUI eases some initial setup tasks such as configuring a static IP address. Full internet access is enabled because it can be, and lets you do everything you would normally do such as download new releases or update containers, etc. Firefox was chosen because the memory footprint, while still pretty large at around 200MB (including all support libraries), is smaller than what's needed for Chrome. I hope you keep a browser and it has internet access for exactly this reason. Not everyone has a laptop lying around, and for me at least the monitor and keyboard that my server is connected to is also used for the VM and is where I'd prefer to be able to work on something. Keep the internet and make it optional if it's really necessary to lock it down by default, there is such a thing a too secure! Link to comment
sparklyballs Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 I'm very concerned about the total lack of security in the unRAID GUI boot mode, specifically the ability to use the launched FireFox application to browse the internet. Um, then don't boot in that boot mode? Better yet, what do you suggest? This isn't for me, this is for your basic user who doesn't know about security and best practices or the pitfalls of browsing the internet as super-user on a server. I can already see the horror support threads about unknowing consumers' systems being pwned. We talked about marking this "experimental" because that's kinda how it is right now. The main reason for its existence is to handle the case where someone is using their unRaid server as their sole machine, functioning as a NAS as well as running one or more VM's, e.g., a Windows VM. In this config in order to do certain maintenance tasks, such as replacing a disk, it requires array to be stopped, which will stop the VM's. Now there is no browser available to use the webGui to do the maintenance tasks. Sure, the current solution is to use another PC or laptop to bring up the webGui in a browser. But with the console GUI, these tasks can be handled without doing that. Also, having a console GUI eases some initial setup tasks such as configuring a static IP address. Full internet access is enabled because it can be, and lets you do everything you would normally do such as download new releases or update containers, etc. Firefox was chosen because the memory footprint, while still pretty large at around 200MB (including all support libraries), is smaller than what's needed for Chrome. I hope you keep a browser and it has internet access for exactly this reason. Not everyone has a laptop lying around, and for me at least the monitor and keyboard that my server is connected to is also used for the VM and is where I'd prefer to be able to work on something. Keep the internet and make it optional if it's really necessary to lock it down by default, there is such a thing a too secure! having a browser on a nas, what could possibly go wrong Link to comment
BRiT Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 I'm very concerned about the total lack of security in the unRAID GUI boot mode, specifically the ability to use the launched FireFox application to browse the internet. Um, then don't boot in that boot mode? Better yet, what do you suggest? This isn't for me, this is for your basic user who doesn't know about security and best practices or the pitfalls of browsing the internet as super-user on a server. I can already see the horror support threads about unknowing consumers' systems being pwned. We talked about marking this "experimental" because that's kinda how it is right now. The main reason for its existence is to handle the case where someone is using their unRaid server as their sole machine, functioning as a NAS as well as running one or more VM's, e.g., a Windows VM. In this config in order to do certain maintenance tasks, such as replacing a disk, it requires array to be stopped, which will stop the VM's. Now there is no browser available to use the webGui to do the maintenance tasks. Sure, the current solution is to use another PC or laptop to bring up the webGui in a browser. But with the console GUI, these tasks can be handled without doing that. Also, having a console GUI eases some initial setup tasks such as configuring a static IP address. Full internet access is enabled because it can be, and lets you do everything you would normally do such as download new releases or update containers, etc. Firefox was chosen because the memory footprint, while still pretty large at around 200MB (including all support libraries), is smaller than what's needed for Chrome. I hope you keep a browser and it has internet access for exactly this reason. Not everyone has a laptop lying around, and for me at least the monitor and keyboard that my server is connected to is also used for the VM and is where I'd prefer to be able to work on something. Keep the internet and make it optional if it's really necessary to lock it down by default, there is such a thing a too secure! I truly appreciate the graphical ui boot option but security is an absolute must. At least spawn the browser process as a user that has no access to the locally mounted drives, still let the user authenticate as root to the local web ui, but run under a no privileges user and perhaps even chrooted into a virtual loop back image. User nobody would be a bad idea too since the default permissions have all the files owned by that user. Link to comment
BRiT Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 I'm very concerned about the total lack of security in the unRAID GUI boot mode, specifically the ability to use the launched FireFox application to browse the internet. Um, then don't boot in that boot mode? Better yet, what do you suggest? This isn't for me, this is for your basic user who doesn't know about security and best practices or the pitfalls of browsing the internet as super-user on a server. I can already see the horror support threads about unknowing consumers' systems being pwned. We talked about marking this "experimental" because that's kinda how it is right now. The main reason for its existence is to handle the case where someone is using their unRaid server as their sole machine, functioning as a NAS as well as running one or more VM's, e.g., a Windows VM. In this config in order to do certain maintenance tasks, such as replacing a disk, it requires array to be stopped, which will stop the VM's. Now there is no browser available to use the webGui to do the maintenance tasks. Sure, the current solution is to use another PC or laptop to bring up the webGui in a browser. But with the console GUI, these tasks can be handled without doing that. Also, having a console GUI eases some initial setup tasks such as configuring a static IP address. Full internet access is enabled because it can be, and lets you do everything you would normally do such as download new releases or update containers, etc. Firefox was chosen because the memory footprint, while still pretty large at around 200MB (including all support libraries), is smaller than what's needed for Chrome. I hope you keep a browser and it has internet access for exactly this reason. Not everyone has a laptop lying around, and for me at least the monitor and keyboard that my server is connected to is also used for the VM and is where I'd prefer to be able to work on something. Keep the internet and make it optional if it's really necessary to lock it down by default, there is such a thing a too secure! having a browser on a nas, what could possibly go wrong Yup. I can already foresee the horror support threads when someone gets hit by some sort of a CryptoWare virus from the unrestricted web browser on the nas. Link to comment
Recommended Posts