this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024
88 points (90.0% liked)

Selfhosted

40152 readers
573 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
  • Unraid is switching to annual subscription pricing, offering Starter, Unleashed, and Lifetime licenses with optional extension fees for updates.
  • Existing Basic, Plus, and Pro licenses can be upgraded to higher levels of perpetual licenses.
  • This change may increase revenue for Lime Technology but could also make other NAS providers more appealing to users.

Archive link: https://archive.ph/YCFoR

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 16 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (20 children)

I'm sure there are reasons for using Unraid but the original funky raid alternative they marketed has always struck me as extremely fishy. The kind of solution developed by folks who didn't know enough about the best practices in storage and decided to roll their own. I guess people like web interfaces too. Personally I'd never use it. Get Debian Stable or Ubuntu LTS, learn some Docker, Ansible and Prometheus, deploy and never touch until you break it or the hardware breaks. Throw Webmin on it if you like dancing bears too.

[–] Hiko0@feddit.de 23 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Not everyone interested in self-hosting stuff has the time or is even interested in diving much deeper into it than necessary. That‘s why QNAP and Synology also offer value to homelabers.

Coming from Synology, where I had learned much about docker and CLI, Unraid was the perfect next step for me to get rid of my Sonology‘s shortcomings. And I figure, it won‘t need anything beyond that in the future for me. I‘ve been successfully running quite a lot of services for the whole family being supported by a sufficient GUI and very limited need for CLI.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Yeah, I guess that's the niche. I would still not trust their homegrown raid scheme though. Making storage systems that don't eat data is hard. Making it without bugs is impossible. Bugs are found by having someone's data eaten and fixed over time scaled by the size of the userbase. As a result industry standard systems like mdraid, LVM, ZFS, and more recently Btrfs used in data centers and production applications are statistically guaranteed to eat less data than Unraid's homegrown solution. I've heard it now supports those systems too so if I had to use Unraid, I'd probably be using ZFS for the storage.

[–] Hiko0@feddit.de 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It‘s no RAID. Therefore the name. Unraid shows single shares and has different options for filling up drives. So you can access each individual drive via GUI or CLI, however in its functions as a NAS it only shows combined shares. Underneath you got Btrfs, XFS or ZFS as options.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago

I think their scheme does fall under the RAID definition. I don't think being able to access individual drives is something that distinguishes RAID from not-RAID since there are standard RAID schemes in which you can access the data in individual drives.

load more comments (16 replies)