Need help to set up some plugins

[Orosz Arnold]

Hello everyone!
I'm new here and I recently set up my small home server. I'm running FreeNAS 9.3 on a old dual core 2,4 ghz AMD pc with 2 gigs of ram and a 1TB hard drive. Planning to add some other HDDs too. Now I have set up Transmission, Plex and SickRage (I'm having some issues with this one).
What I'd like to do is set up an airprint server to print from my mac and iOS devices. I have an Epson all-in-one usb printer. I tried to set up CUPS but with no luck. I'd like to use the scanner function too, as I need it daily.
The other think I'd like to ask if it's possible to set up usb webcams as surveillance cameras. I didn't really found anything related to this.
If someone would be so kind to make a step-by-step , detailed guide, I'd really appreciate that.

 

[depasseg]

Your post is funny. It makes me laugh.

 

[gpsguy]

Please read the documentation. With just 1/4 of the minimum RAM requirements for version 9.3 you are bound to run into problems.

See - doc.freenas.org. If a PDF is more convenient, see the link in my signature.


Sent from my phone

 

[danb35]

...and on the off chance you aren't just trolling... @Orosz Arnold, your hardware is entirely inadequate to run FreeNAS 9.3. The minimum RAM spec is 8 GB, and if you want to run Plex, you should really plan on 16 GB. Once you correct that, we can talk about the other things you want to work on.

 

[Orosz Arnold]

Oh, I understand...
Transmission and Plex are running without problems. I don't know why I need that much ram. I'm the only one who uses it, but just for downloading moovies and watching them, maybe some time machine backups. I started off with my old PC because that was all I had at home and didn't wanted to invest in something just to try out freenas.
But if You guys tell me that this is the problem, I'll upgrade it.

 

[pirateghost]

Why do I need so much RAM?

ZFS

 

[danb35]

To be clear, any problems you're having with plugins may or may not have anything to do with your RAM. The problem with your RAM is that FreeNAS 9.3 requires a minimum of 8 GB for safe and efficient operation. You may find that it works fine for you, for some period of time, on less than that. You may also wake up one morning and find that you've lost your pool, and none of us will be able to help you get your data back. In addition to that, Plex is very resource-hungry.

To your other questions: I've seen some discussion about installing CUPS, and my memory is that it's problematic in a FreeNAS jail. Here is a thread describing some problems with it, but here is a thread purporting to give a how-to.

For webcam monitoring, the closest thing to a native package that I know of is Zoneminder; a search here will find some threads about it. I know it works with network cameras, but I'm not sure about USB. Another option would be to create a VirtualBox jail, and inside that jail create a Windows VM. You could then install whatever software you wanted under Windows.

 

[Orosz Arnold]

Now it's a lot more clear. So if I understand it correctly, if I don't have at least 8GB RAM than my server isn't quite safe and I might lose my data.
Also thanks for the other answers, I previously tried to follow some tutorials but some steps weren't clear enough. I'll give it a try again.

 

[cyberjock]

So let me ask these questions (these are not personal attacks.. i'm curious)

Does the reason why we have the limit really matter?

Shouldn't the fact that we recommend a given amount of RAM as the minimum be enough?

If it is not enough, why wasn't it enough?

If we recommend 64GB of RAM minimum, why would/should someone think they can have less than that? Isn't the fact that we recommend a minimum be enough to convince any builder that they don't "know better" than the people that made the OS?

Microsoft claims "You need 512MB of RAM minimum for Windows 7". Everyone knows you are a moron if you try to run with as little as Windows recommends, right? Even 1GB is probably cutting it short, right? So why is the opposite logic appropriate for this situation?

I'm asking not to scald you. But too many people ignore all of our hard work and recommendations on the basis of things like "I don't need that much" with no good justification or things like "I don't plan to stress the system". To me (as one of the people that have helped come up with that minimum amount of RAM) the reason we chose it should not matter one iota.

My logic, if I started reading about some new OS or program that listed a minimum requirement, is that if I thought I could get by with less I'd absolutely read up and see if I truly could versus just assuming something like "I know better" or some other justification to save some cash. I always assume that the professional that wrote the manual knows better than me and my limited experienece with some new OS or program. If I read 8GB of RAM and I had only 4GB, I'd start doing lots of research on whether what I'm doing is safe or if I'm a total fool and about to find out the consequences of ignoring the manual. In this case though, if you read anything on these forums about having less than 8Gb of RAM, you'd learn fast that the system is unstable, unreliable, and has been known to destroy pools for an unknown reason when insufficient RAM is used.

I just want people to be 100% clear when they read the recommendations that ignoring the recommendations for reasons like "because I know better" and "because I don't plan to stress the system" are not acceptable. Especially if this data has any value to you. Clearly it is not 100% clear...

 

[Orosz Arnold]

You're absolutely right. There's no way that I'd know better. The only problem is I wasn't documented enough.
Even though the data that I'm storing on the server is not important at all, I should definitely upgrade the RAM because, for sure, no one would like if the server would just stop working.

 

[mattbbpl]

So let me ask these questions (these are not personal attacks.. i'm curious)

Does the reason why we have the limit really matter?

Shouldn't the fact that we recommend a given amount of RAM as the minimum be enough?

If it is not enough, why wasn't it enough?

If we recommend 64GB of RAM minimum, why would/should someone think they can have less than that? Isn't the fact that we recommend a minimum be enough to convince any builder that they don't "know better" than the people that made the OS?

Microsoft claims "You need 512MB of RAM minimum for Windows 7". Everyone knows you are a moron if you try to run with as little as Windows recommends, right? Even 1GB is probably cutting it short, right? So why is the opposite logic appropriate for this situation?

I'm asking not to scald you. But too many people ignore all of our hard work and recommendations on the basis of things like "I don't need that much" with no good justification or things like "I don't plan to stress the system". To me (as one of the people that have helped come up with that minimum amount of RAM) the reason we chose it should not matter one iota.

My logic, if I started reading about some new OS or program that listed a minimum requirement, is that if I thought I could get by with less I'd absolutely read up and see if I truly could versus just assuming something like "I know better" or some other justification to save some cash. I always assume that the professional that wrote the manual knows better than me and my limited experienece with some new OS or program. If I read 8GB of RAM and I had only 4GB, I'd start doing lots of research on whether what I'm doing is safe or if I'm a total fool and about to find out the consequences of ignoring the manual. In this case though, if you read anything on these forums about having less than 8Gb of RAM, you'd learn fast that the system is unstable, unreliable, and has been known to destroy pools for an unknown reason when insufficient RAM is used.

I just want people to be 100% clear when they read the recommendations that ignoring the recommendations for reasons like "because I know better" and "because I don't plan to stress the system" are not acceptable. Especially if this data has any value to you. Clearly it is not 100% clear...

According to my experience with other applications, most people have become completely detached from minimum requirements. We live in an era in which most people buy operating systems that are preinstalled on prebuilt machines/devices, and unless you're playing compute intensive games or doing some intensive professional work such as video editing or 3D modeling you simply don't have to worry about minimum requirements for applications in most cases. They simply work on anything resembling modern hardware.

So when people see something like, "8 GB of RAM" as a minimum, they balk - and that's if they happen to read the minimum requirements to begin with. And if they get to the part of ECC RAM being a requirement, their eyes are likely to glaze over because they are completely unfamiliar with it. It leads people to conclusions like "they're just being extra cautious with the requirements" and "I don't understand what this is, but everything else 'just works' with what I have so I guess I'm good."