SABnzbd Forums

I'm getting this warning message in Sabnzbd 4.2.1:

Network path "z:\Temp\Incomplete" should not be used here
To prevent all helpful warnings, disable Special setting 'helpful_warnings'.

Well, this is not a "helpful" warning, as I have no idea why z:\Temp\Incomplete should not be by temporary folder.

I have also tried to disable the warning by turning helpful_warnings off in special settings and restarting Sabnzbd,
but the warning persists (I've checked twice, helpful_warnings setting is set to off).

Because it's a network path, and network paths are generally (99% of cases) not fast enough to support the higher load of simultaneous reads/writes that is performed on the incomplete path.
This warning is there to prevent users from indicating that their SABnzbd performance is slower than they expect.

You are indeed right that disabling helpful_warnings doesn't work here. It seems that the network-check is performed before we read the helpful_warnings config value.
I will fix that for 4.2.2.

The OP is correct, the message should say why it shouldn't be used.

In my case, sabnzbd runs on a VM and the network path is on its hypervisor - there's been no performance issue, so I don't need to see that warning, but I might want to see other helpful warnings and so I'm stuck with either seeing this misleading warning message or not seeing any helpful warnings.

Your situation is not a regular one, for the vast majority of the users that set a network path it will actually hurt their performance.
And then they come to complain on forums/Reddit/Discord.
The message just says "should not", it doesn't block it.

safihre wrote: ↑January 10th, 2024, 10:24 am Because it's a network path, and network paths are generally (99% of cases) not fast enough to support the higher load of simultaneous reads/writes that is performed on the incomplete path.
This warning is there to prevent users from indicating that their SABnzbd performance is slower than they expect.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this advice does not apply to the following situation:
Running unraid and windows VMs on Proxmox server,
Using a 1 TB nvme cache Drive for the unraid array (which is exposed as a SMB server)
Running sabnzbd in the windows VM and using the unraid array as a network attached storage for Sab nzbd.

I believe this architecture will provide sufficient speed, but again please correct me if I'm wrong.

You might be the 1%.

You can check with the usual method via SABnzbd -> Wrench symbol:

While SABnzbd is NOT doing/downloading anything: In SABnzbd's upper right corner, click on the wrench symbol ("Status and interface options"), then click on first tab Status, and there click on the Refresh Arrow. Post the values of the lower part here (system speed, disk speed, Internet speed, etc)

If they are high & good ... good for you!

As long as you don't get "Download speed limited by Disk Nx" you're good too.

Here are my results:

Used cache 0 B (0 articles)
System performance (Pystone) 425867 QEMU Virtual CPU version 2.5+ SSSE3
Download folder speed 627.8 MB/s S:\media\incomplete
Complete folder speed 623 MB/s S:\media
Internet Bandwidth 66.94 MB/s 535.52 Mbps

sbbaud wrote: ↑August 4th, 2024, 5:08 pm Here are my results:

Used cache 0 B (0 articles)
System performance (Pystone) 425867 QEMU Virtual CPU version 2.5+ SSSE3
Download folder speed 627.8 MB/s S:\media\incomplete
Complete folder speed 623 MB/s S:\media
Internet Bandwidth 66.94 MB/s 535.52 Mbps

Wow, nice setup.

So you're in the 1%: fast NAS setup. Faster disk speeds than Internet speed.

Unlike the 99% of the user using a NAS setup where the disk speed of the NAS (across the LAN) is a bottleneck.

sander wrote: ↑August 4th, 2024, 5:28 pm

sbbaud wrote: ↑August 4th, 2024, 5:08 pm Here are my results:

Used cache 0 B (0 articles)
System performance (Pystone) 425867 QEMU Virtual CPU version 2.5+ SSSE3
Download folder speed 627.8 MB/s S:\media\incomplete
Complete folder speed 623 MB/s S:\media
Internet Bandwidth 66.94 MB/s 535.52 Mbps

Wow, nice setup.

So you're in the 1%: fast NAS setup. Faster disk speeds than Internet speed.

Unlike the 99% of the user using a NAS setup where the disk speed of the NAS (across the LAN) is a bottleneck.

Thanks. This is a new setup, and I haven't used Proxmox or unraid before. It sounded like it should work, so I'm glad it does.

Wow, Really a nice setup??

umaima_azam wrote: ↑August 6th, 2024, 4:35 pm Wow, Really a nice setup??

By the way, since both Sab and unraid are installed as VMs in proxmox, that means they are both running on the same physical hardware. So while there is some network software overhead involved because it's still a SMB connection, I'm sure you wouldn't get the same speeds if the downloads were actually having to travel over an ethernet cable. In other words, I think the key to the speed is the both the fact they are running on the same physical hardware and the use of an nvme drive as the unraid cache.

Ah, now I understand your setup: it's all within one physical machine?

Now I understand your "627.8 MB/s S:\media\incomplete": it's not across an ethernet wire.

Still: impressive speed with all those layers: VM, Proxmox, unraid, SMB.

sander wrote: ↑August 7th, 2024, 12:23 am Ah, now I understand your setup: it's all within one physical machine?

Now I understand your "627.8 MB/s S:\media\incomplete": it's not across an ethernet wire.

Still: impressive speed with all those layers: VM, Proxmox, unraid, SMB.

Right. Of course the unraid SMB server is also exposed to other machines on my LAN.

Here is the now discontinued minisforum em680 machine I'm using.  https://store.minisforum.com/products/m ... 4823359733