Jump to content
  • Unraid OS version 6.7.0-rc7 available


    limetech

    Another kernel update, more base package updates, bug fixes.

     

    Version 6.7.0-rc7 2019-04-03

    Base distro:

    • aaa_elflibs: version 15.0
    • curl: version 7.64.1
    • gnutls: version 3.6.7
    • harfbuzz: version 2.4.0
    • icu4c: version 64.1
    • iproute2: version 5.0.0
    • iputils: version 20190324
    • kernel-firmware: version 20190402_67b7579
    • libedit: version 20190324_3.1
    • libssh2: version 1.8.2
    • lsscsi: version 0.30
    • mkfontscale: version 1.2.1
    • nano: version 4.0
    • shadow: version 4.6
    • shared-mime-info: version 1.12
    • sqlite: version 3.27.2
    • talloc: version 2.2.0
    • tdb: version 1.4.0
    • tevent: version 0.10.0
    • wget: version 1.20.2
    • xfsprogs: version 4.20.0

    Linux kernel:

    • version: 4.19.33

    Management:

    • rc.nginx: eliminate unnecessary 10 sec delays
    • webgui: Dashboard: add settings shortcuts
    • webgui: Docker: Add More Info link (docker registry) to context menus
    • webgui: Updated jquery cookie script from 1.3.1 to 1.4.1
    • webgui: Keep status visible for paused array operations


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    After a couple days now on RC7 updated from RC6 everything looks ok. No errors on my side. DNS issues like on RC6 didn't show up again. For those how have issues and having network issues, check your bridge settings. For me removing a unused bridge that I had added for testing caused the issue und RC6. 

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I see nothing that was suggested at this point. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    3 minutes ago, eagle470 said:

    I see nothing that was suggested at this point. 

    The suggestion is in the CA screenshot you posted.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Having DNS issues on this release, reverted back and all is well.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    3 hours ago, crazybits said:

    Having DNS issues on this release, reverted back and all is well.

    What kind of DNS issues?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Clean upgrade from rc6, no issues thus far and the rc series has been pretty painless for me.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On my system, no DNS servers could be contacted. I tried: OpenDNS, Google DNS, Comodo, Cloudflare. None of it worked. I attached diagnostics and images of the issue.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    41 minutes ago, eagle470 said:

    On my system, no DNS servers could be contacted. I tried: OpenDNS, Google DNS, Comodo, Cloudflare. None of it worked. I attached diagnostics and images of the issue.

    You have configured two interfaces eth0 and eth1 in the same network. This is not recommended as it may give asymmetric traffic flows, something your firewall will block.

     

    It you want redundancy, change enable bonding for interface eth0 and add eth1 as a member.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    First, I only have one NIC, second, I’m not sure how I would have done what you’re saying or how I would undo it...

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    On 4/8/2019 at 5:46 PM, eagle470 said:

    I'm getting some DNS errors that don't make sense. Uploaded logs. System claims to not find DNS, DNS is google and I'm not blocking it. Not sure what the deal is.

    953998504_2019-04-0810_38_36-Tower_ManagementAccess.png.ea5bbfa880f10701abce7dff51b0acc2.png

    tower-diagnostics-20190408-1542.zip

     

    2 minutes ago, eagle470 said:

    First, I only have one NIC, second, I’m not sure how I would have done what you’re saying or how I would undo it...

    Your diagnostics tell otherwise.

    # Generated settings:
    IFNAME[0]="eth0"
    PROTOCOL[0]="ipv4"
    USE_DHCP[0]="no"
    IPADDR[0]="10.10.1.233"
    NETMASK[0]="255.255.255.0"
    GATEWAY[0]="10.10.1.1"
    DNS_SERVER1="10.10.1.1"
    DNS_SERVER2="8.8.4.4"
    DNS_SERVER3="8.8.8.8"
    USE_DHCP6[0]="yes"
    DHCP6_KEEPRESOLV="no"
    IFNAME[1]="eth1"
    PROTOCOL[1]="ipv4"
    USE_DHCP[1]="no"
    IPADDR[1]="10.10.1.234"
    NETMASK[1]="255.255.255.0"
    GATEWAY[1]="10.10.1.1"
    SYSNICS="2"

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hello,

     

    seems like you are still using "old msg" - the "No" is not present anymore in settings....there are 4 other choices

     

    Warning: Your system has booted with the PCIe ACS Override setting enabled. The below list doesn't not reflect the way IOMMU would naturally group devices.
    To see natural IOMMU groups for your hardware, go to the VM Settings page and set the PCIe ACS Override setting to No.

    image.thumb.png.8991e4a67b61a3078548fc09ece233d2.png

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    On 4/13/2019 at 1:50 PM, bonienl said:

     

    Your diagnostics tell otherwise.

    
    # Generated settings:
    IFNAME[0]="eth0"
    PROTOCOL[0]="ipv4"
    USE_DHCP[0]="no"
    IPADDR[0]="10.10.1.233"
    NETMASK[0]="255.255.255.0"
    GATEWAY[0]="10.10.1.1"
    DNS_SERVER1="10.10.1.1"
    DNS_SERVER2="8.8.4.4"
    DNS_SERVER3="8.8.8.8"
    USE_DHCP6[0]="yes"
    DHCP6_KEEPRESOLV="no"
    IFNAME[1]="eth1"
    PROTOCOL[1]="ipv4"
    USE_DHCP[1]="no"
    IPADDR[1]="10.10.1.234"
    NETMASK[1]="255.255.255.0"
    GATEWAY[1]="10.10.1.1"
    SYSNICS="2"

     

    OK, so at one point I had a tyan motherboard with two NIC's on it. I've moved to a different hardware set (AMD) and no longer have this. I can find instructions for removing this ghost NIC in Cent, but they don't seem to apply to unRAID. Please advise. Thank  you

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Delete config/network.cfg from your flash and reboot to get default network settings.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    2 hours ago, trurl said:

    Delete config/network.cfg from your flash and reboot to get default network settings.

    I just edited the config file to remove eth1 and it's config. That should solve it after the reboot.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    46 minutes ago, eagle470 said:

    I just edited the config file to remove eth1 and it's config. That should solve it after the reboot.

    The preferred way to edit would be to go to Settings - Network Settings, but I suggested deleting to get to default as a way to reset before editing.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    1 hour ago, trurl said:

    The preferred way to edit would be to go to Settings - Network Settings, but I suggested deleting to get to default as a way to reset before editing.

    The second NIC was not available for editing and I've always hated the "start from scratch" default answer. I've seen no negative reprocussions from my manual edits after rebooting.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Any update on the official release of 6.7.0 ? or will there be an rc8 ?

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    On 4/23/2019 at 10:00 AM, starbetrayer said:

    Any update on the official release of 6.7.0 ? or will there be an rc8 ?

    It looks pretty stable to me. 

     

    Please update your requirements website telling some details when running 2GB of RAM vs 4GB. 

    It's not an issue, but it's nice if someone testing knows the difference and doesn't get alerted when things don't work properly. Good Story, I'm using unRaid at my job, I started with 2gb with a test server and after giving 4GB it works as supposed to. But my boss was looking like it was false advertisement. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    34 minutes ago, gacpac said:

     I started with 2gb with a test server and after giving 4GB it works as supposed to. But my boss was looking like it was false advertisement. 

    You didn't attach diagnostics, nor cite any specific things that didn't work. Only false advertising is your post. I run 2gb just fine, prove me wrong.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    37 minutes ago, Lev said:

    You didn't attach diagnostics, nor cite any specific things that didn't work. Only false advertising is your post. I run 2gb just fine, prove me wrong.

    The one thing that seems to frequently fail on a 2GB system is trying to do an OS update via the GUI.    This can fail if there is not enough free RAM to unpack the new release into RAM before writing the new release to the USB stick.   The workaround in such a case is to use the manual update method.

     

    The basic NAS functionality seems to work without issue on a 2GB system.

    • Like 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    the question is WHY is there to less RAM?

     

    Unraid itself wont use 2gb ram. But if you install 109231823912839 dockers and plugins... 

     

    Its like windows can also run with core 2 duo 0,8ghz and 500mb ram (what ever) but not good and not all programs work.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hello @limetechDocker updates should be renamed the wording is odd and makes it seem as its already "updated" maybe Update now or Update Available like in previous versions of unRAID.

    see screenshot
     

    Screen Shot 2019-04-25 at 8.09.00 PM.png

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    8 hours ago, Can0nfan said:

    makes it seem as its already "updated"

    Well, from one perspective it is already updated. It's been updated at the source, and the update is ready to apply to your server.

     

    I agree it's clumsy, but it does parse.

     

    "Newer version available" Says the same thing, but wordier. Space is at a premium on that page, so I don't know what is better.

     

    I guess the question is, did it make you aware there was an update that needed to be applied?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Perhaps the options reading something like:

    - update ready  (instead of ‘updated’)

    - apply update  (instead of ‘update ready’)

    would be clearer and  less likely to lead to confusion (and not take up more space)?

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 3

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Guest
    This is now closed for further comments

  • Status Definitions

     

    Open = Under consideration.

     

    Solved = The issue has been resolved.

     

    Solved version = The issue has been resolved in the indicated release version.

     

    Closed = Feedback or opinion better posted on our forum for discussion. Also for reports we cannot reproduce or need more information. In this case just add a comment and we will review it again.

     

    Retest = Please retest in latest release.


    Priority Definitions

     

    Minor = Something not working correctly.

     

    Urgent = Server crash, data loss, or other showstopper.

     

    Annoyance = Doesn't affect functionality but should be fixed.

     

    Other = Announcement or other non-issue.