Jump to content
  • Unraid OS version 6.8 Release Plan


    limetech

    tldr: If you require hardware support offered by the Linux 5.x kernel then I suggest you remain on 6.8.0-rc7 and wait until 6.9.0-rc1 is published before upgrading.

     

    The "unexpected GSO type" bug is looking to be a show stopper for Unraid 6.8 using Linux kernel 5.3 or 5.4 kernel.  We can get it to happen easily and quickly simply by having any VM running and then also start a docker App where Network Type has been set to "Custom : br0" (in my case) and I've set a static IP for the container or toggle between setting static IP and letting docker dhcp assign one.  There are probably a lot of users waiting for a stable release who will see this issue, and therefore, I don't think we can publish with this bug.

     

    The bug does not occur with any 4.19.x or 4.20.x Linux kernel; but does occur with all kernels starting with 5.0.  This implies the bug was introduced with some code change in the initial 5.0 kernel.  The problem is that we are not certain where to report the bug; it could be a kernel issue or a docker issue.  Of course, it could also be something we are doing wrong, since this issue is not reported in any other distro AFAIK.  We are continuing investigation and putting together a report to submit either to kernel mailing list or as a docker issue.

     

    In any case, an actual fix will probably take quite a bit more time, especially since we are heading into the holidays.  Therefore this is what we plan to do:

     

    For 6.8: revert kernel to 4.19.87 and publish 6.8.0-rc8.  Those currently running stable (6.7.2) will see no loss of functionality because that release is also on 4.19 kernel.  Hopefully this will be last or next to last -rc and then we can publish 6.8 stable.  Note: we cannot revert to 4.20 kernel because that kernel is EOL and has not had any updates in months.

     

    For 6.9: as soon as 6.8 stable is published we'll release 6.9.0-rc1 on next release branch.  This will be exactly the same as 6.8 except that we'll update to latest 5.4 kernel (and "unexpected GSO type" bug will be back).  We will use the next branch to try and solve this bug.

     

    New features, such as multiple pools, will be integrated into 6.10 release, which is current work-in-progress.

     

    We'll wait a day or two to publish 6.8-rc8 with reverted kernel in hopes those affected will see this post first.

    • Like 10
    • Thanks 6


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Personally, I am not affected (not using VMs here), but that sounds like a good way forwards.

    Edited by S80_UK
    • Like 2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    If we're not using VMs, should we stay the course with rc7 until 6.9.0-rc1 is out?

    • Like 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The bug linked is still classified as minor but is a showstopper?  😛

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    58 minutes ago, danull said:

    The bug linked is still classified as minor but is a showstopper?  😛

    Worked the last 4 days to resolve this so sure should be Urgent but as soon as kernel reverted it's back to minor - those classifications are something like the Pirate Code anyway.

    • Haha 4

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Will we be getting an option to limit size of shares? A lot of us would very much like that :) Thank you. 

    Share this comment


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

    Will we be getting an option to limit size of shares? A lot of us would very much like that :) Thank you. 

    Not in 6.8.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    What about 6.9 or 6.10? :) And when do you think it could be? One month or a few?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    5 minutes ago, Arandomdood said:

    What about 6.9 or 6.10? :) And when do you think it could be? One month or a few?

    I dunno - not even on radar because lots of other features are ahead of it, unless someone comes out with a real compelling need vs want.  This is the wrong place to discuss this, please post in Feature Requests.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    It's interesting that there is also the kernel panic issue when setting docker containers to br0 with a custom IP address with certain hardware. This is happening to me on stable (v6.7.2) currently.

     

    It seems that the custom IP address functionality of docker containers on br0 introduces a lot of unexpected issues in general.

    Edited by PixelDJ
    • Like 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    @limetech: why 6.9.0-rc1 and not 6.8.1-rc1?

    I think it will create some complication if you will roll out 6.8.1 in the future and confuse everyone who needs 5.x kernel and is on 6.9.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    18 minutes ago, testdasi said:

    @limetech: why 6.9.0-rc1 and not 6.8.1-rc1?

    I think it will create some complication if you will roll out 6.8.1 in the future and confuse everyone who needs 5.x kernel and is on 6.9.

    We're trying to follow <major>.<minor>.<patch>[-rc<number>] in the traditional sense, meaning once an -rc1 has been published, no new features (though one person's bug fix is another person's feature).  There has been much weeping and gnashing of teeth in the past when we diverge from this "tradition".

     

    Anyway, once 6.8 stable is released, 6.8.1, 6.8.2, etc. will only be bug fixes and/or security updates.  We will keep it on 4.19 kernel.

     

    After first releasing 6.8 stable we'll then release 6.9.0-rc1, which will be the same as 6.8 except for updating kernel.  In particular no new features.  Eventually a 6.9.0-rcX will come along where a fix for "unexpected GSO type" is available, and at that time, after a period of testing, we'll publish that as the new stable.  Also, there are a couple out-of-tree drivers which don't yet compile with 5.4 kernel - those too will probably appear in a 6.9.0-rc release.  So unfortunately for us, we will be maintaining 2 code branches until this is sorted.

     

    We considered taking the current code base, revert kernel back to 4.19, and call that "6.7.3" - but that is too radical for some (refer to first paragraph).  Others will gripe, "hey you said multi-pool support would be in 6.9" but that is unavoidable.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Damn, will have to wait longer to get back the "CPU temp" and other temps working on Ryzen 3000 series (x570 boards) :( . but good idea to not release as "stable" when knowing it's not stable :)

    Share this comment


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

    "hey you said multi-pool support would be in 6.9" but that is unavoidable.

    Hey!.... I can wait. You all are awesome to the max.

    • Like 3

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    All makes good sense, thank you. For those of us running 6.8.0-rc7 with no problems (I used a second NIC for VMs), what would you advise? Sticking with rc7 and waiting for 6.9.0-rc1? I don’t need v5 of the kernel for my hardware so I’m not sure which is the best decision?

    Edited by Lignumaqua

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    13 hours ago, Lignumaqua said:

    All makes good sense, thank you. For those of us running 6.8.0-rc7 with no problems (I used a second NIC for VMs), what would you advise? Sticking with rc7 and waiting for 6.9.0-rc1? I don’t need v5 of the kernel for my hardware so I’m not sure which is the best decision?

    Good question.  If it works for you I'd stick with -rc7.  You could update and if something is broke, restore 'previous' OS version.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Thanks for all the work you guys are doing.  I think it's for the best to move forward like this.  I know you mentioned that new features will be in 6.10 does that also include Wireguard?  

     

    Thanks!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    19 minutes ago, GreenEyedMonster said:

    Thanks for all the work you guys are doing.  I think it's for the best to move forward like this.  I know you mentioned that new features will be in 6.10 does that also include Wireguard?  

     

    Thanks!

    Unraid's wireguard support can only get better, Linux kernel will have this in either 5.5 or 5.6 at latest.

     

    https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=WireGuard-Possible-Linux-5.5

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    4 minutes ago, Dazog said:

    Unraid's wireguard support can only get better, Linux kernel will have this in either 5.5 or 5.6 at latest.

     

    https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=WireGuard-Possible-Linux-5.5

    Yes, but do we have to wait till 6.10 or 6.8.  :) I know they will do what is best but for UnRaid in the long term so I just want to know if I should spin up a vm or not. :)

    Share this comment


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

    Yes, but do we have to wait till 6.10 or 6.8.  :) I know they will do what is best but for UnRaid in the long term so I just want to know if I should spin up a vm or not. :)

    Unraid has added wireguard themselves.

     

    It isn't going away with any release.

    It will just get fixes and be better tested by everyone when it's mainlined in the kernel and multiple distro's start offering it.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Sorry, I'm not a very technical person in regards to servers. I have an Unraid machine for basic file storage and Plex but nothing more than that. I am currently running 6.8rc7. I have no issues currently. Should I just stay where I am or upgrade? If I stay where I am, what version should I wait for to start updating again?

     

    Thanks.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    2 minutes ago, rctneil said:

    Sorry, I'm not a very technical person in regards to servers. I have an Unraid machine for basic file storage and Plex but nothing more than that. I am currently running 6.8rc7. I have no issues currently. Should I just stay where I am or upgrade? If I stay where I am, what version should I wait for to start updating again?

     

    Thanks.

     

    If you are running -rc's then you should keep up.  If something breaks for you, then you can roll back to 'previous'.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    14 hours ago, rctneil said:

    Sorry, I'm not a very technical person in regards to servers. I have an Unraid machine for basic file storage and Plex but nothing more than that. I am currently running 6.8rc7. I have no issues currently. Should I just stay where I am or upgrade? If I stay where I am, what version should I wait for to start updating again?

     

    Thanks.

    I'm on 6.8.0-rc8. I have dockers/VM's running without issues. I would also like to know if its OK for me to upgrade or to wait till what version?

    (edit) Thanks for above response

    Edited by XiuzSu

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 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.