Unraid OS version 6.9.0-beta22 available

Quote

Each language pack exists in public Unraid organization github repos.  Interested users are encouraged to clone and issue Pull Requests to correct translations errors.  Language translations and PR merging is managed by @SpencerJ.

FYI- If you have been given a sneak peek of these betas beforehand for multi-language support testing, you will need to uninstall/reinstall the language packs for them to work properly as we have moved the language repo XML files.

A couple of comments:

 

Community Applications HAS to be up to date to install languages.  Versions of CA prior to 2020.05.12 will not even load on this release.  As of this writing, the current version of CA is 2020.06.13a.  See also here

 

Quote

webgui: Allow duplicate containers different icons

This change necessitates a re-download of the icons for all your installed docker applications.  A delay when initially loading either the dashboard or the docker tab while this happens is to be expected prior to the containers showing up.

10 minutes ago, Squid said:

A couple of comments:

Incorporated your comments into OP since OP will eventually become stable release Announce post.

And I should mention also that the multi cache pool feature really kicks ass ❤

23 minutes ago, Squid said:

And I should mention also that the multi cache pool feature really kicks ass ❤

A collaborative effort with @bonienl

23 minutes ago, Squid said:

And I should mention also that the multi cache pool feature really kicks ass ❤

And I just added an M.2 drive just so I could play with this.

WHOA BUNDY!!

27 minutes ago, trurl said:

And I just added an M.2 drive just so I could play with this.

I've got x3 of those on my motherboard.  The slots are physically labeled M2_1, M2_2, M2_3.  I put these in a x3 device btrfs pool.  We have some fairly strict naming conventions on pools so I named it "m2_" and this makes it get displayed pretty close to how the slots are actually labeled.  I use this pool to store 'domains' share (vdisk images).

 

Am I correct in assuming these pools will NOT have parity support like the current array does?

4 minutes ago, The_Mountain said:

Am I correct in assuming these pools will NOT have parity support like the current array does?

Correct.  A pool is simply a collection of storage devices.  If you assign multiple devices to a pool it will be formatted using btrfs 'raid1' profile which means there is protection against any single device failure in the pool.

 

In future we plan on letting you create multiple "unRAID" pools, where each pool would have it's own parity/parity2 and collection of storage volumes - but that feature did not make this release.

 

edit: fixed typos

2 minutes ago, limetech said:

Correct.  A pool is simply a collection of storage devices.  If you assign multiple devices to a pool it will be formatted using btrfs 'raid1' profile which means there is protection against any single device failure in the pool.

 

In future we plan on letting you create multiple "unRAID" pools, where each pool would have it's own parity/parit2 and collection of storage volumes - but that feature did not make this release.

Will there be other options besides raid1? raid0? raid10?  

FYI, I am excited for the new changes and TYVM for the replies. 

3 minutes ago, The_Mountain said:

Will there be other options besides raid1? raid0? raid10? 

For the pool devices you have the option to select SINGLE, RAID0, RAID1, RAID10, RAID5 and RAID6

Some of the above options are only selectable when enough devices exist in the pool to support the mode.

4 minutes ago, bonienl said:

For the pool devices you have the option to select SINGLE, RAID0, RAID1, RAID10, RAID5 and RAID6

Some of the above options are only selectable when enough devices exist in the pool to support the mode.

 

Note that RAID1 in btrfs is not strict definition of raid1, aka, mirroring.  All that it means is that each storage block has a copy on another device.  Hence you can have an odd number of devices in a btrfs RAID1 pool.

49 minutes ago, limetech said:

I've got x3 of those on my motherboard.  The slots are physically labeled M2_1, M2_2, M2_3.  I put these in a x3 device btrfs pool.  We have some fairly strict naming conventions on pools so I named it "m2_" and this makes it get displayed pretty close to how the slots are actually labeled.  I use this pool to store 'domains' share (vdisk images).

 

I only have one, so I have just named the pool "fast". Since there is no redundancy, I am thinking about putting appdata and system shares there since these are already backed up with the CA Backup plugin.

When you move shares then make sure, that in the corresponding share settings the correct “pool” is set too.

As far as the built in gpu drivers go...If I have 2 video cards like 2x P2000s and I want to use one for docker transcoding and one for a VM.  Is that not possible with this approach?

1 minute ago, sittingmongoose said:

As far as the built in gpu drivers go...If I have 2 video cards like 2x P2000s and I want to use one for docker transcoding and one for a VM.  Is that not possible with this approach?

As long as they are in different IOMMU groups it will be possible (but not this release since we haven't built-in the GPU drivers yet).

Is there any plan to fix the "unneccessary writes to cache symptom"? Or is it already fixed?

Edited June 17, 2020 by nuhll

12 minutes ago, nuhll said:

Is there any plan to fix the "unneccessary writes to cache symptom"? Or is it already fixed?

Please post a link.  I looked at this briefly a while ago and I think it's an anomaly of how write counts are reported.

2 minutes ago, limetech said:

Please post a link.  I looked at this briefly a while ago and I think it's an anomaly of how write counts are reported.

Oh? Okay... because i didnt saw an answer after you initially answered it.

 

 

Added more text in OP:

 

"Something else to be aware of: Let's say you have a 2-device btrfs pool. This will be what btrfs calls "raid1" and what most people would understand to be "mirrored disks". Well this is mostly true in that the same data exists on both disks but not necessarily at the block-level.  Now let's say you create another pool, and what you do is unassign one of the devices from the existing 2-device btrfs pool and assign it to this pool.  Now you have x2 1-device btrfs pools.  Upon array Start user might understandably assume there are now x2 pools with exactly the same data.  However this is not the case. Instead, when Unraid OS sees that a btrfs device has been removed from an existing multi-device pool, upon array Start it will do a 'wipefs' on that device so that upon mount it will not be included in the old pool.  This of course effectively deletes all the data on the moved device."

3 minutes ago, nuhll said:

Oh? Okay... because i didnt saw an answer after you initially answered it.

227 comments(!) in that topic.  is there a tldr?

2 minutes ago, limetech said:

227 comments(!) in that topic.  is there a tldr?

I dont know, lol. There are atleast one more topic about this, i couldnt find it tho. This was the one where you initially answered so i thought u know if this is a problem or not or if its being worked on (i thought its worked on). Some ppls on facebook group talked about it that its worked on so im a bit confused now to be real.

Edited June 17, 2020 by nuhll

great job guys !!! Stay safe !!! We need you !!!

Quote

In a future release we will include the NVIDIA and AMD GPU drivers natively into Unraid OS.  The primary use case is to facilitate accelerated transcoding in docker containers.  For this we require Linux to detect and auto-install the appropriate driver.  However, in order to reliably pass through an NVIDIA or AMD GPU to a VM, it's necessary to prevent Linux from auto-installing a GPU driver for those devices upon boot, which can be easily done now through System Devices page.  Users passing GPU's to VM's are encouraged to set this up now.

This is fantastic and will make may users very happy!

 

One question though.  Currently, using the Linuxserver.io Unraid Nvidia Plugin we can pass through a GPU even with the Linux GPU driver installed. It can get a little dicey when you boot VM that tries to use a GPU that's actively being used in a docker container (Linuxserver.io even identifies this in the support thread) as it locks the Unraid OS and forces a dirty restart.  Been there ... a few times 😝.  But, I'd gladly take the opportunity to shoot myself in the foot rather than require that there be separate dedicated GPUs for dockers (i.e. available to Linux) and VMs (i.e. unavailable to Linux).

 

Is there intention to retain this ability in the official release of the baked in GPU drivers?

 

Thanks for your continued efforts @limetech!

-JesterEE