PeteAsking

I use ca user scripts plugin to add a route back on a reboot. eg: #!/bin/bash ip route add 192.168.3.0/24 dev br0

In the thread they say it doesnt matter can still be psu if you read entire thread.

They are making a mobile app with vlc as a backend at the moment. Maybe in a few months it will be ready.

Ok my bad - have you tried pinning again and pinning all the cpu’s except for cpu’s 0,1,2 and 3? I think currently you had first 2 free and last 2 free. Another thing I noticed is you are using a different machine type than most people use for windows. I normally see pc-i440fx-4.2 for example and seabios (maybe ovmf for the graphics passthrough). I also didnt see the <hyperv> section in your xml (related to machine type?) have you tried changing that and enabling the hyperv settings? Normally they are added in by default. I checked the forums and randomly it seems some people say they get better performance sometimes with one or the other so maybe you just have to try both P

I just did a test with a 2 cpu vm and ran a process to max both cores continually while I could monitor the cpu load in htop on the unraid server. For me I could see the 2 cpu cores at 100% roam around the host CPU cores ‘randomly’ so it does allow threads to move around. No clue if it will be faster that way or slower but would be keen to know also. edit: you should also try with threads = 2 just in case but Im thinking logically that doesnt make sense in this scenario now.

Well you could disable pinning and let the CPU use its own optimisation algorithm to roam the threads as it sees fit. It seems like a newer cpu so it might be better than trying to manually do it (or not in which case just change it back). To do this I would set threads back to 1 and cores to 44 then in each of the 44 lines regarding the cpu pin (cpuset) let them roam any of the 48 cores as they need to... so I will edit the first 4 (to show an example), but you can do all 44 lines. placement='static'>44</vcpu> <cputune> <vcpupin vcpu='0' cpuset='0-47'/> <vcpupin vcpu='1' cpuset='0-47'/> <vcpupin vcpu='2' cpuset='0-47'/> <vcpupin vcpu='3' cpuset='0-47'/> also each of the numbers can be sequential now for the vcpu, 0,1,2,3...43 (43 is 44 cpus as 0 counts as the first one) rather than out of order in your current config. I am thinking this might be faster as a maxed core in the vm is no longer constrained to a domain on the cpu where a possibility may arise where its HT partner is also maxed, which would hamper performance (possibly). Sorry in advance if this is wrong, but the red hat documentation suggests this scenario is possible and this could work around such an eventuality. Dont hate me if its wrong I havent tested it. p

I have been reading the kvm documentation and have another idea... its fairly dramatic and might make performance worse you want to try it anyway if you have time for testing?

Ok sorry man, I wasnt sure about that but hopefully someone else has some ideas

It was actually a question. I dont know what other people are using for this cpu but maybe they are tweaking the settings I dont know. Maybe some more experienced people can double check or compare to other people on the forum how cpus are being passed. The cpu has 24 cores and 48 threads so Im wondering if you should be passing 22 cores and threads 2 to match that, but I dont really know. That would be like passing 22*2= 44 cores (per your xml).

Is threads = 1 correct for this cpu?

Cool, glad it worked out for you man. Hopefully it can work nicely in the meantime and when you upgrade to sata etc it all goes smoothly too. Enjoy the rest of the day running Unraid

No worries. The drives are running over USB so we will just have to be patient. Hopefully we can speak again in 24 hours time with some good news

Maybe do a memtest just to be safe its not ram, its unlikely but no harm in doing a quick check?

No probs. I hope it completes. Let us all know the outcome so we can all learn from it

If you are connecting to the internal (lan) address via ssh then for sure its being routed via the openvpn tunnel. As no ports are open on the router I imagine this is how you connect.

Still sounds secure to me. Openvpn is pretty good.

Sounds pretty secure to me

Yes this would be better and also improve the speed of the disks as they will currently all run and be limited to the speed of the parity disk - in this shared bandwidth mode would possibly be a bottleneck. If you can move it to the SATA channel then likely speed will improve and possibly also fix your issue. You should test it as it avoids purchasing anything additional or new.

No problem, since this wont change anything I am wondering if we can suggest some other way of fixing the issue. Is the parity drive separate or also in the USB enclosure? It would be better if the parity disk was on its own channel somehow rather than also being in the enclosure. (Even if just on its own in the other USB port).

In disk settings make sure its set to read/modify/write (default) rather than reconstruct write. If you never changed this then its already set like that.

This might be unrelated but in that setup check you are not using turbo write as it will slow down disk speeds overall as they are on shared bandwidth. If you are not using that feel free to ignore me

Thank you.

Try toggling the Setting to performance then powersave in the ca tweak plugin and see if it fixes it for you also. If it does then its the same thing for a bunch of people

“Watch lscpu”

The seagate has a high seek error rate but I dont really understand how to interpret that, maybe someone else knows if thats normal or bad: Seek_Error_Rate POSR-- 085 060 045 - 352968323