Jump to content

Pauven

Members
  • Content Count

    723
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Pauven last won the day on August 11 2019

Pauven had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

114 Very Good

About Pauven

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Converted

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Atlanta Metro Area

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Pauven

    Share Your Banners

    I don't know that DPI really matters for monitors like it does for printing. Most DPI for monitors is 120 or below. What is probably more important is simply having a physical size large enough to cover a high-resolution 4K monitor. So if every banner image was sized to 3840 x 200, that would be high enough resolution to cover 4K widths, and easily scale down to lower resolutions, i.e. 1920 x 100 for a standard Full HD monitor. I don't know if there is an official banner height, but when I investigated it a while back I was coming up with a size of 91 pixels high, which seems a little odd. Perhaps it is correct, I don't know. If 91 pixels high, then that could mean we want to target 3840 x 182 as a banner size, and scale down from there. But then again, that might cause problems for even lower resolutions, as narrower windows would zoom in further, and keeping the aspect ratio locked would cause the image to run out of pixels height-wise. Perhaps we have to plan for a minimum width, i.e. 960 x 91, which would scale up to 1920 x 382 and 3840 x 764 1920 x 182 and 3840 x 364. If every Banner was 3840 x 764 3840 x 364, that is a still reasonable 3 megapixel 1.4 megapixel image. EDITED to correct some crazy typos. I'm actually decent at math... no really. I'm sure you're right, but I was thinking it might be nice to have some artist community commentary on the requirements before making a feature request. Perhaps other banner creators have some unique needs that I haven't thought about.
  2. Pauven

    Share Your Banners

    As much as I enjoy being able to set custom banners, the scaling issue is a real challenge. I'm often moving my browser windows around and setting them to different sizes. Sometimes I have my Unraid window full screen (on a 4K monitor), and sometimes half-width on the screen, and sometimes quarter screen, and on rare occasions a truly custom size where I've grabbed the browser edge and widened/compressed with window width to fit what I'm working on. I also will look at it on other resolution screens or mobile devices. Because the banner image stretches to fit the full width, it becomes impossible to have a 1 resolution image that works perfectly on all screen ratios and resolutions. The current implementation really feels like a 1990's solution. This is extra frustrating with banners that have circular elements, like the 2001 Space Odyssey / HAL and Iron Man / Jarvis banners I created for another user several weeks back. If your browser width is set to the exact same width as the banner, it looks perfect. Anything else and you get ovals, and text in the banner is stretched/compressed in an ugly fashion. On that Jarvis banner, I even positioned a couple "folder" graphical elements to sit behind the Unraid version & server info text, but again this only works if you have the right browser width, otherwise the text doesn't center on these elements. Because I work with web design tools like WordPress, I know that better solutions are possible. Instead of stretching, the image could be scaled keeping the aspect ratio fixed. Possibly the Unraid text elements could scale with the image, maintaining positions on top of graphical elements. If cropping is necessary, I think cropping top/bottom is preferable to cropping the sides, though I'm sure there could be some banners where cropping width is a better solution - perhaps that could be a setting we can toggle. It even crossed my mind that it might be possible to have a multi-segment banner, where you have separate "Left", "Center", and "Right" images that get closer/further away from each other as the browser width changes. This could allow for you to set a static background for the Unraid text elements on the left and right, and a floating center image that ties it all together. Perhaps you would even need 5 elements to make this work correctly: "Left", "Left Gap Filler", Center", "Right Gap Filler", "Right". The Gap Fillers could stretch between the Center and Left/Right, connecting them seamlessly. That way we as banner designers can achieve the near impossible: correct aspect ratio and positioning behind the text elements with a modern responsive behavior to browser width changes. It would be very easy for a banner designer to chop a banner into 5 segments. Unfortunately, I don't have the programming skills to contribute to enhancing Unraid. All I can do is sit here and share ideas, hoping to get some discussion going on this challenge. Perhaps one of the really smart guys can even make it happen...
  3. Interesting, I did not know this. I knew some users had performance issues with 6.8 and that Lime-Tech was still refining their logic, but I hadn't heard that some of the tunables can still help. I guess once I get off my legacy version I can revisit this again. Most likely I'm waiting for 6.9.1, fingers crossed. Though to be honest, I do hope Lime-Tech can figure out the logic to truly make UTT unnecessary. Thanks, it feels good to help and even better to be appreciated!
  4. Cool, you've got the right idea. Just wondering if you are fully leveraging it with a front-end so you don't have to insert discs. Essentially, your discs are your backup, and your array is your media server. I've got 1800+ movies stored away in boxes in the basement (my backup), and watch everything directly from my array. Using my own GUI front-end, of course... 😉
  5. Yes. Yeeeeesssssss. This! I realize that is asking a lot, as typically files are only allowed to exist in one or the other, not both, and this probably throws off some internal checks. But it is definitely a feature I want (plus SSD/NVMe array support, which got a lot of votes but no mentions). My use case is that I have certain data (music/mp3's, software code, etc.) that I want immediate, fast access to all the time, without spinning up any drives, so it makes sense to put them on my NVMe cache drive. But I want that data backed up too. Sure, I can buy another $600 2TB NVMe drive just to create a mirrored cache pool, but ouch that's a lot of $$$. I'd rather give Lime-Tech $120 for another license that I don't need (let's call it a donation, baby), so that these files can be stored both in my protected array and my unprotected cache. All reads would come from cache, and all writes would go to both (or cache first, sync later). I had a script a while back that was syncing a few directories from my cache drive to my array, but it stopped working a while back and I haven't bothered to try and fix it. Plus, I think it was causing those duplicate file error messages as Unraid was detecting I had the same file in cache and the array, so I've been hesitant to try doing this again. I looked for a plugin that would handle this and found nothing. Native Unraid functionality for a "Use Cache Disk: Both" option would be awesome.
  6. UTT is not compatible with Unraid v6.8 or later. I developed the latest version using Unraid 6.6.6 (which is what I'm still running). I've avoided the 6.7.x series due to some known performance issues, and 6.8 for even bigger issues. So I don't have more recent versions available for testing and development. 6.6.6 works perfectly for me, and I have zero reason to chase version upgrades just to be on a #, so I might be here for a while. Which is all really pointless anyway, since Lime-Tech took away the tunables that UTT tunes in v6.8. In theory, UTT is dead and no longer even needed with v6.8, since Lime-Tech took back control of these tunables and have their own internal logic for tuning them. So long story short, UTT is dead for Unraid 6.8 or later. Though it still works for 6.7.3 and earlier.
  7. Drats. So wait... I was actually too quick to create the new version of UTT? I could have sat on my tookus and let Limetech fix the issue for me? That's disappointing. But your tuned values are sky-high, probably among the highest I have ever seen shared here. I would say that you have a special needs controller. Definitely share this with Limetech. Very interesting, thanks for sharing. It took me a long time and a lot of effort to come up with a testing strategy for the v6.0-v6.7 tunables, and these changes with 6.8 pretty much throw all that out the window. If anyone sees any info regarding the new tunables, please repost here. And fingers crossed that Limetech makes UTT unnecessary, as I really really really don't want to do it all over yet again...
  8. In my experience, a rebuild should be similar in time to a parity check. The parity check reads from all drives simultaneously, while a rebuild writes to one and reads from all others. Total bandwidth is close to identical, as is parity calculation load on the CPU. As jbartlett advised, one of your drives could be running slow.
  9. Tom, any reason you are no longer posting that RC's are available in the Prerelease forum? The last one I see is "Unraid OS version 6.7.0-rc8 available". Paul
  10. I think that is a really interesting finding. In a disk to disk transfer, you're both reading from and writing to 3 disks simultaneously (4 if you had dual parity), which is a very different workload than just reading from all disks simultaneously. I'm guessing what happened is that you went so low in memory, that disk to disk transfers were impacted. I'll have to do some testing on my server and see if that is something I can replicate. You have a server that responds very well to low values, at least as far as parity checks go. Actually, it seems to respond the same for almost any set of values, achieving around 141 MB/s across the board except for a few edge cases. For that type of server, you're probably best off just running stock Unraid tunables settings.
  11. Hi @DanielCoffey, thanks for lending a helping hand. Even though it has the same name, for some reason the file you posted has a different size than the original version. I think it would be wise if you remove the file you posted, just in case. Also, the original file is hosted on the Unraid forum, which has done a decent job of hosting files for years. Not sure why vekselstrom had an issue downloading, though it seems to have been a temporary issue. I think it would be best if we keep the download option centralized in the first post, which gives me control over updates.
  12. My monthly parity check completed in another record time for my server, dropping another 12 seconds (haha). Even though the UTT v4.1 enhancements resulted in slightly better peak numbers, my server was already well optimized so the additional performance was not impactful.
  13. UTT does not do any writes, only reads. Specifically, it applies a combination of tunables parameters, then initiates a non-correcting (read only) parity check, let's it run for 5 or 10 minutes (depending upon the test length you chose), then aborts the parity check. It then tries the next set of values and repeats. I believe dalben's report might be the very first time a drive failure has been reported during testing. UTT v4 works the same basic way as the previous versions, so there's years of data behind that statement. In theory, the tests that UTT performs are no more strenuous then a regular parity check. But anytime you spin up and use your hard drives, especially all of them at once generating max possible heat, you risk a drive failure - same as during a parity check. Some may feel that the stress is slightly harder than a parity check, as UTT keeps repeating the first 5/10 minutes of the parity check, for dozens of times (minimum 82 times, maximum 139 times), so it keeps all of your drives spinning at their fastest/hottest for the entire test period, unlike a true parity check that would allow smaller drives to complete and spin down as larger drives continue the check. But the stress should be less than hard drive bench-marking, especially tests that do random small file reads/writes and generate lots of head movement.
  14. Array integrity comes first, you did the right thing. Unfortunately, the slightly different results in this run causes the script to test a lower range in Pass 2, so it didn't retest that magical 177 MB/s test from your earlier run. Would have been interesting to see it retested, and if it consistently performs better.