[Unraid OS version 6.9.0-beta30 available]

On 10/19/2020 at 11:47 AM, limetech said:

Where do you see that 5.9 will be next LTS?

Anyway, they've just declared 5.8 EOL.

[Unraid OS version 6.9.0-beta30 available]

7 hours ago, Dazog said:

Renowned kernel maintainer Greg Kroah-Hartman revealed in August 2019 that the next LTS kernel would be the “last released” kernel of the year.

 

So 5.10 will be next LTS

That was back in August.  At this time it's not so certain that 5.10-stable will be out by the end of the year. So it's very likely they'll go back to the original plan and make 5.9 be the next LTS.

 

In any case, 5.9 has some really cool improvements over 5.8.  Worth considering.

 

Not that it matters much though, as by the time 6.9-beta turns into 6.9-release, the kernel will be at 5.14-LTS. :-)

[Unraid OS version 6.9.0-beta30 available]

Quote

Version 6.9.0-beta30 2020-10-05

Linux kernel: version 5.8.13

Now that the 5.9 kernel has gone stable, and 5.9 will be the one designated "longterm", not 5.8, then maybe we should try going with the 5.9 series?

[Slow SMB performance]

Regarding slow Samba, may I make a suggestion?

 

If you are not using ACL, and chances are you are not, then disable that feature in Samba config.  That made a HUGE difference on my server, and for the first time ever I was able to saturate my network adapter. 

 

Try it out:  Add this line in the "Samba extra configuration", see Settings -> SMB -> SMB Extras

nt acl support = No

(Or just edit  /boot/config/smb-extra.conf  and add that line in the [global] section.)

You can also run a testparm on the command line to verify that the setting is in effect.

Restart Samba, and re-run your speed tests.  Let us know how it goes.

 

Note:  I ran my tests ram disk to ram disk, to eliminate everything else but Samba.  I do not know how much this will help with user-shares, as I don't use them.  Chances are, user-shares may have separate problems, all of which contribute to the overall network slowness.

[bug in UI and parity check]

And how is it that when I do a read-only parity check and it finds errors, the UI still shows "Parity is valid"?

[bug in UI and parity check]

On 8/14/2020 at 12:33 PM, bonienl said:

Urgent?

Initially, I labeled it minor. But then I read the label descriptions, and this bug does indeed lead to data loss, with a real life example.  And in any case, writing to the disks when it is not supposed to write anything, that's not something minor.