gilladur

Just an addition - Spotify changed their API and the Spotty Plugin needed an update (thanks to mherger the fix came quite fast): https://forums.lyrion.org/forum/user-forums/3rd-party-software/1802770-announce-spotty-v4-60-0-the-christmas-crash-release-%F0%9F%8E%84%F0%9F%8E%81 I could not get the needed Token, if using the client ID, but without the client ID I'm able to connect to Spotify again. I still have some issues losing the token / get the token refreshed and therefore need to reauthenticate quite often. But this could be an issue on my site.

I'm confused - on Docker Hub it says: https://hub.docker.com/r/lmscommunity/lyrionmusicserver Tags latest: the latest release version, currently v9.0.3 stable: the bug fix branch based on the latest release, currently v9.0.4 dev: the development version with new features, and potentially less stability, currently v9.1.0 I've tried: ghcr.io/lms-community/lyrionmusicserver:dev and the Server is now on: Lyrion Music Server Version: 9.1.0 - 1766418462 But according to this: - RC should be a valid Tag - but maybe :stable would be the best option?

I have the issue too, and it seems all the affecting Docker which are hosted on Github ghcr.io or LinuxServer.io lscr.io (which as far as I know often which often points to ghcr.io too). Could this be the issue - Github?

I don't know if this was already answered or asked before but what is about the for me new AppApi settings which shows up as an Error: AppAPI Deployment Daemon AppAPI's default deployment daemon is not set up. Please register a default deploy daemon in the settings to install external apps (ex-apps).https://docs.nextcloud.com/server/latest/admin_manual/exapps_management/AppAPIAndExternalApps.html#setup-deploy-daemon What would be the right way to get the AppApi correctly implemented. I could not find more answers which fit to our Unraid scenario on Discord. Is there a tutorial?

Just a short update on my X14SAE-F board - it finally arrived. Migration was straight forward. The only issues I have, is with the Fan control and to get the IPMI support tool to control the Fans. The build in fan profiles from supermicro struggle all (except full speed) to keep the fans running, or at least from time to time the IPMI report 0 rpm. I've played around with ipmitool to change the thresholds but that did not help so far. Besides that, I'm quite happy with the performance... I'll write an update after some more testing. Just one remark, even that it took ages to get the board - the communication and support via Serverparts.pl where I got the board from was perfect, and they did everything possible to get the board from supermicro.

I've ordered the board via: They are one of the official distributors for Supermicro for Poland. Most of the distributors in the EU and especially in DE only sell to business partners. But I didn't order it via their shop on the webpage, instead I've just asked for an offer and the overall price to ship it to DE including tax was better than what I've found on other stores. Nevertheless, they've sent me the expected ETA given by Supermicro two days ago and currently Supermicro is having an estimated lead time about 12-16 weeks for the board So, basically it is also currently not available for me, at least not within a decent delivery time. Due to the fact, that I'm not in a rush to replace my current setup, it's fine for me. However, I can say that the communication with this seller is very good so far, and they usually respond within a day.

Thanks for your reply - I've actually changed plans, I could not resist going a bit more modern and ordered an X14SAE-F and an Intel Ultra 7 265K + 94 GB ECC DDR5. It was certainly not the most economical decision, but I was in the mood for such an over-the-top project for my needs.

Lowering the PL1 and PL2 state should be possible (the Bios of the X14SAE-F does have this option according to the manual). I could not find the manual of the ASUS Pro WS W880-ACE SE - but I assume it will allow this too. For me, having full ECC is more important than having the option to undervolt or lower the multiplier. Unfortunately, ECC UDIMMS are really expensive currently. The idle power consumption when the server is just doing nothing should be fine even with the K version. Nevertheless, it would be nice to see a review of the T and if the lower base clocks improve idle power usage. In Germany there are today 4 sellers offering the T but nearly 50€ more expensive than the K. And to be honest, one reason to upgrade the server is to have more cores but also more CPU power and the T will be slower.

Just one remark - the Cure Ultra CPUs don't have any Hyper-Threating anymore

As far as I know, you would reduce the maximum allowed power limit to the PL1 and PL2 values of the non-K or T - or something in-between: PL1 = Processor Base Power and PL2 = Maximum Turbo Power K = 125W (Processor Base Power), 250W (Maximum Turbo Power) non-K = 65W (Processor Base Power), 182W (Maximum Turbo Power) T = 35W (Processor Base Power), 112W (Maximum Turbo Power) And please correct me if I'm wrong, but this should bring down the clock speeds to the value that your CPU could achieve with the given power according to the intel standard curve for power/frequency. This should not impact stability but will reduce maximum performance but on the other hand also the used power and generated heat - but only for the higher CPU workloads. It is like putting a brick under your gas paddle in your car so that you can't push it as far down as without the brick Another approach would be to undervolt the CPU (which is not available on most boards without overclocking settings - and afaik not on workstation or server boards like the X14SAE-F). This would give the CPU less voltage per MHZ. You would herewith shift or alter the curve for power/frequency down for the voltage per frequency. So the overall power consumption drops, but depending on the given undervolt it will affect stability. You would need to find the sweet spot - which is dependent on your silicone quality - where your CPU could keep the frequencies stable with less juice. I would say as we need max stability for servers, this is more an approach for a normal Desktop PC, where you could run benchmarks of different types and see at which reduced voltage the system is not crashing anymore - but still then it could happen at special workloads, also like lighter once.

Thanks for your answer. I'm currently waiting for the board to be shipped from supermicro to my supplier. CPU (265k) and the DDR5 ECC UDIMMS are already here. But I think it will take a while till I hold the board in my hands. I'll give an update as soon as I receive it.

I could get my hands on a X14SAE-F for a decent price, and I'm wondering now, which Core Ultra to buy? The first decision to be made would be if Core Ultra 5 or 7, and I'm currently uncertain how much Unraid profits from more cores. The second question would be if it would make sense to go for a non-K or even a T version if available or just the more available K version. Is there some kind of sweet spot with the best balance of performance and low power consumption? I've seen some test results, where the Core Ultra 5 245 vs. 7 265K had a quite similar idle consumption: https://www.computerbase.de/artikel/prozessoren/intel-core-ultra-200s-285k-265k-245k-test.90019/seite-4 https://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/artikel/hardware/prozessoren/65794-intel-core-ultra-5-235-225f-im-test.html?start=9 But I can't find a test with a non-K and T version.

The Core Ultra 2 series is the one based on Arrow Lake-S or? Like the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K? As this one runs under the same chipsets B860, H810, W880, Z890 and the same LGA 1851 why should they not work on an X14SAE which does have the same W880 as the 14SAZ-F? I think the only difference between these two main boards is the size of the motherboard (which comes for the X14SAZ with the negative effect that they only have 2 ram slots and less SATA ports - the X14SAZ-F in fact have none and the X14SAV-TLN4F only 4). https://www.supermicro.com/en/products/compare?sku=X14SAV-TLN4F,X14SAE-F,X14SAV-F

I'm still confused - as far as I understand is the X14SBI using the LGA 4710 for Xeon CPUS - how should a Core Ultra which uses LGA 1851 would fit?

I'm confused, isn't the X14SBI (Socket LGA-4710 -> Intel® Xeon® 6700/6500) for a different platform than the Core Ultra 7 which needs LGA-1851 like on the X14SAE?