lars

Members
  • Posts

    143
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by lars

  1. anyone minds to elaborate a little on the 6b10x1 update you can install thru the gui? i hate to install stuff without explanations what was changes/ why i need it maybe sth to consider as well. to place a short changes log with the update under extentions
  2. ok, a gave up on the dockerman gui attempt to install it and went with putty and typing. worked fine at the 3rd attempt (my own fault - just hammering away, dropping a slash here and a letter there). wonder why it would not work doing the same config in dockerman! - anyway, once i was up and running (kind of), i got kicked out while doing the setup stuff for no reasons. went to madsonic website and found sth along the lines .last.fm-cache not created by the 5.1 final installer in your madsonic directory - had a look and yup, not there. supposedly that causes all kind of crashes if not there. went to mkdir it manually. all seems to come along nicely so far since. as i start really from scratch for comparison purposes i am still in the middle of setting things up, we will see. my biggest issue with the 5b2 was actually speed (gui often and the unbelievable slowness of a file rescan -2days!!!). hope that is somehow solved. i shall report more as i getting ahead here. thx again to binhex and pinion! a) for fast and b) very helpful responses, you cut my frustration in half Cheers, L edit: same was true for the /thumbs directory in /config - had to create that manually as well.
  3. thx for the help so far. still seem to have a problem with connecting. since i have a shitload of work to finish before weekend i will spend some more time with it over the weekend, hopefully more successful. i shall report over the weekend how it is going. thx, L
  4. hi binhex, first of all thx for response/ help and the efforts. but i need that exactly opposite for now the botez on 4040 and you on 4041. the failure try above is based on your madsonic release. i wasn't really clear last night in terms of problem. so basically, your idea is valid - change the botez versions port, but it causes problems due to ppl. i have botez' version running pretty much all set up to the needs at time. i have also about 10 friends on that, sharing. botez' at the 4040 port at the moment, so i don't really want to change that for the time being. i was trying to change the port settings on your container. and keep failing with the above results in variations. i use gfjardims's docker gui, for all that (i tried with putty as well). basically i try to do what seemed no prob. for pinion - keep botez on 4040 and set binhex to 4041 and 4051 instead of 4040 and 4050 ports. along the lines, let the working one work for the guys and use the other one to set up from scratch, scan media in and run some time trials as well and finally basically having everything to my liking's again simply adjust the ports to connect to the better performing one - without any downtime for my friends. sth i noticed while trying versions was, botez' is running as Host your's as Bridge mode (is there a reason?), might i have to set botez on Bridge as well maybe? at the moment it seems like both containers are generally running (botez is still the one i get in my browser even when both are running - one would expect some kind of conflict...) under docker - i just don't get yours to show in browser (chrome, firefox or opera). might there be something else i just don't know - like do i have to change network settings of unraid maybe, st botez to bridge as well to make it work (i think i tried that last nite, not 100% sure about). maybe pinion can chime in about his settings for both - since it seems to work for him!? plz? cheers and thx for all the effort so far already Lars
  5. finally came around to install binhex version and botez parallel. installs all fine over docker gui. but wenn i try to edit the ports. what i get is: root@localhost:# /usr/bin/docker run -d --net="bridge" -e TZ="America/Bogota" -p 4041:4040/tcp Usage: docker run [OPTIONS] IMAGE [COMMAND] [ARG...] Run a command in a new container -a, --attach=[] Attach to STDIN, STDOUT or STDERR. -c, --cpu-shares=0 CPU shares (relative weight) --cap-add=[] Add Linux capabilities --cap-drop=[] Drop Linux capabilities -d, --detach=false Detached mode: run container in the background and print new container ID --device=[] Add a host device to the container (e.g. --device=/dev/sdc:/dev/xvdc) --dns=[] Set custom DNS servers --dns-search=[] Set custom DNS search domains -e, --env=[] Set environment variables --env-file=[] Read in a line delimited file of environment variables --expose=[] Expose a port from the container without publishing it to your host -i, --interactive=false Keep STDIN open even if not attached --link=[] Add link to another container in the form of name:alias 'bridge': creates a new network stack for the container on the docker bridge 'none': no networking for this container 'container:': reuses another container network stack 'host': use the host network stack inside the container. Note: the host mode gives the container full access to local system services such as D-bus and is therefore considered insecure. -P, --publish-all=false Publish all exposed ports to the host interfaces -p, --publish=[] Publish a container's port to the host format: ip:hostPort:containerPort | ip::containerPort | hostPort:containerPort (use 'docker port' to see the actual mapping) --privileged=false Give extended privileges to this container --rm=false Automatically remove the container when it exits (incompatible with -d) --sig-proxy=true Proxy received signals to the process (even in non-TTY mode). SIGCHLD, SIGSTOP, and SIGKILL are not proxied. -t, --tty=false Allocate a pseudo-TTY -v, --volume=[] Bind mount a volume (e.g., from the host: -v /host:/container, from Docker: -v /container) --volumes-from=[] Mount volumes from the specified container(s) The command failed. i tried all kind of variations, as host or bridge, container started or stopped any ideas or settings for docker gui would be appreciated. Cheers, L
  6. I understand for problems getting it set up and going, but not for problems related to the beta. Better way of asking the question: Do you want to make it easier for users to find out what bugs may exist in a beta or easier for Lime Tech to fix those bugs? just to chime in on that - both!!! primarily make it easier to fix, but also give other users an idea what they are getting into. so maybe posting in both threads is an alternative for the time being!? you could turn this question also around - you want ppl to get into 6b9 with eyes open or spend sh*tloads of time to explain known issues (time that goes away from working on the next release) cheers, L
  7. I thought unRAID was meant to automatically allocate more space if it is required? I think you are thinking of drive auto expansion that was removed temporarily in an earlier beta and restored in beta 9. The docker image presently doesn't auto expand like tom said but also like tom had mentioned, that's a great idea for a feature... on the other hand, i don't know what else you have running there, it looks kinda very space consuming looks like that for me: Total devices 1 FS bytes used 1.71GiB devid 1 size 15.00GiB used 4.04GiB path /dev/loop8 i allowed for some more space from beginning, but beside that its a unraid 6b9 install with madsonic. i have shitloads of music on there (if that even affect this settings - no clue), but all is running smooth
  8. well i hope your 4tb drive is the parity drive! otherwise you are in self-made trouble. if that sounds strange to you - back to the basics reading about unraid!
  9. same here - not that i really care, but yes, not working here as well.
  10. and a big thx to tom and other known culprits!!! thx for b9 - lets hope that takes care of the known probs. a double hand clapping for accelerating this release so much - my understanding was that b9 takes a little longer than 12/09. problem recognized - and in short time solved... my respect!!! beta's are beta's - shit happens. i respect the commitment of the LT team to get probs solved quick once they appear! now lets hope that it was the 100% solution cheers, L
  11. thx for the input here so far - may i say some ppl have probs, others not. with other words (beside the precautions suggested) some ppl here blow this issue way out of proportion. there is a risk that you have a prob at this point, but all may be fine (always considering stopping senseless risky file moving at this point) it is not ebola cheers, L
  12. ok, beside the fact that it is a potentially big problem - it says also sth along the lines... there is a possibility that... obviously you want to do what was mentioned (don't move data etc...). but before we are starting a mass hysteria here - how many of you actually discovered problems at this point? everybody? some of you? just 2 or 3 ppl? i have to say, i can't find any problems yet - but i have done also just spot checks so far. so i have some hope the bug passed me. i highly appreciate tom's and LT's staff working in overdrive to provide a solution for all of us using the latest beta versions. but back to my question - who actually has so far real problems, which can be traced back to the issue? we might blow sth out of proportion here at the moment. at least i hope we do and end of the day the damage is minimal for everybody, or non-existent would be even better. best wishes in this regards to everybody! looking forward to b9 at the moment... cheers, L
  13. @binhex - sounds like a doable solution. wasn't even thinking of it (guess - cause i had no real grip on docker at the point). but i might give it a spin just to see if this d*&$!* update time prob exists in your variation as well. as for the 11tb - it took a while, but poss not as long as you think @pinion - since you run both binhex and botez madsonics already sidebyside - maybe you have some insights to share about differences you noticed??? cheers, L
  14. This is available as a plugin. Not sure I see any benefit for this to be a docker container. No, this belongs in the unRAID host so it can shut down everything. Limetech has indicated that apcupsd and email notifications would eventually be part of the core product. that's where it should be and i hope it becomes reality with the next beta/ final v6. nough said - the plugin works, a docker for it seems even to me as docker-newbie overkill.
  15. yeah well, i am looking more at about 11+ tb in music. so generally i am used to longer scans. and everything with botez madsonic-docker works fine + awesome help from him for the few issues i had. not trying to say you didn't do an equally awesome job, i just try to stick with one 'edition' right now. unfortunately i have no spare server sitting around at this point to play. since i am not 100% firm with the whole docker story yet, i am kinda cautious about installing two diff. versions on my system. anyway, i am aware that i have a rather large music collection. i am also fine with the idea that it takes just a little extra time to scan. i was just wondering about the absurd long full scan time (where the system itself does not to be challenged at all). as soon as my have my sandbox server back up, i will give your docker version a shot as well. till than i stick with the working one (i am sure you understand that). i was wondering if it may have to do with the underlaying OS, but as i said - my hardware is far away from being challenged.... so i dont know.
  16. hmm, anybody? with any experience either way?? i can't be the only madsonic user in the whole unraid universe! cheers, L
  17. thx NAS, that's what i am doing with most of my spare time at the moment to get a better (make that basic ) understanding of it. while i google along and read stuff questions pop up. so thx again for clarifying this one for me. would than bring me back to my friends question - would it make any sense (in applied use) what he was asking (my second post in this thread) - why not run a docker os and have unraid in it as a container as well. would that make any sense for practical application in the first place? as i said before, the question hit me out of nowhere... it seems to make some sense to me, but i guess if it really would somebody else would have thought about that before him!? i hadd no problems with unraid yet in terms of stability etc. but i only run a vanilla unraid with only app/ docker container madsonic. would a os running everything (incl. unraid) may make sense if unraid for some reason crashes? if it would be a docker container, it would keep the rest of the server alive and other apps/ containers running, yes? i can see that some other apps would also stop functioning, if they depend on unraid, but it may keep torrent apps etc. alive - if they access a non-array hdd. i am wildly speculating here on my end, but i thought i bring that up - and see what you guys have to say about it. doesn't affect my operations one way or the other at this point, but i read to more than one post mentioning out-of-array hdd's etc. cheers, L
  18. hi all, installed this and (with a little help from botez) all is running great. one thing i noticed was, it seems extremely slow on a folder scan. while it used to take about 2 to 3hrs when i had subsonic installed as an plugin-app, as docker install a full folder scan takes at the moment over 10hrs!!!! did anybody else experience a massive slowdown on folder scan as well? since everything else seems to work as fast/ slow as before that's still a big surprise for me! cheers, L
  19. based on that a completely new question! i was just sitting here with a friend listening to some music. he basically wanted to see the whole unraid thing first hand before going to build one, since he needs a storage solution as well. while we went to all the 'stuff' and looked at it, i tried to explain the docker thing to the best of my abilities (pro's vs. the old plugins) he came with a very simple question i couldn't really answer at all why not having a 'base' system, where even docker is running as a container? is that even possible, would there be any advantage to it? somehow it sounded logical at the moment he asked. on the other hand, if so - why didn't any of the 'cracks' here got that idea before!? can anybody enlighten me about that? cheers, L
  20. first of all, i am still trying to get a full understanding of docker, so please don't beat me up for the following! during my readings i came across coreOS, which seems to be made for implementation with docker, small footprint etc... (https://coreos.com/using-coreos/docker/) wouldn't something like that make more sense than a bloated ubuntu distro as basis for docker in unraid?? i will leave the yes, no, maybe to the specialists here in the forum. just thought i mention it, since there seems to be a lot of discussion about a suitable OS and the problems of different OS distros being used at the moment. cheers, L
  21. just like to say a big thank you for this excellent piece of work! discovered it yesterday and after reading all of this thread here installed it. install went flawless. basically you took docker for me from sth i was reading up on like a maniac to a 'instant' implementation. keep up the great work! you took docker for the average user (like me) from a book with a million question marks to a valuable unraid option! cheers, L
  22. just out of curiosity. is there actually something like a 'roadmap' for v6 (along the lines b5 - around may, b6 - around june....)? also (i realize it's all beta at this point and things change) what might or might not be part of the next releases? and as we are at it, i noticed also the talked about 5.0.6 never appeared (not that i really miss it), is the v5 put on ice (so to say. it would be understandable to leave it alone and concentrate on getting v6 stable release). anyway, still sticking with 5.0.5 for now, since my sandbox decided to take a leave with mobo failure. just trying to get a rough idea how the planning on v6 is generally. cheers, L
  23. just a short question. i seem to remember a while back a discussion about the option of a second parity disk and quite some interest in this option. will this be actually become reality in v6? i know it's not one of the most pressing issues, but i have to admit i wouldn't mind if it becomes an available option rather sooner than later. cheers, L
  24. Whether to ad 32bit support is a philosophical decision. There has already been discussion on this forum and the great majority were in favour of maintaining a pure 64bit environment,especially since the support for 32bit binaries is not always perfect. If your problem is support of existing 32bit plugins, then try contacting the author. Nearly all plugins can be 'converted' simply by replacing the old 32bit package downloads with the 64bit equivalents. The other point to remember is that, with the availability of VMs, many existing plugins are better offloaded from the unRAID machine and run in appropriate VMs. If you're not intending to run VMs, then there is little compulsion to move from v5 to v6 - especially during the beta phase. i would completely support you on that. while i have barely any plugins installed under v5.0.x - the main reason to switch to v6.x would be to get the 2 plugins out of unraid and install the programs in a vm. therefore running a stable and clean unraid server, having everything i used as plugins running on a vm. should increase stability for my main-concern storage (unraid) and allow for even better options for most of the software around as plugins (no need to wait for sb to write a plugin, or update it - you just install the program wanted on a vm). obviously v6 is still beta/ fairly early beta. in top of it, some steep learning curve exists (just going to that myself, re: xen). but, in the end it should pay off nicely for increased stability and a much broader choice of apps to be used... straight out of the box (so to say). if you intend to use v6/ xen with your old plugins (updated 64bit ones) you are missing the whole point of this new unraid version. my 2c, L
  25. one would hope sth like it will come with time. also to keep in mind for tom, not everybody here enjoys the privilege to own several pc's with one to spare for trial and error experiments. with other words, you are leaving your potential clients out of the loop, if not offering an easy setup using vm's. nobody with a serious collection of 'whatever' will be seriously inclined to experiment on their working setup. i get at the moment an idea how complex all of this is on my sandbox pc