bondoo0

To answer your last question, yes the VM get's it's own IP address (I use a DHCP reservation based on the MAC I assigned it) in my case. I'm not sure if there is a way to clone an existing server, but the setup was pretty easy using the beta 15 VM Manager. I just passed the ISO and the vdisk info to create (vdisk will be the hard drive Ubuntu installs on).

I believe someone else mentioned that they setup XP by switching the vdisk to be IDE, and I recall JonP saying that there was a fix that would be in the next beta to prevent having to do this. See the bottom of this thread. http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=39567.0

The link shows the image correctly in a browser, the image just doesn't show up in unraid for the docker.

I installed the cadvisor docker frpm smdion's repo, which is just referencing a google created docker. The issue is that it doesn't seem to be picking up the icon or banner listed in the template and the advanced view of the GUI. The values in the GUI look identical to the values in other dockers that display the images. I then its an unraid docker manager issue. I'm not sure if there is a way to get this to work automatically like other dockers or at least a way to manually specify an icon?

cAdvisor is an official Google docker, I just made an easy way to install it on docker. Not sure even how to start looking into that I think its an unraid/ docker manager thing, since the docker works, but it just isn't displaying the icon which has nothing to do with the docker itself. The weird thing to me is that it seems to ignore the template values for the icon. Im not sure where to ask though for that?

Is anyone else having an issue with the cAdvisor docker not showing the correct image? I've checked the properties under advanced for banner/icon, and I can copy that link to a browser and see the icon, but I'm still getting the question mark icon on dashboard/the docker tab. I have the following 2 values listed in the docker config http://i.imgur.com/NfdRq7L.png http://i.imgur.com/stlnoKR.png When I do a copy URL for the image I get this: /plugins/dynamix.docker.manager/assets/images/question.png. The server has internet access, and I can actually open the image's URL from a browser in a VM on the server, so I don't think it's a network issue Any suggestions for how to fix this?

I've been running without issue as well, until last night when I had to restart. I was getting a permission error in Plex on one of the python scripts in Library/Application Support/Plex Media Server/Plug-ins/LocalMedia.bundle/Contents/Libraries, and Plex wouldn't start, so I had to do a chmod 777 on the App directory (in my case /mnt/Apps/Plex). I'm not sure if a new file/directory was added by an update with the wrong permissions, or if something else happened, but after the chmod it appears to be working again.

I hàd the same issue trying to install XP, and haven't had a chance to look into it again. I did see XP listed under the virtio drivers so there must be a way to do it.

For the driver I just used what came up when I hit load/ok on the E drive. However after your comment I hit load/browse and see the directories for different versions. I chose Windows 8.1\AMD64 (thinking that was the closest) and I was able to install the 3 red hat and 3 virtIO drivers and the drive is now showing up.

I downloaded this ISO http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/virtio-win/latest/images/virtio-win-0.1-100.iso When I try to install, I tried to load all 3 drivers listed (after unchecking "hide drivers that aren't compatible with this computer's hardware": 1x QEMU PCI Serial Card 2x QUEMU PCI Serial Card 4x QEMU PCI Serial Card

I'm converting from Xen to KVM and I have my Ubuntu VM working correctly, but whenever I try to add a Windows VM, I get a message that it can't find an install location (even after loading the virtIO drivers (I've tried XP and Windows 10). I'm not passing through any devices (since my hardware doesn't support passing through PCI devices, perhaps this is the issue?) Also one other thing to note, when I go to install the virtIO drivers, none show up unless I unchecked the "hide incompatible with my hardware check box, if I un-check the box I see 3 choices, and even after installing all 3, there are still no available disks to install Windows on). Any suggestions, or is it just a hardware issue that is showing up in KVM, but didn't in Xen? Hardware is a Supermicro H8DME-2 motherboard with dual Opteron 2431 CPU's (one of the TAMS 24 bay servers).

Were you doing filesystem pass through with Xen (9p) How? I was just setting it up as SMB share setup in the guest VM's fstab. The thought was that 9P sharing was supposed to be a huge performance boost, so that I should use that since it was an option in KVM. I'm not sure if it's the 9P vs SMB sharing that caused the pain with the user or not. 9p does not necessarily improve performance and the permissions issues are 100% the result of 9P sharing. 9P was something we included for folks that wanted to test with it, but from the testing that folks have done, it doesn't yield a performance improvement over SMB/NFS. It just makes things easier in terms of not needing to traverse a network layer. Please retest your VM using SMB instead of 9P and report your findings on performance. Performance seems significantly better, and it eliminates the whole UID/desktop login issue. Thanks for the clarification about 9P. Excellent. Note that you are stating the performance is better than using VirtFS, but what about noticing any difference now between KVM and Xen? I would say performance is comparable (hard to tell if there's a difference now that I've moved away from VirtFS). One other thing I noticed, unraid performance on shares seems back to normal now (for example renaming a file on an unraid SMB share via my Windows machine would take a bit of extra time, just enough to notice, probably a half second or so difference).

I am using 9P shares on my Ubuntu server and CouchPotato always puts the movies as admin:1000, Do you think if I used SMB shares that it would be nobody:users? on my ubuntu VM that i use for building dockers i changed the uid and gid for nobody to match unraid's, before i installed anything on a clean install. don't know if that's an advisable thing to do, but i've not had any problems. The only issue with changing uid/gid is if you want the user to show up for logging into a desktop, since the values are 99 for uid, which won't show up to login to ubuntu desktop.

Were you doing filesystem pass through with Xen (9p) How? I was just setting it up as SMB share setup in the guest VM's fstab. The thought was that 9P sharing was supposed to be a huge performance boost, so that I should use that since it was an option in KVM. I'm not sure if it's the 9P vs SMB sharing that caused the pain with the user or not. 9p does not necessarily improve performance and the permissions issues are 100% the result of 9P sharing. 9P was something we included for folks that wanted to test with it, but from the testing that folks have done, it doesn't yield a performance improvement over SMB/NFS. It just makes things easier in terms of not needing to traverse a network layer. Please retest your VM using SMB instead of 9P and report your findings on performance. Performance seems significantly better, and it eliminates the whole UID/desktop login issue. Thanks for the clarification about 9P.

Were you doing filesystem pass through with Xen (9p) How? I was just setting it up as SMB share setup in the guest VM's fstab. The thought was that 9P sharing was supposed to be a huge performance boost, so that I should use that since it was an option in KVM. I'm not sure if it's the 9P vs SMB sharing that caused the pain with the user or not.

I just wanted to share some actual experience since I was able to find some time to switch one of my VM's (in this case an Ubuntu 14.04 desktop). I do understand the desire to eliminate supporting 2 hypervisors, so please don't consider this just my complaining. I just wanted to add this to give an example of what switching is like given the current state of unraid/the tools (and I'm admittedly no unix guru, so I'm sure that added to the time/frusturation level). The conversion was, to say the least painful. After going through the install, I had to search to through the forums to find out why my host mapped (passthrough) drives weren't showing up. I finally found that I had to add the 9P shares in the guest VM. Then I ran into the next issue, which was that only one of my CPU's was showing up, so I had to once again search to find the line in the KVM XML to change (through the advanced view), and then manually assign the VCPU's via XML since the GUI wasn't showing all of the CPU's to assign. So after that I tried a few tests, and discovered that all new files on the passthrough shares were showing up with a user/group of 1000 because of the UID/GID of the guest user. After spending a ton of time searching, and trying to modify fstab to fix this issue, I was unable to find a solution there, so I ended up chaging the UID/GID of the guest user to match unraid's nobody/users (99/100). This introduced a new issue, since all users with a UID under 1000 don't show up to login to the desktop. So to solve this, the only thing I could come up with was creating a second user to allow me to login to a desktop. So after all of that, I have a VM up and running, and I can say that it seems performance is slightly worse (still running some tests using high CPU usage video re-encoding). One of the interesting things is that the stats page now reflects true CPU usage, with a Xen VM, any CPU use was outside of unraid, so the system stats plugin didn't show it, now with KVM being part of the kernel system stats shows the actual CPU utilization.

I'm converting from Xen to KVM for an Ubuntu VM. I have a passthrough share setup in the XML, and the entry in fstab, but now I'm running into an issue where any files created in the VM show up with my VM user/group in the VM and the values of 1000/1000 on Unraid. I've tried a few things, but I can't seem to get it to show up correctly as nobody/users in Unraid. Here are the fstab lines I've tried: Videos /mnt/Videos 9p trans-virtio,version=9p2000.L,nobootwait,rw,_netdev,dfltuid=99,dfltgid=100 0 0 Videos /mnt/Videos 9p trans-virtio,version=9p2000.L,nobootwait,rw,_netdev,uid=99,gid=100 0 0 Videos /mnt/Videos 9p trans-virtio,version=9p2000.L,nobootwait,rw,_netdev 0 0 Any suggestions?

Parenting Pro Tip of the Day: "Don't let the inmates run the asylum" Now if you would have said wife, then yes there is nothing to be done True, but with a 4 year old and 4 month old twins, you gotta pick your battles

Here are a couple of use cases (and I realize this is a limited case for sure). The first case is my test server doesn't have the hardware capability to do KVM (it's an Intel Atom). So having Xen allows me to move to the latest beta, and test on a server, including docker and VM's (PVM) to make sure it's stable enough to move to my primary server. This allowed me to start much earlier in the beta cycle, and to learn about VM's without having to risk downtime on my primary server. The second case is similar to the first, but related. My primary server, the CPU supports virtualization AMD-V, but the motherboard does not. Will this work with KVM, I'm not sure (and finding time to test while the server is down and my 4 year old can't watch his TV, is hard to do), but since Xen has been so stable I've been able to use both HVM (Windows XP for some home automation) and PVM VM's (Ubuntu to familiarize myself with it, to try the different desktops and to use Handbrake to re-encode video), including passing through USB devices without an issue. I also use Docker, but find that for playing with the OS and doing things that dont' have a Web UI, my Xen VM is better. The other advantage of the VM in my mind is that if I want to try out different versions of apps, I'm not reliant on someone else to update a docker, I can just get the app, and install it myself, and make changes to it So I'm with some of the others who hope that support can be left in for Xen even if there is no additional development.

Running into an issue with system stats and the tempfs file system. It seems that the log data for system stats (in /var/log/sa) is growing fast enough that it fills up the tempfs file system before it rolls over, so I have to go in and delete the directory so it doesn't fill up the file system. So, given that, a couple of questions, is there a way to change the location of this from tempfs, or is there a way to change the amount of data logged?

Found it, and that seems to have fixed the issue, thanks!

I'm running into an issue with notifications. For some reason I'm not getting any notifications (updates available, parity check running). I've tried both email and browser (having both checked and either/or checked), and nothing shows up under archived notifications either. I have run the test in SMTP, and get the email so I don't think it's a setup thing with my email. I've noticed this on both beta 12 and beta 13, so anything to check to get his working would be fantastic.

Is there a link to the updated version of apcupsd?

So can any of the dynamic plugins be installed, or do we need to wait until they are ported and show up in plugin manager? Something like statistics or system temp for example.

One word of caution for using the script on unraid 6 with VM's. I ran into issues where the script ran fine, but when a parity check kicked off, it would cause unraid to freeze (looked like a kernel panic, that others were able to resolve by pinning CPU's to dom0, but that didn't help in my case). As soon as I went back to the default values the problem went away, so I'm guessing something was just pushed too far, and the machine ran out of resources during parity checks.