unifiedmamba
-
Posts
37 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Store
Gallery
Bug Reports
Documentation
Landing
Posts posted by unifiedmamba
-
-
Nice, that's what I call support.
I'll write an email to the official support team listed on the website and post the result here.
-
-
19 hours ago, manikyath said:
for all i know the latest release of unraid has magically resolved the issue.
Sadly not for me. Just tried yesterday.
The documentation of unraid doesn't help either. It just mentions the feature casually but I can't find more information about it. Maybe someone "official" could help out here, it could be us using or understanding the feature wrong .
-
Has anything even changed here?
It seems like this topic isn't even recognized by the developers of unraid. It's a feature you pay for and it's definitely not working correctly, so something should be done about this.I am having the same issue and was not able to find any fix for this.
Since Unraid just uses KVM and qemu which are standard, could this just be a configuration issue of one of these services?
-
Dein Verbrauch ist ja mal absoluter Hammer.
Ich bin schon froh meinen Verbrauch auf ca. 40-50 Watt im idle gesenkt zu haben.
Ich vermute aber dass ein allein mein UPS ca. 10 Watt verbrät, dafür crasht mir im Fall der Fälle halt nicht das NAS.
Mein neuer Ryzen 5600G verbraucht aber immerhin im idle weniger als der lahme Athlon 200GE.
-
Yep, it crashes after the PCI command is executed.
Is there something I can do about it?
But even with everything else enabled I just seem to be able to get power consumption from 67-69 watts to 63-64 watts which isn't so great. Also it seems like the CPU only gets to C2... while the array is stopped.
-
Powertop seems to completely freeze my system after I run --auto-tune. I need to do a hard reset/restart on the unraid machine because it won't be reachable otherwise (pings are fine, but webserver does not work).
What could be the problem here?
Athlon 200GE, Gigabyte GA-A320M-S2H, 16GB of RAM, 1*SATA Expansion Card, 1*2,5GbE Intel Card,
- enabled CEC2019
- enabled ASPM (Active-State Power Management) in the PCI settings
- enabled all C-States like C7/C9/C10 in the CPU settings
- disabled Audio
- disabled Turbo in the CPU settings
-
-
Are there any News ob this topic?
-
@Jawalking Do you think it would be a better solution to just create a new qcow2 or even raw image as a secondary drive and add all files that are now located in the shared folder into that one? Since I need the files to be very fast in the VM for nextcloud this sounds like a good solution for me. For use with other containers I could create a NFS share or something from the VM itself. Do you think this would work?
-
So I've mounted the smb share via this guide https://tecadmin.net/mounting-samba-share-on-ubuntu/ without any further tweaking which results in about 135mb/s in the VM. Seems better, but not the optimal solution.
The problem now is that I still don't get full speed when downloading test files to my PC served by apache2. I now get around 50mb/s which is better than before but not the 115mb/s that are possible if I serve the file from a folder that is located on the qcow2 disk of my VM.
Additionally I have made bad experiences with the handling of small files by SMB which results in very very low speeds when transferring a few small files.
I would therefore like to fix the 9p mount to avoid the new problems that SMB could cause with my use case. -
5 minutes ago, JonathanM said:
In the VM?
Oh no with my windows PC. I don't feel like using a Microsoft standard to share files between two Linux machines should be the right thing to do. There must be an issue with 9p. But I will see how I am able to mount it via SMB and will give feedback.
-
5 minutes ago, JonathanM said:
What kind of speeds do you see with cifs / smb to those same shares?
Around 115mb/s but this is limited by the network speed (1GBe minus overhead)
-
Hello guys, I'm running a VM that is located on my SSD cache drive and has a few user shares mounted which are located on the array via 9p.
Mounting etc. works well, but I am experiencing very slow read/write speeds atm.
The shares perform well within Unraid (tested with around 150mb/s read/write) but as soon as they are used inside my debian VM the read speed of the uncached part significantly decreases to about 10-15mb/s.
Here is my fstab config:
backups /mnt/backups 9p trans=virtio,version=9p2000.L,_netdev,rw,msize=104857600 0 0
The msize entry already increased my write speed, but read speed is still very slow. Reading/writing to the VMs virtual disk is about 1200mb/s, so everything is fine with the VM itself.
Has somebody experienced similar issues and has a clue how to fix this? -
Did you find anything out? My performance is terrible. I get about 12mb/s trough the share which has normally about 150mb/s. Whats wrong here?
-
9 hours ago, Squid said:
Did you switch the vDisk location to Manual?
Yes I tried everything mentioned in the existing threads.
Creating the VM from scratch with the GUI (don't copy the XML) solved the problem for me. Apparently the XML was broken, even though I never touched it manually.
Look at my thread for more infos.
-
@jonpI will do that if it should happen again.
-
1
-
-
@jonp Thank you. I'll attach diagnostics again so you are able to see what my config was and if it somehow my fault. If this helps..
3 minutes ago, JonathanM said:It's kind of a universal thing, some edits in the wizard end up with a "stuck at updating" condition. It's not just the share config, I've had it happen when messing with video and network as well.
Unfortunately it's not easy to reproduce, at least for me. Some things work, some don't.
Yeah but if it works to just recreate the VM it is at least usable, even if it produces some extra work... But I hope it get's fixed nonetheless.
-
Just now, jonp said:
are you saying that the UI is preventing you from adding more than 1?
Yes this is what happened. There seem to be multiple users experiencing this issue:
Renaming the folder and checking the correct name in the XML view didn't help for me. I had to recreate the VM and configure it manually as it was configured before since apparently the XML was kinda broken.
-
7 minutes ago, JonathanM said:
As for copying the XML, I've found that generating a fresh XML and making the needed changes like pointing to a specific vdisk works much better.
You just solved my problem. I was in fear that important settings could get lost if I don't copy the existing XML. I just tried setting the VM up as a new VM and it works. Apparently something in my config was wrong (though I haven't touched it before trying to mount the 2nd share).
Thank you very much for your input!
On 11/28/2021 at 9:45 PM, unifiedmamba said:Now on every boot the VM boots into a so called uefi interactive shell. I need to boot my debian system by the Boot by file option on every startup. I haven't changed anything and can't find a solution online to make it automatically boot to debian again.
This was a problem I was able to solve for myself. I searched for my grub file in the EFI folder and created a new boot option which I put first in boot order, it now works as before.
I am happy this has come to a good end.
-
Same Problem. Renamed the VM, renamed the folder, nothing changes. Double checked that path and name are correct, still does not work. Nobody seems to care about these issues at Limetech
-
And I've got an additional Problem now. I tried copying the VM by copying the XML configuration and using the disk to create a new VM.
Now on every boot the VM boots into a so called uefi interactive shell. I need to boot my debian system by the Boot by file option on every startup. I haven't changed anything and can't find a solution online to make it automatically boot to debian again.
Adding the grub efi file as a boot option is not possible in the interactive shell, it just ignores my inputs.
Additionally the boot order defined in the VM XML is not respected by the VM. If I use a debian ISO as boot priority 2 it will still boot into the ISO and not my Debian on the virtual hard drive. -
On 11/16/2021 at 8:10 PM, bonienl said:
The firewall function is specific for remote clients and prevent them from accessing other sources in your network.
Any local connectivy is unaffected.
Yeah but that's not what I want to achieve. I wan't to prevent every device in my LAN from accessing Unraid, except for the ones that I allow.
-
So I am experiencing a weird issue with vm configuration. Whenever I try to add a second share to any VM the changes I made will not get saved and the webinterface just gets stuck at "updating" whilst doing nothing.
It hasn't got anything to do with the specific share I wanted to add, I am able to add it as the first share, but not second.
Has someone also got this issue and was able to solve it?
See diagnostics for everything else...Removed for privace reasons after my problem was solved
Dynamic memory for virtual machines -- how is this actually designed to work?
in VM Engine (KVM)
Posted
AndrewZ replied to my request:
...