zoggy

just started a full auto test.. seems like you could just use some intelligence here to see the trend and just exit out early rather than waste the time to see the speeds diminished. Since PASS 1 (3min duration with 20 points = 1hr), I could have saved 45mins (if stopping after 5th test) and just went onto the next part. Note that I did not have the stock tunables set.. do you ever record what the user had initially? I made a copy of my unraid drive before doing this test just in case. Here were my values before running this test. boot/config/disk.cfg Grabbed the output from TunablesReport.txt, can see that the 2nd pass appears to be going the same way. Tunables Report from unRAID Tunables Tester v2.0 by Pauven NOTE: Use the smallest set of values that produce good results. Larger values increase server memory use, and may cause stability issues with unRAID, especially if you have any add-ons or plug-ins installed. Test | num_stripes | write_limit | sync_window | Speed --- FULLY AUTOMATIC TEST PASS 1 (Rough - 20 Sample Points @ 3min Duration)--- 1 | 1408 | 768 | 512 | 88.0 MB/s 2 | 1536 | 768 | 640 | 87.8 MB/s 3 | 1664 | 768 | 768 | 87.4 MB/s 4 | 1920 | 896 | 896 | 87.0 MB/s 5 | 2176 | 1024 | 1024 | 87.2 MB/s 6 | 2560 | 1152 | 1152 | 86.8 MB/s 7 | 2816 | 1280 | 1280 | 86.6 MB/s 8 | 3072 | 1408 | 1408 | 86.2 MB/s 9 | 3328 | 1536 | 1536 | 86.0 MB/s 10 | 3584 | 1664 | 1664 | 85.7 MB/s 11 | 3968 | 1792 | 1792 | 85.7 MB/s 12 | 4224 | 1920 | 1920 | 86.1 MB/s 13 | 4480 | 2048 | 2048 | 86.2 MB/s 14 | 4736 | 2176 | 2176 | 85.7 MB/s 15 | 5120 | 2304 | 2304 | 85.3 MB/s 16 | 5376 | 2432 | 2432 | 85.3 MB/s 17 | 5632 | 2560 | 2560 | 85.1 MB/s 18 | 5888 | 2688 | 2688 | 85.1 MB/s 19 | 6144 | 2816 | 2816 | 84.8 MB/s 20 | 6528 | 2944 | 2944 | 84.8 MB/s --- Targeting Fastest Result of md_sync_window 512 bytes for Medium Pass --- --- FULLY AUTOMATIC TEST PASS 2 (Final - 16 Sample Points @ 4min Duration)--- 21 | 1288 | 768 | 392 | 84.9 MB/s 22 | 1296 | 768 | 400 | 84.8 MB/s 23 | 1304 | 768 | 408 | 84.7 MB/s 24 | 1312 | 768 | 416 | 84.7 MB/s 25 | 1320 | 768 | 424 | 84.4 MB/s 26 | 1328 | 768 | 432 | 84.7 MB/s 27 | 1336 | 768 | 440 | 84.7 MB/s 28 | 1344 | 768 | 448 | 84.4 MB/s 29 | 1360 | 768 | 456 | 84.6 MB/s 30 | 1368 | 768 | 464 | 84.7 MB/s 31 | 1376 | 768 | 472 | 84.3 MB/s 32 | 1384 | 768 | 480 | 84.5 MB/s 33 | 1392 | 768 | 488 | 84.7 MB/s 34 | 1400 | 768 | 496 | 84.6 MB/s 35 | 1408 | 768 | 504 | 84.5 MB/s 36 | 1416 | 768 | 512 | 84.7 MB/s Completed: 2 Hrs 8 Min 16 Sec. Best Bang for the Buck: Test 1 with a speed of 88.0 MB/s Tunable (md_num_stripes): 1408 Tunable (md_write_limit): 768 Tunable (md_sync_window): 512 These settings will consume 77MB of RAM on your hardware. Unthrottled values for your server came from Test 21 with a speed of 84.9 MB/s Tunable (md_num_stripes): 1288 Tunable (md_write_limit): 768 Tunable (md_sync_window): 392 These settings will consume 70MB of RAM on your hardware. This is -70MB less than your current utilization of 140MB. NOTE: Adding additional drives will increase memory consumption. In unRAID, go to Settings > Disk Settings to set your chosen parameter values. Pauven, if you wanna chat you can jump on the unraid irc channel. #unraid on irc.freenode.net If you dont have a irc client, you can connect via the web: http://webchat.freenode.net/

fyi, in 2.0 your fullauto states at the command prompt that its going to take 1.5x length as full parity check. if you continue, the next screen mentions that its going to take 2.1 hours. also, shouldnt a user do a non-correcting parity check BEFORE any test is done to make sure everything is good before continuing?

have you looked into "sysctl vm.highmem_is_dirtyable=1" ? I know that if I enable this command I do see higher speeds with stock nn values. Read this post about it: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=25431.msg240538#msg240538 I wonder if once things are tuned with your script how that command would affect it?

can this script check how much memory is free and back out of what its doing if memory is coming dangerously close to running out?

Thats a little open-ended.. if the plugin installed isnt doing anything..then it should be fine. If the plugin is going to start generating cpu cycles/writing data.. then yes you prob dont want to be using them as it could skew the results. So, to make sure you limit the outside variables you prob should just run this in safe mode and with the array stopped. Pauven prob can answer best or confirm my statement.

doubtful... I don't see unmenu's solution going away anytime soon. Then the newcomer boxcar has potential...

for which package manager? webGui? unmenu? SF?. ...

chmod +x filename

you were suppose to remove the old file (since naming the revision in the file was dropped). the new filename never changes.. thus just wget the latest file always means your up to date.

Hi Tom, should you add code to block access to IE7 and below? for example a windows that says IE8.0 or greater etc... -- Sideband Samurai IE users can just use chrome frame, you dont even need admin rights. Sadly though its being retired on Jan 2014. Anyways, rather than forcing that as short term solution we might just be better off doing something like showing a message to IE7 and older peeps: <!--[if lt IE 7]> <p class="browsehappy">You are using an <strong>outdated</strong> browser. Please <a href="http://browsehappy.com/">upgrade your browser</a> to improve your experience.</p> <![endif]-->

Just FYI, Tom is alive and is working on webGui: https://github.com/limetech/webGui/pull/1#issuecomment-22980697

it deletes it when its installed.. thus if you just remove the package from the plugins folder, on reboot the normal webgui will be there (as it wont be removed since the new webgui package isnt being installed)

so seems like this whole webgui dev isnt taking off like one would hope.. maybe post 5.0?

note for ant, when testing responsive design you can use: http://responsive.is/ alright, I'm off to work. I'll check back on this thread tomorrow.

the new ui in ie6 or 7.. somewhat useable but some useability issues for sure (lack of png support/float issues/unsupported css used). not that we should really support it.. since WinXP users can run IE8. Win7 users would be running IE9-10. But just in case you were curious what it looks like:

@husky:/boot/config/plugins/webGui# cat webGui.* | grep devices devices="0" devices="0" however its still showing listing unassigned devices...

most mobile browsers nowdays are more than capable of displaying a webpage correctly.. there doesnt appear to be any non friendly stuff used.. (like dropdown menus on hover). so your mobile device should be fine. you may just have to zoom in to have a decent touch target... but yes one could easily add css3's media queries to make the design responsive for the device being used (tablet/mobile/desktop). this could have been done as well with the previous stock ui..

In case those were wondering.. I have a vm where I run the legacy browsers for testing.. (IE6 & 7 via IE Collection) but natively it has IE8, Firefox 3.6.28, Opera 10.54, Safari 4.0.5, Chrome 5. Tom, any chance getting the forum max total size raised? Having a max size of 192kb then a max total size of 192kb.. means to attach screenshots of before + after changes.. I'd have to use heavy compression or multiple posts. For giggles here is what IE9 shows for stock r3 (notice it also is in computability mode):

just submitted pull. https://github.com/limetech/webGui/pull/1 its going to be very subtle changes if you see any. ideally this gen browsers wont see much changes since a lot of them agree on things.. but the legacy browsers should all be normalized for the most part. also this fixes ie8's broken compatibility mode being used. screen shot attached (notice by the refresh button there is the 'compatibility' icon on the stock r3 and its no longer there after my code changes)

with IE8: there is js error.. Webpage error details User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) Timestamp: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 23:11:36 UTC Message: Object expected Line: 59 Char: 3 Code: 0 URI: http://husky/Main

forked the webGui, made some changes.. not sure how/whats the best way to get these changes back to github.. do i need to copy over my changes to my unraid box.. build out a package then share that? seems like a disaster waiting to happen since it will include MY .ini of settings.. could see this getting messy. also the '/usr/local/emhttp/plugins/webGui' is not exactly accessible via remote.. copied over my changes to the flash share.. then logged into the unraid box via ssh.. copied over one of my changes.. noticed it's chmod is 777 while all the other files are 666. yet another thing that could go wrong with this..

in include\info_layout.php I see a hard reference to a plugin: <?if (file_exists("/var/log/plugins/simpleFeatures.system.info")):?> https://github.com/limetech/webGui/blob/master/webGui/include/info_layout.php#L125 is this allowed in the main ui to reference 3rd party plugins? or is just a something that should be pruned?

just went to grab file to install. your directions do not work with a clean install due to https... # wget https://github.com/limetech/webGui/raw/master/webGui-latest.plg --2013-08-07 17:19:39-- https://github.com/limetech/webGui/raw/master/webGui-latest.plg Resolving github.com (github.com)... 204.232.175.90 Connecting to github.com (github.com)|204.232.175.90|:443... connected. ERROR: cannot verify github.com's certificate, issued by `/C=US/O=DigiCert Inc/OU=www.digicert.com/CN=DigiCert High Assurance EV CA-1': Unable to locally verify the issuer's authority. To connect to github.com insecurely, use `--no-check-certificate'. you can instead just do: # wget --no-check-certificate https://github.com/limetech/webGui/raw/master/webGui-latest.plg

some images from the newer sataIII version: http://greenleaf-technology.com/new-norco-ss-500-5-in-3-drive-cage-review/ The main reason why I'd had to have the sataIII version is for the shorter depth of the cage along with the sata ports being laid out in a row rather than having to guess. just FYI, if you try and buy the SS-500 from Amazon, the default seller is 'Better Choice Online' and they only have the SATA II version. I reached out to them to check if they had the newer model and was told: After waiting a few days I gave up on them and just went ahead with my order at Newegg. If you order the SS-500 from Newegg, you should get the SATAIII version (but you may get different revisions of it). I ordered 3 cages from newegg and while all are the newer SATAIII variant I had one in the original revision (orange pcb with 3 pin fan) and two are (green pcb with 4 pin fan) For a shot of what they look like with the fan removed (note that the molex power have been flipped, 4 vs 3 pin fan, and then the sata ports are labeled 1-5 vs 4-0 now) http://i.imgur.com/iLrUaqB.jpg And I highly recommend replacing the fans in the SS-500 as they are way too loud for what they do. Per Raj and other forum suggestions they say that the Coolink SWif-802 are the way to go.. which is great if you live in Europe where you can find them. But if you live in america they are out of stock. Per QuietPC USA: So in the end I ended up trying out the Noctua NF-R8 for my SS-500 and they work great (I use the Low-Noise Adaptor (L.N.A.) cable option). I picked up a 3 pack of the R8 fans on Amazon for cheaper than I could find two of the R8 fans alone.