JarDo

yea put it up at the top That worked great. Thanks.

I don't understand. I am having the same problem with emails stating 'Unknown SNMP var ssCpuRawUser', etc... Should I add this line to my mrtg.cfg to fix the issue? LoadMIBs: /usr/share/snmp/mibs/UCD-SNMP-MIB.txt,/usr/share/snmp/mibs/TCP-MIB.txt

Well, I appear to have things working. I used an example mrtg.cfg file from this thread. And, changed the data file location to a location on disk1 of my array. I had to reboot to get the webpage to show the graphs from the new data file location. Now, I get an email about every five minutes. The email is informing me about errors that I don't understand. Unknown SNMP var ssCpuRawUser.0 at /usr/bin/mrtg line 2330 Unknown SNMP var ssCpuRawUser.0 at /usr/bin/mrtg line 2330 2012-02-05 11:00:01: WARNING: Expected a number but got '0:25:11' 2012-02-05 11:00:01: WARNING: Expected a number but got 'UNRAID' Unknown SNMP var ssCpuRawSystem.0 at /usr/bin/mrtg line 2330 Unknown SNMP var ssCpuRawSystem.0 at /usr/bin/mrtg line 2330 2012-02-05 11:00:01: WARNING: Expected a number but got '0:25:11' 2012-02-05 11:00:01: WARNING: Expected a number but got 'UNRAID' Unknown SNMP var ssCpuRawNice.0 at /usr/bin/mrtg line 2330 Unknown SNMP var ssCpuRawNice.0 at /usr/bin/mrtg line 2330 2012-02-05 11:00:01: WARNING: Expected a number but got '0:25:11' 2012-02-05 11:00:01: WARNING: Expected a number but got 'UNRAID' Unknown SNMP var memAvailReal.0 at /usr/bin/mrtg line 2330 Unknown SNMP var memAvailReal.0 at /usr/bin/mrtg line 2330 2012-02-05 11:00:01: WARNING: Expected a number but got '0:25:11' 2012-02-05 11:00:01: WARNING: Expected a number but got 'UNRAID' Unknown SNMP var memBuffer.0 at /usr/bin/mrtg line 2330 Unknown SNMP var memBuffer.0 at /usr/bin/mrtg line 2330 2012-02-05 11:00:01: WARNING: Expected a number but got '0:25:11' 2012-02-05 11:00:01: WARNING: Expected a number but got 'UNRAID' Unknown SNMP var memCached.0 at /usr/bin/mrtg line 2330 Unknown SNMP var memCached.0 at /usr/bin/mrtg line 2330 2012-02-05 11:00:01: WARNING: Expected a number but got '0:25:11' 2012-02-05 11:00:01: WARNING: Expected a number but got 'UNRAID' Unknown SNMP var memTotalReal.0 at /usr/bin/mrtg line 2330 Unknown SNMP var memTotalReal.0 at /usr/bin/mrtg line 2330 2012-02-05 11:00:01: WARNING: Expected a number but got '0:25:11' 2012-02-05 11:00:01: WARNING: Expected a number but got 'UNRAID' 2012-02-05 11:00:02: ERROR: Target[server.cpu][_IN_] ' $target->[1]{$mode} + $target->[2]{$mode} + $target->[3]{$mode} ' (warn): Use of uninitialized value in addition (+) at (eval 18) line 1. 2012-02-05 11:00:02: ERROR: Target[server.cpu][_OUT_] ' $target->[1]{$mode} + $target->[2]{$mode} + $target->[3]{$mode} ' (warn): Use of uninitialized value in addition (+) at (eval 19) line 1. 2012-02-05 11:00:02: ERROR: Target[server.mempercentused][_IN_] '100 - ( ( $target->[4]{$mode} + $target->[5]{$mode} + $target->[6]{$mode} ) * 100 / ( $target->[7]{$mode} ) )' (warn): Use of uninitialized value in division (/) at (eval 20) line 1. 2012-02-05 11:00:02: ERROR: Target[server.mempercentused][_OUT_] '100 - ( ( $target->[4]{$mode} + $target->[5]{$mode} + $target->[6]{$mode} ) * 100 / ( $target->[7]{$mode} ) )' (warn): Use of uninitialized value in division (/) at (eval 21) line 1. I'm sure this is an issue with my configuration, but I'm not too sure what I need to fix. Any advise?

Sure, I've been watching eBay. But since my only additional requirement is that the board is not DOA I thought I'd give my friends here a chance to sell some old hardware.

I want to build a test unraid environment with some spare hardware that I have laying around and am in need of an inexpensive Socket 478 MB with an AGP slot.

I'm experiencing a strange behavior with unMENU where clicking on a menu line results in a 'The webpage cannot be found' response. This doesn't affect the menu, only the frame. So... If I keep clicking on the menu eventually it begins to work. However, for some unknown reason the issue will return and then much menu clicking is required again. I'm not sure when this started to happen. I've just been putting up with it for a very long time. But, I think it began with the v5 betas of unRaid. Am I the only person experiencing this behavior? Has anyone discovered a cause/solution yet?

This is very cool. It works well on one of my PC's with Chrome browser. However, on my Windows 7 PC with IE9 I don't get linefeeds. Everything happens on the top line. Do you have any suggestions as to how I can fix this. FIXED - Must enable 'Compatbility View' for IE9 to render the page correctly. This option is available under the Tools menu. Also, is there any control over the forground and backround colors?

I've actually had luck a couple of times with SpinRite: http://www.grc.com/sr/spinrite.htm I don't think this has seen a new version since 2004, but I don't think it needs it. In the past, I've used this to bring dead laptop drives back from the grave long enough to pull an image to restore onto a new drive. It worked like a charm. As long as your drive spins and is recognized by the BIOS when your PC posts, then it is worth a shot.

It looks like 171,000+ files. So, I suppose 17 minutes isn' too bad.

I'm using the pull method to backup my server to my unraid. rsync -amv --delete --chmod=Fo-x --log-file=/boot/logs/fs1_rsync.log 192.168.1.90::fs1 /mnt/user/backup/fs1 On a morning where there are no files to backup the log shows that the whole operation takes about 17 minutes to complete: 2011/03/11 04:41:25 [13845] receiving file list 2011/03/11 04:54:34 [13845] done 2011/03/11 04:58:16 [17308] sent 25 bytes received 3594148 bytes 3535.83 bytes/sec 2011/03/11 04:58:16 [17308] total size is 257453877548 speedup is 71630.91 Funny thing is, this is the bulk of time involved. Even when I've got a few gigs of ISO's, or other assorted files, to sync the average backup is between 21 and 30 minutes.

Ditto what he said, except... I'm pretty sure there is no "nuke your array" button. (I'm positive that was meant to be a joke.)

Has anyone determined if one way or another if there is an issue with NFS in unraid v5. And, if so, if it is working again in beta 6? I'm having difficulty connecting from my TIVX via NFS and I had no issue in unraid v4.7.

Before v5, I was using v4.7. In that version I seem to remember that there was a text box where I could enter the security settings for sharing via SMB over my network. Now, the settings are via dropdown boxes. I'd think that this should work just fine, but I can't seem to get my unraid shares visible to my TIVX, though, I can browse all my shares on my windows computers. Now that I'm running v5 is there something new that I need to do to make my unraid shares visible on the network? ... Ok, I now realize that I wasn't using SMB to access my movies from TIVX, but rather that I was using NFS. I figured out how to add NFS rules in the v5 interface, and I added the rule *(ro). The problem is... I can't remember if this is all I had for an NFS rule before I installed unraid v5. So, I don't know if my issue is related to running v5 or if it is because I did not restore my NFS rules properly. Now, my TIVX does not give a network error any longer but it doesn't display any files or directories either. Any suggestions?

So, then, I understand that if I see no mention of any errors that is the same as Zero errors.

So... I recently upgraded to v5b6. At this moment, my system is actively performing a Parity Sync. I have a couple of questions... Browsing the forums I see reference to Parity Build, Parity Check, Parity Sync and Parity Verify. I understand the difference between these states as follows: Parity Build - No parity exists, build new Parity Check - Parity exists, Verify & Report, make no change Parity Sync - Parity exists, Verify and Update as needed Parity Verify - Not an actual status. Incorrect reference to Parity Check Is my understanding of these labels correct? Also... I seem to remember that when I was running v4.7 that whenever a Parity Check or Sync was running that the number of corrections was displayed in the WEB GUI. I find comfort checking every now and then to verify that this number is zero. Was this removed from version 5? I don't see it.

Is anyone else having difficulty adding users? I was able to create a password for the root user, but when I try to add another user nothing happens. Here is what I see in my syslog when I try: Mar 1 08:12:53 UNRAID login[7057]: ROOT LOGIN on '/dev/pts/0' from '192.168.1.108' Mar 1 08:14:17 UNRAID emhttp: shcmd (71): useradd -g users -d / -s /bin/false -c '' Jarod 2>&1 |logger Mar 1 08:14:17 UNRAID logger: useradd: invalid user name 'Jarod' Mar 1 08:14:17 UNRAID emhttp: shcmd (72): chpasswd <<< Jarod:"*****" Mar 1 08:14:17 UNRAID emhttp: _shcmd: shcmd (72): exit status: 1 Mar 1 08:14:17 UNRAID emhttp: shcmd (73): smbpasswd -L -s -a Jarod <<< "*****"$'\n'"*****" Mar 1 08:14:17 UNRAID emhttp: _shcmd: shcmd (73): exit status: 1 Mar 1 08:14:17 UNRAID emhttp: shcmd (74): cp /etc/passwd /etc/shadow /etc/samba/private/smbpasswd /boot/config

I have the exact same issue. I have 9 data disks + 1 in slot 20. Right now I am on step 10 of the procedure you outlined.

This is the offending line in the syslog: Feb 27 21:48:16 UNRAID emhttp: HOME not found It's crashing because there is no internal variable named 'HOME'. Are you running a completely stock version of unRAID (ie, no add-ons). If so, please copy the contents of your Flash device to your PC, zip and email as attachment to [email protected]. There is no personal info in any of those files, except for the names of your user shares, users, and passwords (though the passwords are encrypted - if you prefer you can omit files config/passwd and config/smbpasswd). Tom... That's the clue I needed. I had a Workgroup configured in Unraid as "@HOME". I think that special character was what was killing me. I changed my Workgroup name and now I'm running Beta v5b5b just fine (so far). Thank you.

I'm still receiving segfaults when emhttp loads and have no access to the web gui. My syslog is attached. syslog_v5b5a.txt

C'mon man, for a beta release it's even more important to attach the system log. You're right, my bad... I'll redo the test this evening and do just that. Tom... As promised, see attached for a copy of my syslog. syslog_v5b4.txt

C'mon man, for a beta release it's even more important to attach the system log. You're right, my bad... I'll redo the test this evening and do just that.

For me, same as with beta3, I am unable to access the unraid web interface. I followed all instructions, and before starting I disabled all 3rd party addons, including unmenu. I can telnet and upon inspecting the syslog I see a "segmentation fault" message when the "emhttp &" line of my go script executes. Also, I can execute "uu" and then access the first page of the unmenu web interface. But, that is all I can do. For now, I'm back up and running with v4.7.

If you saved a backup of all files you modified/moved/deleted during the 'upgrade' process then yes you can. I had to go back because I could not access the web interface with this version. I simply reversed the 'upgrade' process by restoring my backed-up files and I'm up and running again with v4.7.

I've followed all the instructions from the OP and upgraded to this latest beta from 4.7, but I am unable to access the UnRaid WEB GUI. I can access the main WEB page for UnMenu, but none of the links work. From this page, I can see that none of my drives are assigned and my array isn't started... But, I expected that. I can telnet to my server so I renamed my custom UnMenu 'packages' directory so none of my addons install and I rebooted. Still... I cannot access the UnRaid WEB GUI. I'm outta ideas.

Question: I'm looking to replace the motherboard in my Unraid server. I understand that Unraid doesn't require a lot in the way of processor speed, but is there any advantage to multiple cores? I ask because the motherboard I'm looking at (SUPERMICRO MBD-C2SBC-Q-O LGA 775 Intel Q35 ATX Intel) will take a dual or quad core processor. I can get a fast dual or a slower quad for the same price. I'm just not too sure which is the better way to go.