Lev
-
Posts
369 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Store
Gallery
Bug Reports
Documentation
Landing
Report Comments posted by Lev
-
-
2 minutes ago, TexasUnraid said:
A quick google looks like it is some kind of linux software but is it natively supported in unraid? I don't like going outside of an ecosystem I don't fully understand if possible.
Makes sense. Nevermind my suggestion.
-
On 10/22/2020 at 6:02 PM, TexasUnraid said:
Is there a way to have directory splits on the cache pools happen like the array?
mergerfs ?
-
Super helpful response @Squid, thanks for the details.
-
Need some help wrapping my head around the XFS option. Here's what I *think* I know, if someone can correct or affirm, I'd appreciate it 😀
Let's play True or False....
-
brtfs has traditionally been the cache drive file system of preference if using Docker. T/F ?
-
brtfs was the preference because it supported Copy on Write COW, which was helpful for de-duplication of Docker images. T / F ?
-
XFS with the new-ish (2018?) reflink=1 that is now the default format option for XFS in UnRAID also enables COW. T / F ?
- Moving forward I can now select XFS as my cache drive option where Docker images are stored. Or the new Docker folder is pointed @Squid and can gain all the benefits I had before using brtfs but with the trust and stability that XFS brings. T / F ?
Thanks for playing!
-
brtfs has traditionally been the cache drive file system of preference if using Docker. T/F ?
-
Tested inside a VM running within UnRAID. Everything looks as expected, nothing exciting to report. That's a good thing 😄
-
@limetech Tom are there any specific test cases that could be performed that would help provide you more information?
-
@johnnie.black I'd like to gather some data to assist. To align with your tests, could I get a copy of your spreadsheet so I can plug in my numbers?
-
Any updates on the known issue regarding slower parity sync/check for large arrays?
-
1 hour ago, WizADSL said:
Another long shot, have you tried booting EFI?
I was also going to recommend this @IamSpartacus. I've experienced something similar when I was booting ESXi and switching EFI / Legacy boot resolved it.
-
3 hours ago, testdasi said:
Don't know if it's a bug or not but all my Shares switched to High Water mode instead of my usual Most Free. No big deal - I just switch stuff back manually but I reckon it might be a major annoyance for some.
I checked mine, I can't reproduce this.
-
28 minutes ago, limetech said:
From the first post in the topic:
"Remaining issue: some users have reported slower parity sync/check rates for very wide arrays (20+ devices) vs. 6.7 and earlier releases - we are still studying this problem."
🤦♂️Would you believe before I posted I was so worried about embarrassing myself that I read every post, except the first post... 🤣 FML
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, johnnie.black said:
There's a known issue where parity syncs can be significantly slower, especially but not limited to larger arrays, in one of my 30 disk servers starting speed decreased from 200MB/s to 150MB/s.
Good to know, thanks Johnnie. I had a feeling you would of already spotted the issue since we both run large arrays.
-
1 hour ago, limetech said:
You want me to look at this? Post your diagnostics.
Here's diagnostics from rc3, do you also want to see 6.7.2 ?
-
1
-
-
I've consistently reproduced parity check speeds that are roughly 30MB/s slower with 6.8.0-rc1 & rc3 (both the same 143MB/s) vs. 6.7.2 (173MB/s)
So far I've tested all three builds mentioned, and within rc3 I've tried mq-deadline & kyber but didn't see any difference. What else should I be looking at?
-
Upgraded two servers from 6.7.2, checked the logs, no issues to report. One server was bare metal, the other is a VM. The VM booted fine, everything passed thru as expected.
-
34 minutes ago, gacpac said:
I started with 2gb with a test server and after giving 4GB it works as supposed to. But my boss was looking like it was false advertisement.
You didn't attach diagnostics, nor cite any specific things that didn't work. Only false advertising is your post. I run 2gb just fine, prove me wrong.
-
-
2 hours ago, jonathanm said:
Not that it this is the proper solution, but if you enable NFS it enables the dashboard as well.
To summarize, NFS or SMB (workgroup) must be enabled for the desktop to populate properly.
That was the only work-around I found too.
If anyone is curious what my use case was... my UnRAID server is acting as client only. I disabled SMB, NFS and anything else I didn't need, less things to have to secure.
-
Yes I have seen something very close to this. I disabled smb and dashboard exhibited the same behavior you posted .
-
Upgraded from rc6 last night, no issues to report. I also noticed the long pause others have reported, but wouldn't of thought to mention it.
-
Upgraded from rc5 and diff compared the logs, all looks as it should. Nice work!
-
The root cause was smart-one.cfg and for some reason it had the following two lines that must of been leftover artifacts from the past.
smType=" "
smPort1="10"
Mystery solved. 😀
-
I'll post details as soon as I find how I resolved this. There was something in my /boot/config/ and after I deleted the file(s) have resolved the warning message and it no longer appears.
-
6 minutes ago, trurl said:
I'm sure this is just a typo but could you clarify?
Typo. I edited the post so as not to cause more confusion. Thank you @trurl
Unraid OS version 6.10.0-rc2 available
-
-
-
-
-
in Prereleases
Posted
Not sure what explains this being fixed, but good new is good news... first time in many versions I'm able to run the UnRAID GUI. I tested both legacy and EFI boot modes and both now work. Awesome, I very much missed this feature! 😃
Everytime I boot into the GUI, after login, Firefox has a message pop-up asking to be the default browser, and select a color theme. If there is a way to make these selections persist, so not prompted after each reboot, that would be make the user experience that much more elegant.