allanp81

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    333

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by allanp81

    Performance Improvements in VMs by adjusting CPU pinning and assignment

    in VM Engine (KVM)

    Posted

    I' still seeing some fluctuations in my win7 VM when dockers are used. I've set my VM to use cores 7 and 15 (both isolated), set the emulator pin to 0,1,8,9 and set all dockers to use all of the cores that are left over.

     

    Generally the vm is rock solid, I can use Emby docker and watch transcoded video for instance without it affecting the VM but if I do something such as update or restart a docker, you will see a spike of latency on the vm.

     

    Not sure what I can do to address this? I'm assuming it's because the docker engine is using some cpu time from 0,1,8,9 to do its upgrade/restart.

    Performance Improvements in VMs by adjusting CPU pinning and assignment

    in VM Engine (KVM)

    Posted · Edited by allanp81

    Running latest Unraid and not sure that my cpus are being isolated successfully. I get no errors etc. but if I launch my plex docker and begin streaming a video I can see the CPU load is being spread across all CPUs, including those that have been isolated. This causes massive latency spikes in my win7 VM. Should that happen? If the cores/threads are isolated should plex be able to use them?

     

    *EDIT* I'm a div, I put the cpu isolation section in the wrong part of the boot config. Looks like finally I have a win7 VM I can use!

     

    It just goes to show, just because a motherboard and CPU say they support VT-D/VT-X etc. it doesn't mean it will actually work very well. I was running a Z97 chipset motherboard with a corei5, both of which support virtualisation but latency was always all over the place and basically any VM was always unusable. Upgraded to an X99 Asrock board with Xeon 2620 v4 and now it works great., no latency issues of any kind. Still have to isolate cores even with this setup though to get a latency free environment.

    [Support] Linuxserver.io - SWAG - Secure Web Application Gateway (Nginx/PHP/Certbot/Fail2ban)

    in Docker Containers

    Posted

    I'm still looking for some pointers as to how to get some of my services working via nginx. The lets encrypt part works fine, I can see the page that says:

    Welcome to our server

    The website is currently being setup under this address.

    For help and support, please contact: [email protected]

     

    I have forwarded 443 on my router etc. and can see that page when I try and access remotely but if I try and set up something like couch potato then I still see the same page even though the url shows the login information that you'd normally see for couch potato.

    [Support] Linuxserver.io - SWAG - Secure Web Application Gateway (Nginx/PHP/Certbot/Fail2ban)

    in Docker Containers

    Posted

    Default config:

     

    # listening on port 80 disabled by default, remove the "#" signs to enable

    # redirect all traffic to https

    #server {

    # listen 80;

    # server_name my_server;

    # return 301 https://$host$request_uri;

    #}

     

    # main server block

    server {

    listen 443 ssl;

     

    root /config/www;

    index index.html index.htm index.php;

     

    server_name _;

     

    ssl_certificate /config/keys/letsencrypt/fullchain.pem;

    ssl_certificate_key /config/keys/letsencrypt/privkey.pem;

    ssl_dhparam /config/nginx/dhparams.pem;

    ssl_ciphers 'ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:DHE-DSS-AES128-GCM-SHA256:kEDH+AESGCM:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256:ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-SHA256:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-SHA:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384:ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-SHA384:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-SHA:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:DHE-DSS-AES128-SHA256:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA256:DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:AES128-GCM-SHA256:AES256-GCM-SHA384:AES128-SHA256:AES256-SHA256:AES128-SHA:AES256-SHA:AES:CAMELLIA:DES-CBC3-SHA:!aNULL:!eNULL:!EXPORT:!DES:!RC4:!MD5:!PSK:!aECDH:!EDH-DSS-DES-CBC3-SHA:!EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA:!KRB5-DES-CBC3-SHA';

    ssl_prefer_server_ciphers on;

     

    client_max_body_size 0;

     

    location / {

    try_files $uri $uri/ /index.html /index.php?$args =404;

    }

     

    location ~ \.php$ {

    fastcgi_split_path_info ^(.+\.php)(/.+)$;

    # With php7-cgi alone:

    fastcgi_pass 127.0.0.1:9000;

    # With php7-fpm:

    #fastcgi_pass unix:/var/run/php7-fpm.sock;

    fastcgi_index index.php;

    include /etc/nginx/fastcgi_params;

    }

     

    # sample reverse proxy config for password protected couchpotato running at IP 192.168.1.50 port 5050 with base url "cp"

    # notice this is within the same server block as the base

    # don't forget to generate the .htpasswd file as described on docker hub

    location ^~ /cp {

    auth_basic "Restricted";

    auth_basic_user_file /config/nginx/.htpasswd;

    include /config/nginx/proxy.conf;

    proxy_pass http://192.168.7.11:5050/;

    }

     

    }

     

    # sample reverse proxy config without url base, but as a subdomain "cp", ip and port same as above

    # notice this is a new server block, you need a new server block for each subdomain

    #server {

    # listen 443 ssl;

    #

    # root /config/www;

    # index index.html index.htm index.php;

    #

    # server_name cp.*;

    #

    # ssl_certificate /config/keys/letsencrypt/fullchain.pem;

    # ssl_certificate_key /config/keys/letsencrypt/privkey.pem;

    # ssl_dhparam /config/nginx/dhparams.pem;

    # ssl_ciphers 'ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:DHE-DSS-AES128-GCM-SHA256:kEDH+AESGCM:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256:ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-SHA256:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-SHA:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384:ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-SHA384:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-SHA:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:DHE-DSS-AES128-SHA256:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA256:DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:AES128-GCM-SHA256:AES256-GCM-SHA384:AES128-SHA256:AES256-SHA256:AES128-SHA:AES256-SHA:AES:CAMELLIA:DES-CBC3-SHA:!aNULL:!eNULL:!EXPORT:!DES:!RC4:!MD5:!PSK:!aECDH:!EDH-DSS-DES-CBC3-SHA:!EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA:!KRB5-DES-CBC3-SHA';

    # ssl_prefer_server_ciphers on;

    #

    # client_max_body_size 0;

    #

    # location / {

    # auth_basic "Restricted";

    # auth_basic_user_file /config/nginx/.htpasswd;

    # include /config/nginx/proxy.conf;

    # proxy_pass http://192.168.7.11:5050;

    # }

    #}

    #

    Issue with full drive, unbalance, and permissions

    in General Support

    Posted

    I had the same issue as files were being written to my shares as the user that had permission to the share that I'd mounted it is. In this case the user was "download" so all of my files had "download" as the owner.

     

    Before running unbalance I ssh'd in and ran chown to change everything to nobody. Unbalance then ran fine.

     

    I think I ran something like :

     

    chown nobody -R /mnt/user/*

    Windows 7 cpu pinning

    in VM Engine (KVM)

    Posted

    I've noticed that on the dashboard my CPU cores are labelled as:

     

    Per CPU load * 01, 2, 3

     

    Is that correct or a bug in the display? It's showing 01 rather than 0,1.

     

    It's a core i5 4460 running on a Z97 motherboard (Asus Z97-p). Both support VT-D/VT-X according to the interweb.

     

    I've never cracked getting a VM to run successfully on this configuration without massive latency issues but then noticed the CPU display since updating to Unraid 6.3.1.

    E5-2609 or E5-2620 - benefit to extra threads?

    in Motherboards and CPUs

    Posted

    I'm looking at upgrading my server and cannot decide between these 2 CPUs:

     

    https://www.scan.co.uk/products/intel-xeon-e5-2609-v4-s-2011-3-broadwell-ep-8-core-17ghz-20mb-40-lane-64gt-s-qpi-85w-retail

    https://www.scan.co.uk/products/intel-xeon-e5-2620-v4-s-2011-3-broadwell-ep-8-core-21ghz-3ghz-turbo-20mb-40-lane-80gt-s-qpi-85w-reta

     

    There's ~£100 difference and the main difference is that the 1st CPU is 8 single threaded cores whereas the 2nd CPU is 8 dual threaded cores.

     

    I really want to create virtual machines on my unraid box so am wondering is it worth me paying the extra for the "better" CPU? Will the extra threads make a difference from a virtualisation point of view or will it just complicate things?

     

     

    Many thanks