Jerky_san

So I checked again this morning. It succeeded in renewing but letsencrypt still died and can't access any websites hosted behind it so it's not that.

o-o welp that helped.. was trying to renew my domain that is behind cloudflare so it was failing.. Danke Danke

Happened to me again this morning.. something seems to happen around 2 am CST

I'm having the same issue. I've been trying to figure it out but it's getting annoying.

Oh sorry and thanks o-o.. Damn thanks a lot fixed me completely

Anyone else having problems with the UNMS docker? It's saying config files are missing for postgres and stuff when I try to use it. postgres: could not access the server configuration file "/config/postgres/postgresql.conf": No such file or directory Looked in the postgres folder and it's completely empty. It's almost like permissions are missing or something..

Guess just ignored everything I said I suppose?

Don't really see what board your running but some boards are weird about passing the Audio.. Even my Zenith sometimes shits the bed with the audio though its fairly rare. Also testdasi, me, and another user whose username escapes me all have 2990wx and we've probably put countless hours of research into making our systems run VMs really well. Though on this thread it's mostly the first few posts and when it gets down to mine and a few others. Btw most things have actually been integrated into Unraid(depending on what version your running). For instance you don't have to do all the special XML editing crap on a lot of stuff unless your bridging both numa together. Tbh on that unraid can't do that very easily as there is A LOT of special sauce on that. Heck it took me months to make the numa properly render so memory could easily be split and allocated. Anyways I'd say learn how to skim fast as that is what I generally do.. Guessing that is what testdasi is talking about it. Most of these responses in this thread are mostly people asking questions or something and only a few posting updates and such. Just lock onto them and go through their comments looking for updates from them. Will go a lot faster.. Below is all you really need these days if your running the latest Unraid. For the processor part to render the cache properly. Unraid actually does most of this for you now though in the latest version. It will not do the numa part. At least to my knowledge. <cpu mode='host-passthrough' check='none'> <topology sockets='1' cores='16' threads='1'/> <cache mode='passthrough'/> <feature policy='require' name='topoext'/> <feature policy='disable' name='monitor'/> <feature policy='require' name='hypervisor'/> <feature policy='disable' name='svm'/> <feature policy='disable' name='x2apic'/> <numa> <cell id='0' cpus='0-7' memory='16777216' unit='KiB'/> <cell id='1' cpus='8-15' memory='16777216' unit='KiB'/> </numa> </cpu> This is what you should be running for your numa.. It will properly allocate your ram. The way you currently have it. It will allocate all it can from node0 first which is "problematic" to say the least.. Please keep in mind I run a 2990wx so your NUMA's will be different.. I'm assuming 0/1 so yeah.. don't just copy paste this and then come back and complain it doesn't work please o_o. <numatune> <memory mode='strict' nodeset='0,2'/> <memnode cellid='0' mode='strict' nodeset='0'/> <memnode cellid='1' mode='strict' nodeset='2'/> </numatune>

Turns out it is CPU limiting.. The processes called "unraidDD" with the number I assume of the disk behind it are all spiking to 100% all the time. It also appears there are more b2sum processes running than originally meets the eye. I'm unsure though why the unraidDD process is requiring so much processing power but assume it has something to do with the lookup of files on that particular disk.

5x 160-190MB/s = 800-950MB/s Also during things like parity checks it(with the extra 2 drives for parity) it will go an average of 110 megabytes a second average check speed(which is a limitation of the back-plane. Since the back plane only has a single SAS connection 6GBx4 + overhead.

So having an issue or two.. First Full Disclosure Processor 2990wx - 24 physical cores 48 threads available for use Ram 128GB Using BLAKE2 for hashing I was doing checks to see how many disks I could check at once.. Started with All and started killing checks starting with disk 1. I noticed however that disk 1's job never stopped for some reason. It has kept running. That is my first issue. It appears repeatable as well. When I kill disk 1 it appears to kill another job instead. Problem two is I can seemingly only do 5 disks at a time if I want any kind of speed. After that the MB checked per second drops substantially. If I do all drives at once it will drop to about 10mb a second(18 Drives). So looking at top I noticed two processes seem to run at once per drive. So I cut it down to 12 drives thinking 12x2 = 24 and no one core was maxing so should be great. But it only raised it to about 30 megabytes a second. A 3x increase but still was hoping with as many physical cores as I have it would be able to do more. Is this expected or perhaps I have something configured wrong?

Updated and all went well thus far =0

@limetech - https://unraid.net/blog/unraid-6-8 <- on the announcement there is a typo. "We started 6.9 development and initial testing" <- should be 6.8. Just wanted to point it out.. Thanks for the hard work btw

That's what mine is but minus the cache level piece. It emulates it properly as long as it passes through as EPYC so I don't use it.

Hmm what work around? I pass it through as an EPYC so it sees the L3 cache right and it does threading correctly that way as well. Also posted video of with and without but feel its not as defined. Both times the machine was just idle/logged in Forgot to mention your watching Core 2 <- Sorry core 2.. I really need to not cook and post on forums.. Bare metal VM

So the bump comes from the 1st core assigned to your VM. If it's a windows 10 machine it seems to consume a lot of kernel in htop. The timer fixes will cause it to drop. You won't see the utilization in the VM itself as it's large overhead happening in the hypervisor level. What you will see though is higher cpuz tests as you notice it does multi thread then tests the first core in windows. I'm curious to know if others see the same cpu throughput in cpuz that I see. Also I kind of wonder if its windows 10 version. I was going to make a video about the differences to show you but today I had updated to 1900 series and it seems the higher kernel usage is gone. So wonder if the scheduler changes brought other changes as well. I was running the 1800 series of windows yesterday when I was doing tweaks on this machine. Captured videos though the difference I feel is not as defined

<vcpu placement='static'>30</vcpu> <cputune> <vcpupin vcpu='0' cpuset='1'/> <vcpupin vcpu='1' cpuset='33'/> <vcpupin vcpu='2' cpuset='2'/> <vcpupin vcpu='3' cpuset='34'/> <vcpupin vcpu='4' cpuset='3'/> <vcpupin vcpu='5' cpuset='35'/> <vcpupin vcpu='6' cpuset='4'/> <vcpupin vcpu='7' cpuset='36'/> <vcpupin vcpu='8' cpuset='5'/> <vcpupin vcpu='9' cpuset='37'/> <vcpupin vcpu='10' cpuset='6'/> <vcpupin vcpu='11' cpuset='38'/> <vcpupin vcpu='12' cpuset='7'/> <vcpupin vcpu='13' cpuset='39'/> <vcpupin vcpu='14' cpuset='8'/> <vcpupin vcpu='15' cpuset='40'/> <vcpupin vcpu='16' cpuset='9'/> <vcpupin vcpu='17' cpuset='41'/> <vcpupin vcpu='18' cpuset='10'/> <vcpupin vcpu='19' cpuset='42'/> <vcpupin vcpu='20' cpuset='11'/> <vcpupin vcpu='21' cpuset='43'/> <vcpupin vcpu='22' cpuset='12'/> <vcpupin vcpu='23' cpuset='44'/> <vcpupin vcpu='24' cpuset='13'/> <vcpupin vcpu='25' cpuset='45'/> <vcpupin vcpu='26' cpuset='14'/> <vcpupin vcpu='27' cpuset='46'/> <vcpupin vcpu='28' cpuset='15'/> <vcpupin vcpu='29' cpuset='47'/> <emulatorpin cpuset='1-15,33-47'/> </cputune> <numatune> <memory mode='strict' nodeset='0,2'/> <memnode cellid='0' mode='strict' nodeset='0'/> <memnode cellid='1' mode='strict' nodeset='2'/> </numatune> The bottom part of the top code snippet is the part that does the back end <numatune> stuff then at the processor you need something like this below. The cell id's correspond to each other. The bottom is what the VM sees but it is also how the VM will be allocated resources <cpu mode='custom' match='exact' check='full'> <model fallback='forbid'>EPYC</model> <topology sockets='1' cores='15' threads='2'/> <feature policy='require' name='topoext'/> <feature policy='disable' name='monitor'/> <feature policy='require' name='hypervisor'/> <feature policy='disable' name='svm'/> <feature policy='disable' name='x2apic'/> <numa> <cell id='0' cpus='0-13' memory='16777216' unit='KiB'/> <cell id='1' cpus='14-29' memory='16777216' unit='KiB'/> </numa> </cpu> Now to get more performance you might want to look at htop.. You'll notice the first core is always using lots of kernel if your using windows 10. To fix that change your <clock> to this below. This will really help your CPUZ score along with a noticeable boost in performance. You'll also notice the kernel in htop has gone away substantially. <clock offset='localtime'> <timer name='hypervclock' present='yes'/> <timer name='hpet' present='yes'/> </clock> Overtime I also did these below for Hyper-v <hyperv> <vpindex state='on'/> <synic state='on'/> <stimer state='on'/> <reset state='on'/> <vendor_id state='on' value='KVM Hv'/> <frequencies state='on'/> </hyperv> I was going to write a little guide on how to make Ryzen work as well as possible. If any of you that have 2990's and 2950's please tell me if these settings replicate into your VM's as well. I can tell you that my non fresh VM didn't take the CPU boosts nearly as well as my fresh test VM. This is within 5-10% of bare metal though which is very good in my book.

I pass NVMEs to it.. I was more or less referring to spanning multiple NUMA without performance problems and some minor hitching in games though last night I think I made a break through. I was wondering what kind of performance you all get with your 2990wx's when spanning two NUMA? Last night I was playing around with my secondary VM's config and I decided to work on the back-end numa presentation more. My problem has always been that I couldn't get memory to span properly between the two numa and I think I finally made a major breakthrough on that. Ironically when I started the machine I accidentally killed my current one because there wasn't enough ram on NUMA 0 to start the new VM with my config I set lol. So here is my documentation I took with it.. If you guys believe I made some progress then I'll write a better guide about it. Also the question was more because if you were going to get one or someone on here I was going to wait and see how good they perform before I consider jumping but the 80 platform interest me to if they support ECC. Opinions welcome - please be gentle ^_^; Configration 2900wx Asus Zenith X399 128 gb of ram G.Skill samsung B-Die 20 Docker's running - Including Plex with 4 transcodes happening during the VM tests. PDO - LVL 3 is enabled for all tests. - These tests for the VM reflect my settings that physically divide NUMA node memory by what I state. One node will always have slightly more due to Hyper visor overhead(I assume) - 117809 machine Baremetal before ram OC Ram is OC'd to 2800 14-14-14-34 CR1 with very tight timings. - Still Baremetal - Note Latency of memory changes to some degree between 69-74ns - same goes with read/writes Last night with XML changes to backend NUMA presentation - L3 reads are low for some reason.. Not figured this out yet but could be that 1 of my cores is always being used for Unraid CPUZ baremetal CPUZ with 2 NUMA - 30 cores - 1 SMT core reserved for unraid Core 0/31 - Test taken while plex was being utilized on other cores so PBO was unable to OC as high I believe. NUMA 0(0/31 missing) & NUMA 2(Fully allocated)

@authorleon yeah #_# i have two x399's thinking that I could use the Taichi for the next jump.. That was a mistake..

@jbartlett are you planning on upgrading to Threadripper 3 or staying with the 2990wx? Just wondering since if you are I want to read about how well it does. I jumped on the 2990wx early and kind of regret it due to its quirky performance with more than a single numa. Even tuning it is fairly difficult since Unraid seems to always want to allocate ram from numa 0 instead of balancing it like I put in the config.

Any chance compression and deduplication could be added to the list? Guess that might be zfs?

So really odd problem. Trying to setup OMBI as a subdomain. Done this many times before so pretty much have it down pat. Copy the sample and configure it. Everything looks great but it won't work. SSL problems it says. So then I change most host records and point the nginx server directly instead of going through my cloudflare/router and it works with port 4431. So think "ok this is weird shit". So I then put the OMBI port behind my warden subdomain. Works perfect. So then I think "ok config is hosed" and copy warden config into ombi config changing relevant things to make it work with ombi. Restart nginx and try to hit the subdomain again.. Nope SSL problems again. Stick it behind warden subdomain no problems. Infact any work domain no problems. Only the one that I just setup for OMBI doesn't work. Is there a way to see exactly what NGINX is seeing? I couldn't find a way to turn on debug logging in the config and didn't want to hose my current working one.

Would like to report I think I fixed my latency spikes.. I still get one every once in a while when gaming but nearly as bad. I figured out that it was gsync being enabled.. Don't know why it broke it but it did.

I second it.. Even split it off if you'd like and just let people who want to take the risk take it.. My latency is down substantially through tons of tweaks. I've made but I still get latency spikes.. Hoping to get it down even further.. Just like to point out.. I don't know what causes my latency spikes.. Sometimes (usually a fresh restart) my latency spikes will be no where to be seen. Game runs smooth everything is great.. Like now though.. been up for a few days and its stutter city. 32 cores 64 threads and the system is barely being used. I wish I could figure out where the latency is coming from.. I do memory tests and it comes back nice and responsive. GPU tests are meh but no reason why that I can tell.