jaybee

Out of the office until October 3rd.... is that 2012?

Those complaining about sigs. I always turn them off on all forums as a personal preference. Not everyone wants to read sigs or see them taking up valuable reading space. It is not always clear when a sig starts and you end up re-reading them all the time, not to mention that a lot of forums allow garish images in sigs which not everyone wants to see, especially at the workplace for example. Back to the thread, I see Tom said he would be out of the office until 3rd October. Yet it is the 7th, and still no ammendment to another poor release where people are having issues. My patience is wearing thin again.

So can we get an RC9 posted up please with this fix?

As far as I can see, only one person has reported this SAMBA share .tmp file/deletion problem? This is core functionality, and if it were a problem surely more people would have spotted this and reported it? Dalben, can you perform the above tests to confirm it is not a plugin issue first, and then if the latest SAMBA does fit it? Why does nobody else see this problem? Using NFS instead?

Same here, i have a gigabit network, FX-4100 AMD processor (unraid virtualized in ESXi). I am getting ~60mbps when writing to my cache drive which is a SSD. I remember back in some of the earlier Betas i was getting network speed (110-112mbps) when transferring from my gigabit connected laptop to the cache drive. Well either is very poor, assuming you are meaning to talk about mega bits per second on a gigabit network.

And still you knew exactly what this user meant. ? I think that was his point, he doesn't know. I think the problem is that people are being lazy and writing Mega Bytes per second as "mbps" which is not just lazy, it's wrong and something totally different. It's not about being picky, it's about making sure you write clearly the speeds you are getting so others can compare. We should be talking about parity speeds in terms of MB/s (Mega Bytes per second) so it would be good if people that have stated their speeds can confirm if this is what they meant, as opposed to mb/s (Mega Bits per second).

How much time does it take to come on to the forums and communicate an update though really? 10 minutes of his time. I'll repeat, 4.7 is not what can be referred to as a stable product in that it has a major bug. This was promised to be fixed. It has not been due to focusing on version 5 becoming FINAL instead so that a 4.7 fix would not even be required. It's only fair that in paying for a license you get at least one stable product. A build given a status of Final or Stable should mean a production version with all KNOWN bugs/issues sorted out. Version 4.7 was released as stable, but then a new major bug was found so it is not a stable build any more. Version 5 has not been released yet in a final form. Quite a few people (myself included) have issues using our data in an array that has not been signed off as an official release, i.e. Beta builds. Yes 5 final is close, but we paid for a product to use that was not beta. If we wanted a beta product we could have used flexraid which used to be free when in development. Now it is polished there is a small cost associated. I do not appreciate paying for a license to be an official guinea pig. I think we need someone (Limetech) to take a hold of this forum as said already and to properly list out all of the reported bugs/issues with 5. Get an action plan together/roadmap as to what is going to get done and the hurdles. I'm not convinced version 5 is just hardware incompatabilities judging by the amount of posts in the RC forum with problems people have. I personally don't mind if version 5 had to have 3 different releases (versions0 based on hardware (realtek issues, controller card issues, etc). Just get it done, or fix 4.7. I wonder how Limetech would feel about refunding people that have paid for a licensed working product? This is not meant to cause offense, and is a genuine question.

A new thread has been made in the lounge to discuss the above concerns as to lack of updates from Limetech.

A dedicated thread has been made in the correct place so that we can discuss the future of unraid, support and communication from Limetech. It's been over a month since Limetech's last post, and we have seen this before where it goes quiet for months at a time. Is this appropriate and do we think we will get an update soon? Will 4.7 get fixed? Will version 5 ever go final? Will it fork to get it finished? Are you all still recommending unraid and have confidence in the product? Discuss.

Snap. I also did this! Unraid looked to be thriving and an awesome community with a very active forum and vast development. Now..... stagnated. Also for those suggesting "bickering" about Limtech is off topic. Where is an appropriate place to post on these forums our thoughts as to the lack of interest from Limetech then? Please let me know and I will open a dedicated thread. Here seemed to be the main thread to discuss the staus of 5 final. Trying to protect Limetech by harping on about it being "off topic" is really cheap.

Please show me a competing product with real-time protection, different size disks and normal filesystems per disk if manual recovery is needed. Only WHS 1.0 had this option, switched to unraid because it had the same combination of features. Been running 4.7 without problems for 2 years, very satisfied, been running 5rc6 for 2 months now and apart from the slow speed on my system it's working fine as well. Of course I would like to see a final (with speed issues fixed), but I'm a happy unraid user regardless of everything which is "wrong" with the current state. I didn't say any of the competing products were better. I said that we can always look at them because they have better (any) support. I don't care that you have been running a broken product or a beta product for X amount of time. What relevance does that have? 4.7 has a major issue and all of the 5 versions are betas with issues. Doesn't matter if anyone has been using them or not, neither is a final product (which we have paid for).

The Limetech user profile on these forums always appears to be active and up to date like Tom or whoever uses the profile is always reading posts, but not responding to them. This is even worse than silence if this is what is happening. I agree with the above posts, I bought a licence for 4.7 which is broke and not fit for purpose. This hasn't been fixed due to the focus for getting 5 final, which we as consumers have been supportive and understanding on, in order to allow the best opportunity for 5 to obtain final status. Lets see some comms about it please asap. Limetech you are just frustrating your user base and letting your product rot with this silence and lack of support. Be honest, if you can't support it and have no more time for it, tell us, atleast then we would know. People can always look at flexraid, Windows Home Server, NAS, Other Linux solutions. Unraid was special because it had support and a thriving community. This factor seems to have dropped to the point where unraid does not look so special now. This is a product we have paid for at the end of the day and put a lot of faith into. Either fix 4.7 or get 5 final. Patience if wearing thin now for too many people. Your silence on this (again) is so unprofessional. The last post from you was over a month ago. If you are taking vacation atleast tell us there will be no support for a month surely? This forum is a mess as stated above. It needs sorting out for tracking issues vs each different RC discussion as well. There are some other forums I frequent where I used to defend unraid and recommend it. Now I simply can't do that, because there simply is not a single version of unraid that is properly finished and live.

Limetech? Update? Please do not go quiet again for months.

Can we get an update from Limetech as to the status with 5 Final please?

+1 Must be close now....what do you think Tom?

Could this be it.... final around the corner?

Are you using RC6 or RC6-r8168-test ? That's the whole point in the r8618 version to cure realtek issues.

Could it be that people running drives all from the motherboard SATA ports are NOT experiencing issues, where as people using external addon cards ARE? Just a thought in case it helps.

The key part of this (confirmed by someone else who tested as well): "Ok, with a refined test I've been able to reliably reproduce this and I bisected it back to commit 85ef06d1d252f6a2e73b678591ab71caad4667bb in Linus' tree (introduced between 3.0 and 3.1): commit 85ef06d1d252f6a2e73b678591ab71caad4667bb Author: Tejun Heo <tj <at> kernel.org> Date: Fri Jul 1 16:17:47 2011 +0200 block: flush MEDIA_CHANGE from drivers on close(2) Prior to the above commit, sleeping disks will spin up as a result of I/O sent to them. With the above commit, they don't spin up and immediately return an I/O failure. That's all the further I've gotten so far. I'll be happy to test any patches or suggestions." So can this be patched? How do things like this work when it affects all of the kernels going forward as they will contain old (broken) code? Does one make a suggestion to the authors and wait for them to respond and decide whether it warrants a change based on the supposed importance of it to them/the community? If that is the case, then I'd be concerned that this will be ignored and a long waiting game to get officially fixed. If it was patched however.... 5 final could be around the corner? Great work on the other things though. What are your thoughts on the future... forks and hardware dependent versions to get 5 Finalised, or stick to your guns and wait until you can release a universal 5 final?

So parity check speed is halved on RC6 it seems. I thought this happened on earlier RC versions as well? This and LSI controller issues are the main thing to fix outstanding...would that be fair to say?

The more I read on these forums about realtek issues I must admit, I am thinking of just getting an Intel NIC as well. Fit and forget.

Oh yes. So we await the sticky with Tom's further info and findings.

Presumably to test these realtek issues you just try to transfer a large amount of data to/from the server and observe speeds?

I thought NFS was fixed some people reported. What user share problem?