Jump to content

doron

Members
  • Content Count

    204
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by doron

  1. If you want literally 24 on the SL7, you might consider a SAS Expander (e.g. Intel RES2SV240). These provide you with ample ports, at the expense of a bit of performance (not sure how noticeable it would be in an unRAID setup). There are some good deals for them on eBay. I haven't tried it yet on my SL7, though I do plan to (expander already stocked and waiting).
  2. Random long shot: there's an onboard jumper, not far from the RAM slots, called JPS1. Can you verify that it's enabled (closed) and properly seated?
  3. Answers to some of your questions from my own experience - Not a big mistake in my humble opinion. I'd be willing to bet you will not feel any difference there. It is absolutely OK. The parity will have its own controller which, if at all, would be a plus (although I don't think it will be a noticeable plus). At any rate, not a downside. Probably not something you'd feel in normal operations (although some benchmark tests, those which test bus <> HDD controller speeds, will see the difference). 3Gb/s SATA should not be a limiting factor for normal operation with WD greens. AHCI mode for SATA ports, if that's selectable (can't remember off the top of my head). (By the way, it would have worked fine in IR mode too. That's how I work, for a long time now, with zero issues.) Different homes have different requirements. It depends on how much data you can stream off the server simultaneously. Typical use will be far from saturating a 1Gb/s network interface. Hope this helps.
  4. I've been using RDM from ESXi 5.5 into unRAID v5 for a while now. Zero issues.
  5. Thanks. For me, I fixed it already. To reproduce: [*]uninstall S3 [*]install dynamix' latest version (so it's not the vanilla, bundled version ==> there's stuff in /boot/config/plugins/dynamix...) [*]Remove the dynamix.cfg file, so that the plugin uses the default.cfg [*]Install the S3 plugin You should now be able to see the breakage.
  6. No, it won't. This happens only when you do not have a dynamix.cfg file. Since you did, as can be seen from the chain of actions you describe, the plugin took a different code path (edit the dynamix.cfg file) which it does correctly.
  7. It works fine for me. More information on how it breaks would be useful then I'm sure someone will have an answer. Kevin. You're right of course. From how the breakage looks here I presumed it'd be universally reproduced. What happens here is that the sheer installation of the S3 Sleep plugin over the updated dynamix messes up all the pages of the webGUI. It appears as if there's no CSS and no PHP actions (HTML text, no formatting, no action on buttons). Sample screenshot attached. When S3 Sleep is installed on the "vanilla" (beta12) Dynamix, no problem. When Dynamix is updated - breakage. When I remove S3 Sleep, then update Dynamix to latest - no problem; when I now install S3 Sleep - breakage. Deleting the S3 plugin files and rebooting doesn't fix the breakage. Deleting the entire /boot/config/plugins/dynamix - does. Deleting only /boot/config/plugins/dynamix/dynamix.cfg - also does. The problem seems to be with the fact that S3 Sleep plugin writes the dynamix.cfg file if it does not exist. What I end up with here is: [confirm]\nsleep="1"\n [display]\nsleep="plugins/dynamix.s3.sleep/Sleep.php"\n That's the entire file. I'm guessing you don't experience this because you do have dynamix.cfg already, in which case the plugin edits it, and seems to do that correctly.
  8. It appears the S3.Sleep plugin breaks the Dynamix webGUI after the last update to the latter (12.01). This did not happen prior to the last update to webGUI.
  9. i don't remember which cpu i've installed, maybe a E3-1240. 16 gb ram ecc ;-) so for you it's better to installa esxi and passthru the lsi to a vm and install unraid? i'm in test and i'm considering if it's enough to use the integrated XEN or KVM.... My "production" unRAID is v5. So it's pre all those fancy virtualization capabilities of v6 beta (I did use the VirtualBox plugin in the past - nice plugin - but abandoned it in favor of an ESXi setup). If I were to install from scratch today, I'd seriously consider the new KVM options as an alternative to running unRAID under a separate hypervisor (although there's also something to be said in favor of "do one thing and do it well" and splitting the functionalities). I can say that my ESXi (v5.5) has been rock solid so far on the X10SL7, as has unRAID. Oh, and one more thing if you do consider ESXi: the vanilla hypervisor had to be modified to support the NIC chips on the X10SL7. They were too new for the bundled drivers. Not a big deal, but need to modify the ISO. This may have been solved in more recent versions - I don't know.
  10. Regardless of IT or IR, I'd strongly recommend to flash the latest version (19) firmware. It does solve a problem applicable to this mobo. thank you so much doron. i will flash it. any other tips regarding this mobo? it's fantastic Well, not too many. It is indeed very good, more so after I finally got them to solve the problem that caused LSI f/w v19 I run it headless, and use the IPMI features exclusively. It's a treat. Just make sure you get a decent processor for it and obviously ECC RAM. I run ESXi on it. All kinds of passthru work flawlessly. Cool stuff.
  11. Regardless of IT or IR, I'd strongly recommend to flash the latest version (19) firmware. It does solve a problem applicable to this mobo.
  12. I don't use them (I use WD SE drives), but I see no reason why it won't, and I'd be shocked if there would be an issue specific to those drives. I don't know about consensus but I did not change from the default IR and it works well. That being said, if you plan to boot off a drive that's on the LSI controller (and not, e.g., from a USB drive as in barebones unRAID) you DO want to install the version 19 of the LSI firmware (off the Supermicro web site). It is a result of a ticket I opened (and fought for for several months), which has to do with boot order issues.
  13. Tom, would you be able to comment on this?
  14. If you're willing to shell a few extra $$, try the WD SE (WD4000F9YZ). Silent, cool, reliable. And 5yr warranty. I love them.
  15. Perhaps an expansion of emhttp_event functionality would serve this purpose well.
  16. It would be great if he could provide feedback here, yes!
  17. Thanks for your response! If in fact this goes down in the prioritizing process, it would really be great if you could, in the interim, provide some generic hook inside the md-then-mount process of the unRAID array start (and stop), so that a user can insert their own DM layer and probably mounting before unRAID does the standard share / user share setup. (e.g.: Do the unRAID md - then call a script, which by default just copies its input to output, passing it the md block device (/dev/md*) - then mount the block device the script returns unless already mounted - something to that effect. Similarly for array stop). This should be fairly straightforwrd to implement, and will enable the addition of an encryption layer, and perhaps other DM type ideas as well, by the user. No GUI support for now; no problem. Thoughts?
  18. Is "Anti theft encryption", an interpretation of this? Does this mean it is not scheduled for neither 6.0, nor 6.1 or 6.2? Thanks
  19. Pretty cool. Then again, proprietary form factor (i.e. won't fit standard enclosures, unless you start modding) and power connectors, so if you get it, be prepared for some DIY.
  20. OpenMediaVault is also a player.
  21. So, no plans to introduce block dev encryption support in unRAID 6? If that's the case, it is quite disappointing. It also means I will be forced to steer away from unRAID on at least some of my systems. I was under the impression that Tom was in fact "into" this feature, all the more so since adding it seems to be quite simple and straightforward technically (need to provide an interface for bringing up LUKS style crypto dm "under" the unRAID md). Could you verify for us where this stands? Thanks!! Will check with Tom on this today. To be totally honest, I haven't discussed that feature with him yet, but maybe its something we can add to either 6.0 or 6.1. If you want to save me a step, can you provide a link to a forum post with Tom where this feature was discussed before? Any news? Thanks!
  22. Absolutely: here. It was mentioned in other threads as well, but this was the primary one. BTW, some of the landscape has changed since then (mainly, Truecrypt has stepped down as an alternative), but LUKS is a solid, good option. Thanks for looking into it!
  23. So, no plans to introduce block dev encryption support in unRAID 6? If that's the case, it is quite disappointing. It also means I will be forced to steer away from unRAID on at least some of my systems. I was under the impression that Tom was in fact "into" this feature, all the more so since adding it seems to be quite simple and straightforward technically (need to provide an interface for bringing up LUKS style crypto dm "under" the unRAID md). Could you verify for us where this stands? Thanks!!
  24. Trying again... Any chance of having this feature on the 6.0 train? Thanks!!