bkastner

SickBeard only works with usenet right? I've never used usenet so I wouldn't even know where to start let alone have the desire to pay for it. I already have a VPN for torrenting. I believe there is SickRage that works with Torrents, but I am not 100%. I only use them in an emergency (i.e. I can't find what I want on usenet). If torrents are what you use, then I may not be the best help.

I have a lot of the same concerns as you, but mostly when relating to movies. I used to do everything manually, and then switched to SickBeard/SAB for my TV shows. Movies I still do manually to ensure quality control. Binhex has a docker MovieGrabber that is supposed to give more control than CouchPotato does for exactly these situations, however I have not invested the time to figure it out. For me, movies will always be somewhat manual as I check each movie to ensure English is the default language, I strip the other languages and subtitles and I ensure only forced-subtitles are turned on by default. There is nothing (I know of at least) that will automate all of those, so manually pulling the movie down is just a small part of my overall process. For TV though, since you could have 10-15 different shows a day, SickBeard is awesome. It's nice to not have to manage that. Same with new shows.... If I see a commercial for something I want, or someone mentions it, it's nice to just add to SickBeard and let it download all the missed episodes, or be primed and ready for the new show when it starts. Just taking the TV management out of the picture makes life a ton easier.

Really? Have you seen this before? Not this exactly. But it fits the symptoms. So, sort of stupid question, but this server never gets touched (except when I added the drive). It's isolated and the case hasn't been opened in months. Are you thinking the cables have just degraded over time (which would only be around 2 years)? I could understand if I was shifting them around and wearing out the connectors, but once they were hooked up to the backplanes they've not been touched.

Really? Have you seen this before?

Okay, I am truly confused as to what is going on. Here is a summary: - With no prior warning I got a notice that disk10 had issues: Event: unRAID Disk 10 error Subject: Alert [CYDSTORAGE] - Disk 10 in error state (disk dsbl) Description: (sdk) Importance: alert -I tried stopping the array and restarting without success, so I rebooted and got: Event: unRAID Disk 10 error Subject: Alert [CYDSTORAGE] - Disk 10 in error state (disk dsbl) Description: No device identification present Importance: alert as well as: Event: unRAID Status Subject: Notice [CYDSTORAGE] - array health report [FAIL] Description: Array has 15 disks (including parity & cache) Importance: alert Parity - (sdd) - active 25°C [OK] Disk 1 - (sdi) - active 27°C [OK] Disk 2 - (sdo) - active 24°C [OK] Disk 3 - (sdn) - active 26°C [OK] Disk 4 - (sdm) - active 27°C [OK] Disk 5 - (sdp) - active 25°C [OK] Disk 6 - (sdh) - active 26°C [OK] Disk 7 - (sdg) - active 27°C [OK] Disk 8 - (sdk) - active 28°C [OK] Disk 9 - (sdl) - active 27°C [OK] Disk 10 - No device identification present - standby [DISK DSBL] Disk 11 - (sdc) - active 26°C [OK] Disk 12 - (sdj) - active 28°C [OK] Disk 13 - (sde) - active 24°C [OK] Cache - (sdf) - active 30°C [OK] Data is invalid Last checked on Tue 16 Jun 2015 05:58:12 PM EDT (4 days ago), finding 0 errors. Duration: unavailable (system reboot or log rotation) -Mid day yesterday I went out and bought a replacement 4TB disk and started pre-clearing it. About 30 mins later I got: Event: unRAID Disk 1 error Subject: Alert [CYDSTORAGE] - Disk 1 in error state (disk missing) Description: No device identification present Importance: alert However, when I look in the GUI, there is no issue with Disk 1. I also saw that disk 10 was 'unassigned' but seemed fine, and the GUI was indicating Disk 10 was 'not installed'. I re-added Disk 10 and it started to rebuild from parity (which I still don't understand). I also started a long SMART test on disk 10. Event: unRAID Disk 10 error Subject: Alert [CYDSTORAGE] - Disk 10 in error state (disk dsbl) Description: No device identification present Importance: alert Event: unRAID Disk 10 error Subject: Warning [CYDSTORAGE] - Disk 10, drive not ready, content being reconstructed Description: WDC_WD40EZRX-00SPEB0_WD-WCC4E0425712 (sdl) Importance: warning Data rebuild finished around 1am this morning: Event: unRAID Disk 10 message Subject: Notice [CYDSTORAGE] - Disk 10 returned to normal operation Description: WDC_WD40EZRX-00SPEB0_WD-WCC4E0425712 (sdl) Importance: normal Event: unRAID Data rebuild: Subject: Notice [CYDSTORAGE] - Data rebuild: finished (0 errors) Description: Duration: 12 hours, 14 minutes, 17 seconds. Average speed: 136.2 MB/sec Importance: normal Then around 3:40am this morning I get a report of an issue with my Parity disk: Event: unRAID Parity disk error Subject: Alert [CYDSTORAGE] - Parity disk in error state (disk dsbl) Description: WDC_WD60EFRX-68MYMN1_WD-WX51H3421101 (sdd) Importance: alert ___ Event: unRAID array errors Subject: Warning [CYDSTORAGE] - array has errors Description: Array has 1 disk with read errors Importance: warning Parity disk - (sdd) (errors 80) So, in the GUI the Parity drive has a red X on it, but I am still pre-clearing the replacement for disk 10. I will try and reboot once the pre-clear is done, but am sitting on the edge at the moment. I've started copying data off Disk10 and have had no issues. The Long SMART test completed without errors and the reports look good: Num Test_Description Status Remaining LifeTime(hours) LBA_of_first_error # 1 Extended offline Completed without error 00% 9811 - No Errors Logged I am right royally confused at this point. As mentioned, I've never had a disk issue, and now they are popping up and down without reason. All my drives are in a Norco 4224 using a backplane, so there are no actual cable attachments. I've removed and re-seated each drive yesterday when I added the new replacement disk, but all seemed fine. I don't know if it will help, but I am including my current syslog. I am looking for suggestions, and maybe some insight into what is going on (if possible). I am utterly confused at this point. syslog.zip

Okay.... so life is strange. As I mentioned, when I rebooted I got the 'not installed' message. This server is in a Norco 4224 case, so there are no individual cables to the drives, they are all backplanes. I stopped the array, unseated and re-seated each drive and rebooted again. My actual disk 10 (the disk in error) shows up as an unassigned drive. I stopped the array and re-added it back as disk10, and now it's rebuilding the data on the drive (even though it already existed). I am also running an extended smart test on the disk and will post the results. I am confused on why it didn't recognize the same drive signature as the original disk10.

I couldn't get the latest smart test results as the GUI said the disk needs to be spun up, which it couldn't do. I tried rebooting to see if the disk came back online, and it now just reports as 'not installed'. I decided to check the warrany, and got excited as it expires in Oct 2015, but then remembered it was an external drive that was on sale that I cracked open, so am guessing I am screwed.

I received my first notification of a failed disk. When I look in the GUI the disk has been taken offline and reports 2 read errors. I figured I would look at the SMART history, but everything in the smarthistory folder is from Nov 2014, which isn't good. So, I have a couple of questions... 1) What happened to the SMART reports? Why would these no longer be reporting (I had it installed via UnMENU, but don't use UnMENU anymore) 2) How do I best go about testing the state of the disk? 3) Do I just assume the disk is toast and look to replace? As mentioned, I've never had a disk issue before (I've been lucky for 4 years), so am not sure of the correct process at this point

True if you're simply using UnRAID as a NAS => decidedly NOT true if you have plugins that you have to re-install as Dockers; configure; etc. The point was it is 2-3 minutes to get v5 back up and running exactly as it was if you've backed it up before playing with v6.

I have Sickbeard doing all my post-processing instead of SAB, but can tell you that even with out the above most of the time folders get cleaned out. I've had the occasional time when a MKV file gets stuck (i.e. can't be moved) that has caused a Season folder to stick around, but otherwise these get cleaned up pretty good (sometimes it can take a bit though).

+1 to this. I upgraded during the latter stages of beta releases using the Wiki. Granted, I have a very vanilla system, but if you resign yourself to the fact that the changes from 5->6 are so great that all you are going to retain is basic NAS functionalty (shares, users, basic settings) and read up, it's not a difficult jump. Plus if you've backed up your v5 flash, you can always go back temporarily if it doesn't work first time. Just don't do the upgrade with any other work going on (drive swaps/additions, etc.). Yes, if you have a backup of your v5 config it's a matters of 2-3 minutes to get yourself back where you were. I just want to make sure people know this plugin is not a silver bullet. It's like someone offering to reinstall Windows on your machine - that's great if you just need a vanilla OS, but you still need to go through and reinstall and configure all the applications you use on top of Windows. Same idea here. It's not that hard to do the upgrade, but you definitely want to make sure you are clear on the process and can ask any questions you may have prior to starting, rather than getting frustrated part way through when things are not working as you expected them to.

I suspect that work on it has only just started (if it has started at all). Limetech have been concentrating on getting the 6.0 release out the door; quashing the last minute bugs that were discovered; and supporting the initial people doing who are doing the move now the release has gone final. I would also comment that I wouldn't put too much stock in the proposed plugin. It's pretty easy to get yourself to a stock 6.0 installation, which is all the plugin is doing. You still have to be responsible for the majority of the work - which is setting up docker and/or plugins to replace the functionality you had in version 5. People waiting for the plugin are likely better served by reading through the wiki and posted upgrade guides, asking questions on their specific scenario and then backing up their 5.0.6 (or whatever) USB drive, and trying to get to 6.0 themselves. For many people this plugin is only going to take care of 10-25% of their upgrade process, and it's going to be the easiest part of the overall upgrade. It will be useful to help users ensure that their data is safe and their config is maintained, but with a little bit of reading and Q&A you can easily achieve this yourself.

I thought I had read that SAB doesn't really use your network bandwidth properly - even with very fast connections SAB seems constrained. I know I can grab files much faster with a NZB client than SAB can. I think NZBGet does a better job of utilizing bandwidth (though I could be wrong). I would make the switch to NZBGet, however there do not seem to be good end to end config guides like there are with SAB, and I don't find the config of NZBGet intuitive.

I think gary makes some good points. Now that we're "live" there are going to be some users who just want "new" without any idea that there are new features, and expect it all to just work. They will only bother with instructions after it doesn't (if then). ... and providing a v5 plugin whose function is to "update to v6" can certainly give someone the impression that all they have to do is run that plugin and they'll be updated => so they're likely to be surprised when some of their plugins stop working and they have to set up corresponding Dockers. Just seems like that plugin should be smart enough to at least warn them of these potential consequences ... and ideally even list which things are going to require their attention to set up correctly. I think ideally the "automatic upgrade" plugin should refuse to function and tell the user why until all the unsupported V5 plugins are removed or disabled in their V5 install. That way people can systematically prepare for the upgrade. Plugins that have their functionality integrated into V6 can be silently dealt with as part of the upgrade. This plugin sounds like a good idea, but in the interim I am going to repeat my suggestion from above (since nothing has happened). I think the top post here should include a disclaimer for 5.0 users that planning is required, plugins will no longer work, and users should understand how to upgrade before actually doing so. There should also be bold links to the wiki and upgrade guides. No-one has had an experience like moving to UnRAID 6.0 unless you've actually upgraded to UnRAID 6.0. It's not like all the previous upgrades and I think LT should be adding this in flashing multi-colored bold lettering so people understand this before upgrading. Even once the plugin is in place, ultimately it's good for basic nas customers, but it's not going to be able to account for all the plugin variations (and GUI variations) unless you have a pretty vanilla 5.0 install. There are still going to be a ton of manual upgrades.

I don't think anyone would argue that. However, anyone who blindly starts installing software without understanding the impact is asking for trouble. Maybe it's worth adding a note to the initial post with links to the Wiki and upgrade threads as well as a disclaimer that plugins especially have changed and people should read/understand the impact to their environment before jumping into the upgrade process. It will make their lives, and the lives of everyone on the forums a whole lot easier.

I would say the biggest issue you are having is not adequately preparing yourself before jumping to version 6.0. A bit of research into what the changes are, and how it would impact you would have allowed you a much smoother transition, and allowed you to decide if you are ready or not for the move. If you want everything the same as you had in version 5, you should likely stick with version 5. Then take some time to figure out what you are doing and actually plan for the upgrade - don't just jump in willy nilly.

Congrats LT team. Great job in getting this out the door.

True, but essentially irrelevant. Perception is reality. The perception is that LT's plugin replacement (i.e. Dockers) are not working correctly, and the blame will sit with LT - not Docker. It's the risk you take by including other vendor's products into yours as part of your core offering. Given that there is a proposed workaround that could mitigate this, I think it makes a lot of sense to make sure that workaround works to ensure a positive end user experience for people testing out 6.0 for the first time (because it's listed as final). If you were a semi-technical person (i.e. enough to have invested in UnRAID) and you chose to upgrade to 6.0 and leverage the highly touted Dockers for plugin replacements, after hours of frustration and hair pulling to get your add-ons working again like they did before, how reassured would you be to have LT say "it's not our fault, it's Dockers". I am sure that is going to make everything so much better. saying it's docker's bug does not neccessarily mean "it's not our fault, it's Dockers". that's a hell of an extrapolation. i see no reason that 6.0 final to be held up PROVIDING it's listed as a known issue and the workaround offerred in lieu of something more permanent. I didn't think it was that much of an extrapolation, but again, I guess that's perception. However, I don't agree with your last statement - only because again, those who follow/participate in the forums are likely fine with this workaround, but with 6.0 being marked stable / final, you are going to get a ton of non-technical people trying it out, and you can pretty much guarantee that a large percentage will either not read that caveat, understand it, or be willing/able to implement it. They are looking to UnRAID to take the complexity out of the equation and so it makes far more sense for LT to manage this themselves to eliminate the issue (either completely, or via workaround) than it does to trust the masses understand the issue and be able to address it. Again, it comes down to perception. (I seem to be on a theme with this at the moment).

True, but essentially irrelevant. Perception is reality. The perception is that LT's plugin replacement (i.e. Dockers) are not working correctly, and the blame will sit with LT - not Docker. It's the risk you take by including other vendor's products into yours as part of your core offering. Given that there is a proposed workaround that could mitigate this, I think it makes a lot of sense to make sure that workaround works to ensure a positive end user experience for people testing out 6.0 for the first time (because it's listed as final). If you were a semi-technical person (i.e. enough to have invested in UnRAID) and you chose to upgrade to 6.0 and leverage the highly touted Dockers for plugin replacements, after hours of frustration and hair pulling to get your add-ons working again like they did before, how reassured would you be to have LT say "it's not our fault, it's Dockers". I am sure that is going to make everything so much better.

Agree the built-in "Update" button makes this much easier. But clearly it'd be far better if this wasn't an issue at all in v6.0 There are still a fair number of folks who won't upgrade to v6.0 until it's shown as the "Stable" release ... and many of those aren't active forum participants and won't necessarily be knowledgeable users who can easily implement the known workarounds for this issue. These folks will also be moving to Dockers for the first time ... so it would clearly be better if there wasn't a known issue with Docker connectivity in the release. One thing that has always been true in the past: When Tom designates a release as "Stable", it IS stable. This is a record that would be nice to maintain ... and I think it's VERY close to being true for RC6, with the sole exception of this issue, so if necessary a day or two's slip is probably preferable to breaking this record. I agree. I would think it's much more important to get it right, than on time (where on time equals an arbitrary date LT has decided to announce). After a year and a half of development it seems sort of stupid to rush it out the door now when another day or two could confirm the resolution of an issue that will likely impact many new users (based on the assumption that plugins are a thing of the past in 6.0 and many/most will likely want to try Docker as part of the 6.0 upgrade).

And Another great suggestion. That will get the addresses that your ISP is using. The biggest issue is finding the IP address of your router. Each manufacturer has a default address and you have to know what it is. Looking in the manual will usually tell you. It should be the address that you use to access your router to change its settings. (At least, that is what it has always been on the CHEAP home routers that I have used!) That should be pretty easy to determine though, shouldn't it? Just go to a DOS prompt on a Windows machine and type 'ipconfig /all' it will show you your gateway address, which will be the router. If it isn't for some reason, then you likely have something highly tailored in your environment, and likely don't need the help to begin with.

Thanks for that clarification. It makes sense and was not how I was interpreting things, so I appreciate you spelling it out.

So, my question would be this: I have a static IP address on UnRAID and have Active Directory running, so have my UnRAID point to it for DNS. It's been the same DNS servers for longer than I've had UnRaid, which is 3-4 years now. My resolv.conf wouldn't have changed in all this time. I have not had any of these DNS issues until RC6 where SickBeard suddenly started manifesting this. I did have bridge mode configured, and changed to host mode, and I appear fine (though I have not rebooted again to see what happens). Does this scenario match your assumptions? I don't see how in my scenario the resolv.conf would fall out of alignment.

For me it did. Me too. Before RC6 I've not seen this issue, but it popped up in SickBeard today after upgrading. I checked the docker and it was in bridge mode, so I switched to host mode and all is good. I still have another couple of dockers that are in bridge mode, but they seem okay. I may switch them anyways. Honestly, I am not sure what the benefit of one over the other is anyways, but I likely just following the original recommendations for each docker as I built them.

Have you checked your go file to make sure these commands don't exist. Mount \\tower\flash on a windows machine, and under the config folder is the go file. You can open it with notepad.