Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jeffarese

  1. It's pretty common to isolate cpus to improve performance in VMs, I don't think the user base is that small
  2. So is this problem going to be ignored? It's not listed in "known issues" or something like that. I tested the same hardware with Proxmox and I NEVER got random activity on cpus I had isolated to certain vms.
  3. Ah yes! I already had this setup in the past, I have that sorted out Thanks!
  4. lol sorry, my mind was in another place. Yeah, I meant of your image Each one of the containers are using different PIA servers (endpoints) so each one of them receive a different IP & request a different port, even though all the containers are running in the same server. How would I have host port conflicts? I don't need to forward host ports since the ports are open by the VPN, right?
  5. Correct! it sorted it out after a while and now it shows green! Unrelated question about PIA: Is there any problem if I have multiple instances of your script using different server configs (one container has sweden.ovpn, another one has france.ovpn) so each one of the containers requests a different port? I run multiple containers of your image to organize better my files. It seems to be working OK and all of them show the green icon now and seem to be seeding ok.
  6. Is the auto port assign of PIA working correctly? I see the messages in the logs about retrieving and assigning the port from PIA: [info] Successfully assigned incoming port 55730 [info] Checking we can resolve name 'www.google.com' to address... [info] DNS operational, we can resolve name 'www.google.com' to address [REDACTED] [info] Attempting to get external IP using Name Server 'ns1.google.com'... [info] Successfully retrieved external IP address [REDACTED] [info] rTorrent listening interface IP and VPN provider IP [REDACTED]different, marking for reconfigure [info] rTorrent not running [info] rTorrent incoming port 49160 and VPN incoming port 55730 different, marking for reconfigure However, the port reported in the interface bottom bar is a different one (the one I had previosuly configured) and it shows the red icon saying the port is not open.
  7. I had already seen that post, but there's still no info about how to do what I need
  8. Is there any way to router only specific docker containers through Wireguard while keeping the rest of the traffic normal?
  9. In my case I would have noticed instantly if it worked. I think my server might have more activity than yours and it's super easy to spot if the isolated cores are working. However, I'm not able to test this beta, I need the stability
  10. Yeah, it didn't work at all for me either as I stated in my previous post. Let's see if the 6.9.0 beta with 5.x kernel solves it 🤞
  11. You're a brave man I'm eager to hear your experience on it, hope it fixes it!
  12. I totally understand that and it makes sense, but I don't understand how such an obvious bug has not been reported elsewhere (that I found).
  13. Is this bug going to be fixed? This is pretty much a deal breaker to use Unraid as main server with a Windows gaming VM.
  14. That kind of defeats the purpose... I can't be rebooting my server. I would expect isolcpus to work as expected. Also, my cpu usage kicks in just after reboot
  15. I tested it with: isolcpus=5-11,17-23 nohz_full=5-11,17-23 rcu_nocs=5-11,17-23 But still getting the same activity on CPU-9. Any idea?
  16. I haven't tried, but it seems it would fix my issues since they solved it for Chess with my same CPU. What do those two settings do? Any downside?
  17. I created a post about this bug. I can reproduce too with R9 3900x.
  18. Hey. I isolated the last 14 cores of my 3900x (from 5 to 23). When the VM that uses them is powered off, I see light but constant usage on 2 core s(cores 6 & 9). I've double checked that nothing but that VM is pinned to that CPU core. All dockers are pinned to other cores (non-isolated ones). Any idea where can I start to look to debug this? Thanks.
  19. In my setup, containers using custom networks still go through the vpn 😕
  20. Any aproximation to when is this going to be possible aprox? This would be the killer feature, since routing ALL the traffic seems like a little bit too much. Thanks!
  21. Hey, one question. Given that I'm running in a more or less powerfull machine (R9 3900x, 64GB RAM), with plenty of resources, is there any settings/tweaks that can be done to increase the performance further? I'm currently sitting at 1700 torrents and sometimes I get timeouts, it seems that nginx can't handle it that well (even if rTorrent itself is a beast)
  22. Ah yeah, that seems to be the problem. In order to access the container I do docker exec -it binhex-rtorrentvpn /bin/bash That logs me in as root. How is the normal procedure to access it as nobody? just docker exec -it --user nobody binhex-rtorrentvpn /bin/bash?
  23. I did `tmux ls` and it said that "no server running"
  24. Is there any way at all to attach to the running irssi process to be able to control it? Or to restart irssi without restarting the whole container? It would be nice to start it on its own `screen` so we can attach to the process.