Garani

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    47

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Garani

    6.4 qemu going at 100% and eating a whole CPU core

    in General Support

    Posted

    This is something strange.

     

    With 6.3 all was fine and dandy, and the system was running with very low power when idle.

     

    Now with 6.4 I have an issue with the QEMU system. Even when the virtual host (a Fedora system) sits in idle, the UNRAID host is consuming a whole core with the QEMU system running at 100% or more. Anyone else noticed this behaviour?

     

    (I have an INTEL cpu, just to get Meltdown in the fray)

    [CONTAINER] CrashPlan & CrashPlan-Desktop

    in Docker Containers

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, plupien79 said:

    Switch to business and you get this:

     

    Back up for free until the end of your current CrashPlan for Home subscription, then enjoy a 75% discount for your next 12 months. After that, CrashPlan for Small Business costs $10 per device each month.

     

    Which is $4 more expensive then the Home edition and does not allow Peer-to-Peer backup.

    Bridging with multiple ETH/nic interfaces

    in VM Engine (KVM)

    Posted

    A 100Mbit NIC would be fine for the WAN..

     

    Unless you are segregating your wireless network on that segment (ie: your wan router serves as a wireless AP too). In that case 100mbit will be tight pretty much soon :)

     

    I believe I may have some 3Com NICs from 15-20 years ago.

     

    Be careful, you are getting way too close to legacy land :)

    Bridging with multiple ETH/nic interfaces

    in VM Engine (KVM)

    Posted

    Ah! I never used the novnc setting, and certainly not during install: you must have access to the console somehow, unless you are doing a silent headless install, but that's something corporations do to install defined is images that are preconfigured, something we don't do at our level.

     

    But the important thing is that you got it to work. :)

    Moving from N54L to a custom build

    in Unraid Compulsive Design

    Posted

    I am sure that I can further optimize things. I am reading usage from the ups (apc), but the 23 watts base usage is quite right: it supports:

    - Adsl router

    - WiMAX modem

    - 16 ports switch

    - USB drive

     

    I did try switching them of vine by one, and the most power hungry is the switch. But figures seem correct.

     

    During the next week I'll try getting things better optimized.

    Moving from N54L to a custom build

    in Unraid Compulsive Design

    Posted

    Amazon delivered, and I got "working" right away.

     

    The new rig has come to life and the actual power consumption with disks spinned down is of 63watts, double of my target. Adding another 23 watts of router/switch and total consumption takes me to a mark of 86, which is half of my previous 160 watts.

     

    The new rig is absolutely silent and it has a total of 4 fans: PSU and CPU, plus 2 more 12 cm put one in front of the case for cooling HDs and another one in the back, sucking CPU heat out. I am debating if I want to keep all the fans going, but it is summer, so I guess some extra airflow won't be a bad thing.

     

    The case comfortably sits in place of the old T105 in a niche between the rack and the wall. The UPS sits on top of it like it did with the T105.

     

    The T105 case felt sturdy and bad ass. The Cooler Master is quite flimsy, but does the job right. Setting it up was quite easy, and by thinking back of the first builds I did some 20 years ago, this is some child play!

     

    So basically for 250 euros I have a 5000 cpu mark NAS server, while an HP Microserver w/ Xeon E3-1220Lv3 would have stopped at 3000 and costed me at least 750 euros.

     

    Would I go back to the microservers in the future? Well, there is merit in those things. If you need corporate type of support and very low power consumption then you don't want to do build your server.

     

    Did I reach my goal? No, I am 30 watts off from the goal of 50 watts, but I have a setup that is significantly more powerful then the previous setup (2 servers for a CPU mark of 900 each), that consumes half of before, that has room for expansion, and is a lot more silent ;)

     

    Oh, and is more powerful then my gaming rig... damn!  :o

    Moving from N54L to a custom build

    in Unraid Compulsive Design

    Posted

    So, I made the order and this is what I have got. Memory, Power Supply, HDs will all be recovered from previous setups. The rest of what I have at hand will be sold off on ebay (the N54L as a whole and the Dell T105 stripped down for spare parts).

     

    Maybe in the end I'll end up with the money for a nice bigger HD to add to the last of the SATA connections.

    Schermata_2015-06-09_alle_20_31_10.png.b156061c634189a990e9883b8d7ca9f4.png

    Hard linking does not work.

    in General Support

    Posted

    Nope. Everything under /mnt/disk? is parity protected. It's manipulating the /dev/sd?1 partitions of array members that will cause issues with parity.

     

    It's perfectly acceptable and even preferred by some to use the /mnt/disk?/share to manage the content, and use the /mnt/user/share structure to consume the content. All my disk shares are hidden RW, but my user shares are mostly R only for connected media devices.

     

    So this is the famous "disk export" that I kept reading abut and couldn't quite understand what and were it was.

     

    Well, this changes a lot, I could share a raw disk with my virtual machine in 9p and have al mailboxes there... this is and eye opener!

    Hard linking does not work.

    in General Support

    Posted

    I could be wrong, but I think it's the FUSE user file system that is the issue. Try using the /mnt/disk?/mailbox instead of the user path and see if that works.

     

    You are actually right.. I have read up just a minute ago that it is an issue with fuse.shfs.

     

    But if I were to export /mnt/diskX/mailbox, wouldn't that mangle the parity drive? I have no problem in forcing a low level export and to keep stuff all on a drive, but I want to retain the parity safeguard.

    Hard linking does not work.

    in General Support

    Posted

    Hi all.

     

    Seems that hard linking is not supported by unRAID. Is this a feature that will be added/worked on, or not?

     

    root@Tower:/mnt/user/mailbox/testmbox# ln tmp/foo new/foo 
ln: failed to create hard link ‘new/foo’ => ‘tmp/foo’: Function not implemented

    Moving from N54L to a custom build

    in Unraid Compulsive Design

    Posted

    Yeah, the Pentium G3258 wins hands down over the Athlon 5350.

     

    The point on CPU load (what it really means in unixland) is the number of threads running cuncurrently. Now, it is true that the faster the processor, the faster the thread will come to completion, so a 2 core CPU may very well be more interesting then a 4 core, just for the simple fact that if the single core processes work faster, it is done faster, so it can take on more work.

     

    This weekend I'll finish the consolidation process (both servers move on to unRaid 6 platform) on the N54L, and I'll monitor the Turion, which is a slow processor. After that I'll have a better understanding where the system is at and what it needs. If it works pretty mych with a Turion, a 5350 would be more then enough form my needs.

     

    But damn, that Pentium G3258 looks really good for just €20 more and those 6 SATA ports on board...