unRAID Server Release 5.0-beta4 Available

limetech · February 8, 2011

Please read the Release Notes located on the unRAID wiki.

In particular, uninstall or disable any 3rd party add-ons until the add-on author has verified correct operation with this release.

prostuff1 · February 8, 2011

will install on my test system when I get home and let you know what I find!!

Thanks for the hard work Tom!

astrobyte · February 8, 2011

Here's a syslog from booting with this version. Not sure if the issue with temps for drives attached to 1064/8E controllers was intended to be fixed, but it appears to still not be working correctly:

http://pastebin.com/txbkDQ5R

BRiT · February 8, 2011

Will install and provide feedback later tonight.

limetech · February 8, 2011

Here's a syslog from booting with this version. Not sure if the issue with temps for drives attached to 1064/8E controllers was intended to be fixed, but it appears to still not be working correctly:

http://pastebin.com/txbkDQ5R

Right, I haven't put a fix in for that yet - but please jog my memory: is the problem only with trying to read temperature from actual SCSI (or SAS) drives? That is, do SATA drives hooked to that controller report temps ok?

astrobyte · February 8, 2011

Here's a syslog from booting with this version. Not sure if the issue with temps for drives attached to 1064/8E controllers was intended to be fixed, but it appears to still not be working correctly:

http://pastebin.com/txbkDQ5R

Right, I haven't put a fix in for that yet - but please jog my memory: is the problem only with trying to read temperature from actual SCSI (or SAS) drives? That is, do SATA drives hooked to that controller report temps ok?

as far as I can tell, no drives (sas or sata) connected to a 1068e or 1064e controller currently report temps

nojstevens · February 8, 2011

Yes I can confirm that - no temps show on SATA drives on the 1068E

Jon

Joe L. · February 8, 2011

All previous versions of preclear_disk.sh script will not give a correct listing of candidates for pre-clearing when using

preclear_disk.sh -l

since the format of the config/disk.cfg file has changed.

Just be careful and don't rely on the "-l" list until I fix it. Verify by using the model and serial number.

It should work fine otherwise. I did see a message stating it did not re-start the udev system, but since lime-tech is not using the by-path entries, it may no longer be needed. I'll need to delete all the partitions on a disk and see how it reacts with a completely blank disk.

As soon as I figure out what is needed I'll fix it and then post version 1.6 of the preclear script.

Edit: version 1.6 is now posted. It will work both on unRAID 5.0beta4 and with older releases of unRAID too.

It fixes the "-l" list.

Joe L.

Stokkes · February 8, 2011

**Rushes out his office door, hops into the car, and drives home as fast as he can...**

meep · February 8, 2011

Have come up with an issue that seems to crash unRaid or at least make UI and Shares unavailable.

I had the problem with IDE devices not showing up in beta3.

I have 4x 1GB SATA drives (1x Parity & 3x Data) as well as a 120GB cache drive. I was hoping to fill out my plus license with 2x 500 IDE drives.

With beta4, the IDE devices now show up fine.

After upgrade, I booted unraid, ran the slot update script and started the array. All was well.

I powered down and attached my 2x IDE drives and booted. UnRaid recognised them. I added them to my 2x free slots and tabbed to MAIN where I see the message;

"Start will record the new disk information and bring the expanded array on-line. All new disks which have not been factory-erased will be cleared first; and, the array will be available after the clear completes. This process takes time, but the array remains protected at all times. Caution: any data on the new disk(s) will be erased! If you want to preserve the data on the new disk(s), reset the array configuration and rebuild parity instead."

I checked the box and hit start. "clearing disk4 disk5..." appears and the browser then sits there 'loading'. I cannot access 192.168.1.99 from any browser on the network and attempting to connect to the server shares fails via AFP or SMB (flash is accessible via SMB).

I can still telnet into the server.

Syslog attached.

Peter

syslog.txt

Joe L. · February 8, 2011

Have come up with an issue that seems to crash unRaid or at least make UI and Shares unavailable.

I had the problem with IDE devices not showing up in beta3.

I have 4x 1GB SATA drives (1x Parity & 3x Data) as well as a 120GB cache drive. I was hoping to fill out my plus license with 2x 500 IDE drives.

With beta4, the IDE devices now show up fine.

After upgrade, I booted unraid, ran the slot update script and started the array. All was well.

I powered down and attached my 2x IDE drives and booted. UnRaid recognised them. I added them to my 2x free slots and tabbed to MAIN where I see the message;

"Start will record the new disk information and bring the expanded array on-line. All new disks which have not been factory-erased will be cleared first; and, the array will be available after the clear completes. This process takes time, but the array remains protected at all times. Caution: any data on the new disk(s) will be erased! If you want to preserve the data on the new disk(s), reset the array configuration and rebuild parity instead."

I checked the box and hit start. "clearing disk4 disk5..." appears and the browser then sits there 'loading'. I cannot access 192.168.1.99 from any browser on the network and attempting to connect to the server shares fails via AFP or SMB (flash is accessible via SMB).

I can still telnet into the server.

Syslog attached.

Peter

The behavior you are describing is quite normal. The array will be unavailable until the clearing is complete.

If the drive is large it will take a while. (8 hours is not unusual for a 2TB drive)

BRiT · February 8, 2011

I gave it a go and it detected my SATA drives on the LSI1068E controller. I was able to add the 2 Sector64/4K Aligned precleared 2TB Seagate drives to the array.

I noticed when the drives were first added, the /mnt/user/ didn't seem to update with the new storage space according to df. A stop/start cycle of the array via webGui sorted that out though.

/dev/md2 1953454928 1090573108 862881820 56% /mnt/disk2
/dev/md3 1953454928 548618876 1404836052 29% /mnt/disk3

/dev/md1 1953454928 1121322556 832132372 58% /mnt/disk1

shfs 5860364784 2760514540 3099850244 48% /mnt/user

/dev/md4 1953454928 32840 1953422088 1% /mnt/disk4

/dev/md5 1953454928 32840 1953422088 1% /mnt/disk5

/dev/md5 1953454928 32840 1953422088 1% /mnt/disk5

/dev/md4 1953454928 32840 1953422088 1% /mnt/disk4

/dev/md2 1953454928 1090573108 862881820 56% /mnt/disk2

/dev/md3 1953454928 548618876 1404836052 29% /mnt/disk3

/dev/md1 1953454928 1121322556 832132372 58% /mnt/disk1

shfs 9767274640 2760580220 7006694420 29% /mnt/user

As previously reported and semi-expected, the drive temps on the SATA drives on the LSI1068E are not reported.

Feb 8 17:56:13 reaver emhttp: disk_temperature: ioctl (smart_enable): Invalid argument

johnodon · February 8, 2011

Just updated form B3 to B4...

My test system has only a parity and one data drive. I used the "New SLots" util and both drives were properly assigned.

The on to my #1 test...

Enabled NFS...created a share...set NFS Security to Public...applied. WebGui didn't dump out! YAY!!!

Thanks for the great work Tom!

John

sacretagent · February 8, 2011

- driver: preliminary changes to support large (>2TB) hard drives [various 32-bit vars changed to 64-bit].

Does this mean 3TB drives are supported now ?

or you want us to test ?

or we shouldn't try as other parts are not ready yet ?

just asking as i was intending to start using bigger drives ....

BRiT · February 8, 2011

No, >2.1TB drives are still not supported.

BTW: Can someone else please verify/validate a defunct process issue on 5.0beta4? Here's the dedicated thread for it, please follow up there.

speeding_ant · February 8, 2011

All working well on my system so far, cheers Tom!

Stokkes · February 9, 2011

Great work Tom! Liking this release.. very smooth, all my drives were detected, AFP is working beautifully, now I'm about to setup time machine.

To you (or anyone else who may know), there was the talk of an option to have a disk not be part of the user share.. Did this make it? I'd like to exclude my time machine drive from the user share.. Didn't see anything on the actual disk page.

Thanks again for a great beta.

Benni-chan · February 9, 2011

you can exclude a disk from the user shares in the share settings.

and then share this disk via disk share as a timemachine share.

or you can use a user share with only this one disk included and exclude this disk in every other user share

Stokkes · February 9, 2011

Ok, little issue:

When I reboot my server, the drive assignments get muffed and I have to re-assign my drives. I've attempted to go into the Utils and "New Slots", but same result after reboot.

Idea?

Stokkes · February 9, 2011

you can exclude a disk from the user shares in the share settings.

and then share this disk via disk share as a timemachine share.

or you can use a user share with only this one disk included and exclude this disk in every other user share

Tom indicated there would be a way to tell diskX to be excluded from the user share all together. What you are proposing would require going into each share and setting the "excluded disks" to that individual disk. While this would work, if you have a lot of shares, it can get confusing.

Benni-chan · February 9, 2011

you can exclude a disk from the user shares in the share settings.

and then share this disk via disk share as a timemachine share.

or you can use a user share with only this one disk included and exclude this disk in every other user share

Tom indicated there would be a way to tell diskX to be excluded from the user share all together. What you are proposing would require going into each share and setting the "excluded disks" to that individual disk. While this would work, if you have a lot of shares, it can get confusing.

yes, and that's the way, I described first in my post.

but maybe i wasn't clear enough (it's late here in germany...)

go to settings -> share settings.

here you can exclude a disk from user shares completely. even if you try to include it in a single user share, it won't be included.

Stokkes · February 9, 2011

Ahhh!

ShiftyPowers · February 9, 2011

what if I want to make a TimeMachine share of a specific size but not use an entire separate disk. is that possible?

Benni-chan · February 9, 2011

what if I want to make a TimeMachine share of a specific size but not use an entire separate disk. is that possible?

not yet. see this thread: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=10712.0

prostuff1 · February 9, 2011

Just for grins and giggles here are the by-path and /proc/partitions after installing 5.0b4 on my test system.

After I ran the above commands I assigned the disks back to there correct slots, ran the new slots util and started the array. Everything seems to be up and running right now.

If there is anything specific you would like me to try let me know!!

5.0b4By-Path.txt

5.0b4partitions.txt

unRAID Server Release 5.0-beta4 Available

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation