unRAID Server Release 5.0-beta4 Available


limetech

Recommended Posts

Fired up my Test server - assigned disks (1 parity - disk1) and enabled them, ran a parity check sucessful - Set smb shares to public etc, Bit still cannot see the share through win7,

 

What am i missing...   OK FOUND IT, wrong workgroup, Now i can see the shares, Time for testing.............

 

 

Thanks Tom......... ;D

Link to comment
  • Replies 179
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I have a question...

 

I am very new to unRAID, but I thought that I remember that this was the case (at least with 5b3 and 4.7).  When I created a share and did not specify anything in "include disks" or "exclude disks", that folder/share was automatically created on all disks.  What I have noticed with 5b4, the share is only created on disk1.  Is this by design?  Do I have an issue?  Is the folder/share only created on additonal disks once disk1 is filled?

 

Just wondering if sonmeone can shed some light.

 

TIA,

 

John

Link to comment

 

You got your wish in 5.0-beta5  ;D

 

Does this mean that I could pull out all my HD's, then randomly re-insert them into my 5in3's...  in a totally random order...  And the system would work?

 

Because that would be awesome.  (To never have to worry about which drive goes where)

 

 

That's EXACTLY what he's saying!

 

Being based solely on serial # (which never changes), the theory is that when unRAID boots, no matter where your devices are plugged in, unRAID should be smart enough to put the disks in the right order.

Link to comment

 

You got your wish in 5.0-beta5  ;D

 

Does this mean that I could pull out all my HD's, then randomly re-insert them into my 5in3's...  in a totally random order...  And the system would work?

 

Because that would be awesome.  (To never have to worry about which drive goes where)

 

 

That's EXACTLY what he's saying!

 

Being based solely on serial # (which never changes), the theory is that when unRAID boots, no matter where your devices are plugged in, unRAID should be smart enough to put the disks in the right order.

 

But if a disk is disabled you better know which drive to pull and replace.  Probably you will have to look on the label and check the s/n to be sure.

 

BTW, 'hot plugging' disks in/out of a stopped array seems to work, at least on my test system.  ;D

Link to comment

Is it easy to go back to 4.7? I thinking about the file permission on my share that is set from V5.

 

Need to have a better NFS performance.

 

//Peter

 

 

Are you saying read/write performance under NFS is different in 5.0 vs. 4.7?

Streaming high bit rate movies using NFS on V5 , is bad as using samba, my mediaplayer is TviX 6500, It was perfect in V4 using  NFS.

 

 

BR

Peter

 

Edit

 

I'm back on V 4.7

 

Going to do some test .....

 

EDIT

 

It's NO issue regarding NFS, I have the same issue on V4.7, so the issue is on the TVIX , need to downgrade the firmware on the Tvix that I upgrade for a week ago and see.

 

 

EDIT2

Downgraded the TviX FW, and it works flawless on V 4.7  ;D

 

Upgraded UNRAID to V5-Beta4, and it works flawless ;D  ;D

 

So no issue using NFS

 

So now we can continue on BETA-5, perhaps today  ;)

 

Link to comment

I'm having the same problem as Luca. I started the permissions process, a few messages were added to the webpage, but then the browser spun for a while. I figured since it was a "background" process I would look at other pages, but I get this error:

 

This webpage is not available

The webpage at http://192.168.1.100/ might be temporarily down or it may have moved permanently to a new web address.

Error 101 (net::ERR_CONNECTION_RESET): Unknown error.

 

Attached is the syslog_next_morning.txt and output of "ps aux". I don't see emhttp in the list. I also don't see any chmod processes, but this is the next morning and it's possible they completed.

 

Unraid is working... It just looks like the web server crashed.

 

When I run "/usr/local/sbin/emhttp &" I get the following on the console output:

 

 

Message from syslogd@storage at Sun Feb 13 09:26:06 2011 ...

storage kernel: Call Trace:

 

Message from syslogd@storage at Sun Feb 13 09:26:06 2011 ...

storage kernel: Code: c0 0f 85 68 0a 00 00 ba 02 00 00 00 66 b8 d0 c0 e8 83 c3 a6 c8 83 ce ff 85 c0 89 c3 0f 84 ed 14 00 00 83 3d 18 41 5f f8 00 74 04 <0f> 0b eb fe a3 18 41 5f f8 b9 34 38 5f f8 ba 67 27 5f f8 c7 40

 

Message from syslogd@storage at Sun Feb 13 09:26:06 2011 ...

storage kernel: EIP: [<f85ee957>] md_proc_write+0x3c0/0x18bd [md_mod] SS:ESP 0068:eaecdde8

 

Message from syslogd@storage at Sun Feb 13 09:26:06 2011 ...

storage kernel: Stack:

 

Message from syslogd@storage at Sun Feb 13 09:26:06 2011 ...

storage kernel: Process emhttp (pid: 4667, ti=eaecc000 task=c51f9440 task.ti=eaecc000)

 

Message from syslogd@storage at Sun Feb 13 09:26:06 2011 ...

storage kernel: last sysfs file: /sys/module/md_mod/initstate

 

Message from syslogd@storage at Sun Feb 13 09:26:06 2011 ...

storage kernel: invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP

 

Message from syslogd@storage at Sun Feb 13 09:26:06 2011 ...

storage kernel: ------------[ cut here ]------------

 

Attaching syslog_emhttp_crash.txt, which has two crashes from two manual runs of the web server.

 

Next I ran "shutdown -r now". emhttp is running now and the web UI is responsive. But... I have 5 missing disks. I'll hold off on running the permissions step for now, and will try re-assigning the disks.

files.zip

Link to comment
It lists 0% of tasks done on 5.0 beta 4 (yet its available)

 

... but the current 5.0 beta 4 is a bug fix for 5.0 beta 3, and doesn't include any of the features listed for beta 4 on the roadmap page.  What is shown there as beta 4 will be renamed to beta 5 (or higher, if another 'beta 3' fix is required).

Link to comment

I suspect the features on the Roadmap 5.0 beta 4 will become 5.0 beta 6 if not higher. It all depends on how drastic the changes are and how well they work out in reality with the next 5.0 beta 5 relating to device assignments, device spindown and spinup, and device temperatures. Of course we could all be pleasantly surprised to see the features of Roadmap 5.0 beta 4 in the next beta release.

Link to comment

Of course the confusion could have been abated by naming the current release Beta 5.3.1  ::)

 

That is not how the naming cycle has gone with unRAID and probably would have caused even more confusion... at least for the members that have been here a while.

 

A more appropriate numbering may have 5.0.3.1 for 5.0 beta 3 release 1, though updating the Roadmap with new numbers would probably be easier.

Link to comment

I think 5.0.3.1 would be confusing as well.. Especially to the mass public.

 

Once 5.0 gets "official", you get the impression that 5.0.3.1 is newer, which it is not.

 

We can make a few simple assumptions here.

 

1) Tom has a vision for what 5.0 "Final" will be (the roadmap is an indication of this)

2) There are different stepping stones to arrive at this vision

3) There are inadvertent and unplanned show-stopper "bugs" which must be fixed before thinking of adding any new features.

 

IF we go by the roadmap and assume that each beta incremental will have new features until we reach the 5.0 "final" milestone, then I think it may be best to number the releases in such a way:

 

beta-# (ie: beta-4): for "major" functionality changed/additions in accordance with the the roadmap

beta-#.# (ie: beta-4.1): for "minor" bug fixes/show stoppers that prohibit the advancement and/or addition of new features

 

This is, of course, if Tom wants to keep up with the roadmap.

 

I see beta-4 as beta-3.1. Beta 3 introduces some major changes to the way disks were assigned which broke it for a lot of us. Beta 4 fixes some of that, but the work isn't done. Beta 5 will introduce yet another new way to associate disks. As far as I'm concerned, beta5 will hopefully be the last beta dealing with these disk issues and should really be considered something like beta-3.2 (again, if we are to follow the roadmap).

 

My $0.02.

Link to comment

I didn't know if I should post this in the general support forum or here since I am testing on beta4.

 

Hoping you guys can help me.  I am currently battling some speed issue with v5.0b4.  It seems that the max I can achieve is about 25mb/s - 27mb/s.  With gbit I would have expected speeds to be much better.

 

speed.jpg

 

First an foremost...I am using a 7200rmp Hitachi for Parity and 2 WD green drives (EADS and EARS) for data.  Also note...parity sync is not running.

 

unraidmain.jpg

 

Both my workstation and unRAID boxes have gbit NICs (Atheros on the WIN7 side and Broadcom on the unRAID side) and a gbit switch in between them and CAT6 cabling everywhere (verfied).

 

ifconfig.jpg

 

ethtool.jpg

 

The thing I find odd is that I am only utilizing about 25% of the NIC of my workstation (source):

 

netmon.jpg

 

If I initiate a 2nd trasfer, the speed of the initial transfer drops to about 12mb/s and the second transfer tops out at ~8mb/s.

 

If there is any question about chipsets, etc., I have posted a pic of teh MB specs below:

 

serverboard.jpg

 

I have also attached my syslog.

 

I appreciate ANY help you guys can offer...I don't know what else to do or try!

 

TIA,

 

John

 

 

 

syslog.txt

Link to comment

You are getting 27MB/s, not 27Mb/s.   Very different.

 

You are also getting about the most you will with writing to a parity protected 5400 RPM drive.

 

The best performance is if you have 7200 RPM drives in both the parity disk AND for the data disk being written.  They have been measured at speeds close to 40MB/s on a highly optimized array.  I personally get somewhere around 35 MB/s with all 7200 RPM drives involved.

 

Since your 5400 RPM data disk is rotating at three-quarters the speed of the 7200 RPM disks, the overall write speed to your array will be roughly three-quarters less than the speed attainable with both involved disks being 7200 RPM drives.  27MB/s is about right.

 

It has nothing to do with the speed of the LAN, or the speed of the motherboard, but the slower rotational speed of the two disks involved.   Remember, to write a sector to both the data disk and the parity disk they must first be read, then the platter must rotate a full revolution before it can be written, and then rotate once more to be read for the next sector to be written... The rotational speed of the slower RPM disk involved is the limiting factor.

 

There is nothing wrong.

 

Joe L.

Link to comment

Thanks Guys...I feel better now.  The thing that cofused me was that when I was first playing around with the new MB, I was write speeds of ~60MB/s.  But...I think the parity drive was offline.

 

You are getting 27MB/s, not 27Mb/s.   Very different..

 

Yeah..was just beeing lazy.  I'm aware of MB vs. mb.  :)

 

John

Link to comment

I didn't know if I should post this in the general support forum or here since I am testing on beta4.

 

Hoping you guys can help me.  I am currently battling some speed issue with v5.0b4.  It seems that the max I can achieve is about 25mb/s - 27mb/s.  With gbit I would have expected speeds to be much better.

 

speed.jpg

 

First an foremost...I am using a 7200rmp Hitachi for Parity and 2 WD green drives (EADS and EARS) for data.  Also note...parity sync is not running.

 

unraidmain.jpg

 

Both my workstation and unRAID boxes have gbit NICs (Atheros on the WIN7 side and Broadcom on the unRAID side) and a gbit switch in between them and CAT6 cabling everywhere (verfied).

 

ifconfig.jpg

 

ethtool.jpg

 

The thing I find odd is that I am only utilizing about 25% of the NIC of my workstation (source):

 

netmon.jpg

 

If I initiate a 2nd trasfer, the speed of the initial transfer drops to about 12mb/s and the second transfer tops out at ~8mb/s.

 

If there is any question about chipsets, etc., I have posted a pic of teh MB specs below:

 

serverboard.jpg

 

I have also attached my syslog.

 

I appreciate ANY help you guys can offer...I don't know what else to do or try!

 

TIA,

 

John

Here's a good site that shows you the conversions between different ways to measure bandwidth and how much will be transferred in time.

 

http://web.forret.com/tools/bandwidth.asp

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.