Jump to content

unRAID 5.0b6a - "Stable" Beta


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

You do not. It's only for upgrades.

Almost true... 

 

It is ALSO needed if you log in as "root" and move or copy any files between disks using native command line commands or "mc"

That is because they would end up owned by "root" and not visible to the LAN which is logging in as "nobody"

 

Joe L.

 

Hi Joe

 

I am intriqued that you said that. I log into the unraid box as root using putty, and have copied numerous files using MC (but always using the user share paths and not the mnts direct) and the copied files have always been seen on the network without using the permissions utility. So why?

 

Wayne

Link to comment
  • 5 months later...

I want to try the new plugin installer for sabnz sickbeard and also slimserver so want to test 5 latest beta. I have stable 4.7 unraid running.

 

I though best thing maybe to create another usb key with latest 5 on it and keep my 4.7 incase i need to revert.

 

or copy the 4.7 working key to a new key and upgrade that to 5.0

 

THen I can add my plugins

 

Is that the recommended approach?

Link to comment
  • 2 months later...

I want to try the new plugin installer for sabnz sickbeard and also slimserver so want to test 5 latest beta. I have stable 4.7 unraid running.

 

I though best thing maybe to create another usb key with latest 5 on it and keep my 4.7 incase i need to revert.

 

or copy the 4.7 working key to a new key and upgrade that to 5.0

 

THen I can add my plugins

 

Is that the recommended approach?

the v5 read me has the recommended approach. I backed up my 4.7 key and did a fresh install. If I need to go back I can wipe and restore. What I read is you can go back even after running the permissions script.
Link to comment

Good post - since this was shared a while ago, are there any of the betas after 8d that could also be considered a "stable beta"?

 

The reason I ask is that 5.0 Beta 8d contains a fix for the Data Rebuild Bug which is present in prior 5.0 betas as well as 4.7 and prior stable releases (well, depending on Your definition 4.7 might no longer really be considered stable).

 

In Tom's own words, "There's a critical bug fix in this release having to do with data rebuild.  There is a corner case that comes up where, if during a data rebuild of a disabled disk (or disk replaced with a larger one), if a write-request occurs for another disk in the same stripe for the disk currently being rebuilt, it's possible the data for the disk being rebuilt is not actually written.  Later, this will cause a Parity Check 'sync error'. If you are running any previous 5.0-beta release, please upgrade to this release. In addition, I will be updating the 4.7 series (to 4.7.1) with the same parity sync bug fix." (see here: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=13866.0)

 

For me personally, upgrading to a beta release on my production server is against my philosophy, but in this case, since I've been having this data corruption myself, and because 4.7.1 still hasn't come out (been 5 months now), I just might entertain that idea to run a beta to get the Data Rebuild Bug fix.

 

Any takers on post-8d betas? Have people been running one long enough to call is stable (even with the quotation marks..)? Has it been tried with SASLP-MV8 controller? Is there something about a specific issue with an LSI controller?

Link to comment

A couple of people have started reporting their experiences with 12a here:

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=16099.0

 

Maybe I'll have a look the 12a release thread when I get the time... I sure with someone would maintain a "Known Issues" list of acknowledged bugs instead of me having to wade through 24 pages of forum posts, trying to wade out user errors from actual bugs to get some kind of overview.

Link to comment

Pro, did You have problems with 12a or is it just that You haven't tried it haven't experienced the data rebuild bug Yourself?

I have never hit the data rebuild bug, and I tend not to touch my production server unless I have to.

 

I was running 5b2 but hit a bug (race condition if I remember correctly) after I updated to the faster and beefier Q9300

Link to comment
  • 3 months later...
  • 5 weeks later...

If one was to start a new build thats not necessarily mission critical--its a home server, but I do want to not constantly worry about crashes and bugs. Best to keep with 4.7 or use one of the 5.0 betas? I do run a mac home so AFP and Time Machine support would be a big deal.

 

As long as you don't have a LSI controller use the latest beta (14).

Link to comment

If one was to start a new build thats not necessarily mission critical--its a home server, but I do want to not constantly worry about crashes and bugs. Best to keep with 4.7 or use one of the 5.0 betas? I do run a mac home so AFP and Time Machine support would be a big deal.

 

As long as you don't have a LSI controller use the latest beta (14).

 

Thanks! I don't have a RAID controller card...so I guess I'll go for beta 14.

Link to comment
  • 1 year later...

I suspect that as a Global Moderator Joe had a bit of insight into the future  :)

 

Note the current release  :)

 

Lol... Yeah that's why I asked because I did a search but couldn't find any other references to it other than Joe's.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...