May 26, 201115 yr i'm new here - so i don't have a right to ask - but will ask anyways... do we even have a near release date for 5.0? maybe if LT can put some dates out there so we the people know, the poll woul dbe more effective i.e adding 3tb support to 4.8 would mean 5.0 release is in early 2011; adding 3tb support to 5.0 would mean 5.0 release in september; proceeding w. 5.0 to stable would mean release next week;... throw some ballpark figures at us please. that being said - keep up the good work!
May 26, 201115 yr i'm new here - so i don't have a right to ask - but will ask anyways... New or not you always have a right to ask. That's what forums are for! do we even have a near release date for 5.0? maybe if LT can put some dates out there so we the people know, the poll woul dbe more effective ... throw some ballpark figures at us please. The "roadmap" was supposed to provide this kind of information, as many of us have languished for years waiting for updates without any kind of timeline. Alas, the roadmap had much potential, but hasn't been updated in months. The current beta version of unRAID doesn't even exist in the roadmap as it reads now. In the end, we seem to be destined for the more familiar "you get what you get when you get it" approach.
May 26, 201115 yr I would say that AFP support is not critical since SMB and NFS are both functional for Mac users (I being one of them). They are not the perfect solutions for us Mac users, but they function and for the moment, it's good enough so long as AFP support will eventually be included in a future release (5.1?). I completely disagree with this statement. AFP has been a long-requested feature, spanning *years*. The current 5.0 beta is ostensibly nearly ready for final release, and I haven't heard a single argument persuasive enough to delay the release of 5.0 with its current feature set. Greater than 2.1 TB support should DEFINITELY be on the 5.0 release list. With WD 3TB's now going for $150 on Amazon (and these still include the HBA adapter; imagine what the price would be without out) the ROI on 3TB drives is much better than with 2TB drives, extremely important for customers beginning brand new builds, and customers that have or will soon reach maximum expansion of physical drives. Once again, I disagree, and I have voted accordingly. I come from a software development background, and the only way to ship software is to *relentlessly* pare down features to the absolute minimum. I've yet to hear a compelling reason why 2.2TB+ support can't wait until a 5.1 release. I'm not sure what ROI is supposed to mean in this context; there is no "return" and thus the term doesn't really apply here. If you're talking about cost-per-TB, the 3TB drives are considerably more expensive at about $50/TB compared to $35/TB for 2TB drives. If the argument is that some folks need 15TB servers today, or if the argument is that it makes more sense to be "future-proof" and get 3TB drives today, then go ahead and do that with 3TB drives today. You'll be able to "unlock" the extra 800GB/drive as soon as 5.1 is released. If 5.1 is a small release focused primarily on 2.2TB+ support, the wait shouldn't be long at all. "Real artists ship."
May 26, 201115 yr Was anyone else shocked to see that SnowLprd thought it was essential that AFP needed to be in the 5.0 release? /sarcasm
May 26, 201115 yr I vote for this thread to be locked, as nothing fruitful is to be gained by armchair quarterbacks and backseat drivers. There's nothing but rampant speculation and "mine is more important" arguments. The reality is that Lime-Technology is going to design and implement the releases how it wants to, not how we voted. Unfortunately this thread has become divisive, and our restlessness caused by the lack of visible progress is amplifying the negative tone, which is not the normal atmosphere for this forum.
May 26, 201115 yr I think this thread should not be locked. It shows, especially to Tom, that his customers would like to see some progress. Any progress... Silence is NOT golden, certainly not in this case. All this bikkering, speculating, and "my view is more important than yours" arguments could have been completely prevented if Tom was more here. He could be working day and night on unRAID, he could have serious personal problems, he could have abanded the project. Point is, we (or maybe only I?) don't know... The roadmap could have prevented these heated discussions, if it would be up to date. Now it just shows even more the absence of unRAID's developer. I find this very sad because I use unRAID daily. And I'm guessing I'am not the only one who likes unRAID very much. The heated discussions here prove this very much. It's a very good product. I just hope that development (ANY development) will restart soon...
May 27, 201115 yr I think this thread should not be locked. It shows, especially to Tom, that his customers would like to see some progress. Any progress... Silence is NOT golden, certainly not in this case. All this bikkering, speculating, and "my view is more important than yours" arguments could have been completely prevented if Tom was more here. He could be working day and night on unRAID, he could have serious personal problems, he could have abanded the project. Point is, we (or maybe only I?) don't know... The roadmap could have prevented these heated discussions, if it would be up to date. Now it just shows even more the absence of unRAID's developer. I find this very sad because I use unRAID daily. And I'm guessing I'am not the only one who likes unRAID very much. The heated discussions here prove this very much. It's a very good product. I just hope that development (ANY development) will restart soon... You should dig through the archives of this forum. They are replete with the same discussions about lack of progress, lack of communication, lack of "listening" because the assumption is that no visible progress and no communication means Tom is in Maui. Obviously you feel this thread needs to stay open to continue to say the same thing over and over. I disagree, as the message has been sent time and again.
May 27, 201115 yr I vote for a new option on this poll. We need to add 2 drive parity to the list as the next major priority. In my opinion 3TB drives aren't even in the ballpark at this point. This is just my view.
May 27, 201115 yr Well, I was posting that 3T drives are reaching the price where the demand will really increase once their price drops just a little more. But now, I just have this feeling that WD buying Hitachi will push back the realization of sub $100 3T drives for 6 months or more. Well, we might see some cheap Hitachi sell offs but not a WD or Seagate price that low for a while. In Canada, I can find a 2T Hitachi for $59 after MIR but the 2T WD and Seagate drives have typically been on sale for about $76, which is higher than when they were on sale for around $65-$69 about 2 months ago. Peter
May 27, 201115 yr I am all for the 3T support and can see how it would be in demand for those people that have no slots left in their servers and they are all filled with 2T drives. I would just rather see the double security because even 4T of data lost would make me cry. I can't imagine then having it be 6T if the 3T drives become supported first. I think at the loss of 6T I would burn every computer I own and maybe some that I don't.
May 27, 201115 yr I am all for the 3T support and can see how it would be in demand for those people that have no slots left in their servers and they are all filled with 2T drives. I would just rather see the double security because even 4T of data lost would make me cry. I can't imagine then having it be 6T if the 3T drives become supported first. I think at the loss of 6T I would burn every computer I own and maybe some that I don't. If you really can't loose that data, then you need to build an identical server, located several miles from your home, to do a full backup. After all. Several things can happen that would destroy all your drives (Lightning, flood, fire, ...). The change isn't big, but it ain't zero. A second parity disc won't help in these cases...
May 27, 201115 yr If I lost my data to mother nature that is one thing.... I can take a higher being telling me to quit being a nerd for a while. If I lost 4T of data because 2 HDD's crap at the same time that could be prevented and seems more likely. I do see your point but, I paid for a product that is meant to protect data not stop floods.
May 27, 201115 yr I paid for a product that is meant to protect data not stop floods. No, you paid for a product that attempts to protect you against a single drive loss, not protect your data. Big difference. Peter
May 27, 201115 yr Well, I was posting that 3T drives are reaching the price where the demand will really increase once their price drops just a little more. But now, I just have this feeling that WD buying Hitachi will push back the realization of sub $100 3T drives for 6 months or more. Well, we might see some cheap Hitachi sell offs but not a WD or Seagate price that low for a while. In Canada, I can find a 2T Hitachi for $59 after MIR but the 2T WD and Seagate drives have typically been on sale for about $76, which is higher than when they were on sale for around $65-$69 about 2 months ago. Peter WD Green 3TB for $129.99 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136764&nm_mc=EMC-IGNEFL052711&cm_mmc=EMC-IGNEFL052711-_-EMC-052711-Index-_-InternalHardDrives-_-22136764-L04D with promo code EMCKEHC35
May 27, 201115 yr After all. Several things can happen that would destroy all your drives (Lightning, flood, fire, ...). The change isn't big, but it ain't zero. A second parity disc won't help in these cases... I understand and agree with this point. Nonetheless for many people, the risk of a double concurrent HD failure is at the higher-end of risks... I live on the 30th floor of an apartment building for instance. Fire is certainly a risk, but the data on my drives (while terrible to lose) would probably not be at the top of my list if our building burned down. And if there's a flood in the area which gets up to the 30th floor, then we *all* probably have bigger problems!
May 27, 201115 yr Was anyone else shocked to see that SnowLprd thought it was essential that AFP needed to be in the 5.0 release? /sarcasm Really? How does this contribute to the discussion? First of all, I chose my moniker well before Apple began ever working on that OS version, much less when they gave it a name. So your conspiracy theory is misplaced. Secondly, I never said it's essential that AFP is included in the 5.0 release, because AFP is already in the 5.0 branch. It's pretty much a fait accompli at this point. My point is that, other than bug fixes, no new features should be added to 5.0. Otherwise, it just delays what has already been a fairly long development cycle. Finally, what you're really missing is that I'd be saying the same thing if the situation were reversed. If 2.2TB+ support were already in place in the 5.0 branch, and the question was whether we should add AFP support now (delaying the 5.0 release) or defer it to 5.1, I'd be the first to suggest shipping 5.0 without AFP support. Release early, release often. Scope creep is usually what causes long development cycles. If there's a unifying theme in this thread, it's that everyone would like to see more frequent releases.
May 27, 201115 yr WD Green 3TB for $129.99 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136764&nm_mc=EMC-IGNEFL052711&cm_mmc=EMC-IGNEFL052711-_-EMC-052711-Index-_-InternalHardDrives-_-22136764-L04D with promo code EMCKEHC35 I didn't realize $130 was sub $100 using other peoples math....
May 27, 201115 yr WD Green 3TB for $129.99 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136764&nm_mc=EMC-IGNEFL052711&cm_mmc=EMC-IGNEFL052711-_-EMC-052711-Index-_-InternalHardDrives-_-22136764-L04D with promo code EMCKEHC35 I didn't realize $130 was sub $100 using other peoples math.... it is - if you are borrowing other people's money. ;-) j.k
May 27, 201115 yr WD Green 3TB for $129.99 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136764&nm_mc=EMC-IGNEFL052711&cm_mmc=EMC-IGNEFL052711-_-EMC-052711-Index-_-InternalHardDrives-_-22136764-L04D with promo code EMCKEHC35 I didn't realize $130 was sub $100 using other peoples math.... I wasn't saying that but obviously I wasn't clear. We have seen Hitatchis hit the $129.99 sale price before, and now I was letting others know that WD has hit a $129.99 sale price. Therefore my point was that just because WD is buying Hitachi, does not necessarily mean we won't see the continued sale prices. Even IF Hitachi was still a seperate entity, probably would still be a little bit before 3TB hit below $100. Should have taken more time with the original post to explain myself
May 28, 201115 yr lionelhutz - If you are not putting data on your hard drive what do you use it for?
May 28, 201115 yr I think this thread should not be locked. It shows, especially to Tom, that his customers would like to see some progress. Any progress... Silence is NOT golden, certainly not in this case. All this bikkering, speculating, and "my view is more important than yours" arguments could have been completely prevented if Tom was more here. My constant fear is that, on reading all this bickering, speculation, and criticism, Tom will throw in the towel and give up on unRAID. If that happens, we all lose out. As I've stated before, I suspect that unRAID is not a huge revenue stream and Tom needs to concentrate on other projects in order to earn a crust. Work on unRAID progresses when it reaches the top of Tom's priority list - while I'm sure that it is sometimes helpful for him to know what the users consider to be priorities, the criticism can be demoralising which, of itself, can alter the developer's perspective on priority. The other thing which bugs me every time I come to this thread is that there is nothing magical about a 'final' or 'stable' release. A 'stable' release is simply a version of the code which has been exercised sufficiently for most users to be comfortable with entrusting their data to it. 'Stable' does not mean that it is fully featured, it doesn't mean that it is absolutely guaranteed not to compromise your data and it certainly does not mean that it is bug free. For me, it didn't take long to conclude that 5.0beta6 was relatively sound (for my needs), and I've been running it for almost three months now. I add my support for this thread to be locked.
May 28, 201115 yr I would like to say that if there are 2500 members to this forum 2501 know more than I do. That being said all those members bought a product from Tom. To me this shows that he knows more than everyone on the subject of unRIAD. Revenue stream or not if you write code you like the feedback from users. I have written software for my company and I love the feedback I get from the users. Even if their feedback is that it doesn't work due to their lack of understanding. Most of the time even if they don't know how to use it they can still help improve the final product. I have seen people say that Tom is non-existent in the forum. I say it should be that way. I would rather those 2501 people that know more than I know tell me where I am being ignorant. That way he can focus on furthering his plan on what unRAID should be. Tom not being present doesn't mean that he is not reading. I also think that he would lock this thread if he thought that it should be. I have never seen anyone say that unRAID sucks. I personally love unRAID. It makes me feel a little more comfortable knowing that I have it to help ensure the safety of my data (or single hard drive) as it has been said to me. All and all this is a thread of "I would like to see” and not meant to be discouraging to Tom.
May 28, 201115 yr A 'stable' release is simply a version of the code which has been exercised sufficiently for most users to be comfortable with entrusting their data to it. I disagree. IMHO stable means 1) no known bugs and 2) sufficient testing (including betas and pre-release) to confirm no known bugs in that population of testing. By definition, as stable release will not include a known bug (unless you are Microsoft, and redefine the bug as a feature). 5b6a has at lease one known bug, and can't be considered a stable release candidate until it is fixed.
May 28, 201115 yr What is the known bug? I am still on 4.7 and don't want to upgrade till 5.0 is stable
May 28, 201115 yr I have to agree with BubbaQ on this one. The NASTY bug that the 5.06a series has is Clobbering MBR Partition Tables. It is overly anal on the checking of the MBR. If it doesn't match exactly, including 0s in the optional drive identity column that many boot-loaders use, then it will overwrite the MBR completely. On data drives this leads to using the newly defaulted MBR location (sector 64 for instance), which can be different from where the MBR Partition Table started at previously (sector 63 for instance). Once this is done it appears you have lost all your data on that drive. The user has to manually use the "mkmbr" tool to correct the incorrect behavior by restoring the MBR Partition Table start. If the user isn't careful to recognize what just occurred, they may end up hitting the FORMAT button and thus wipeing out their data. On cache drives, this is nastier as many have multi-partition cache drives. There is no easy way of reconstructing the previous MBR so data loss does occur.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.