unRAID Server Release 5.0-beta7 Available

[Joe L.]

I think I'm going to have to pre-clear and remove HPA from each single drive, and add to a fresh array.

Pre-clear DOES NOT remove an HPA.  In fact, you would need to remove the HPA first, and then clear the drive, otherwise the pre-clear signature would not be valid based on the new size of the drive once you remove the HPA.

[speeding_ant]

I think I'm going to have to pre-clear and remove HPA from each single drive, and add to a fresh array.

Pre-clear DOES NOT remove an HPA.  In fact, you would need to remove the HPA first, and then clear the drive, otherwise the pre-clear signature would not be valid based on the new size of the drive once you remove the HPA.

 

Understood, should have re-structured my sentence to remove HPA beforehand

[aiden]

1. Support of hard drives larger than 2TB.

 

Thank you Tom.  And thank you for not wasting development time by getting caught up in the maelstrom that some of us create when we get impatient and grow restless.

[shire]

Hi!

 

Jun  8 04:40:01 Tower logrotate: ALERT - exited abnormally.

 

...is still there. Fortunately the drives are not spinning all the time.

 

Bye.

[sacretagent]

Just upgraded sucessfully

no issues at all

 

for those interested

These are the addons that still work :

Unmenu

sabnzbd

couchpotato

sickbeard

mysql

Hamachi

the mover scripts to ignore . and _

cachedirs

SSH

 

so me still happy camper ... Next week my BR10i will arrive and then i can move stuff to my new box ...

[johnodon]

Upgraded from 5.0b6a wihtout issue.  Performing parity check now.

 

John

[Joe L.]

Did you fix the bug where a cache drive with multiple partitions is considered "unknown" ??

(The bug caused unRAID to re-partition the cache drive to only have one partition, wiping out the other purposely created partitions)

 

Ditto.

Seeing I don't usually have a cache drive defined, I figured I could easily test this.

I partitioned and formatted a 1.5TB drive as follows with three partitions:

root@Tower2:/boot# fdisk -lu /dev/sda

 

Disk /dev/sda: 1500.3 GB, 1500301910016 bytes

255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 182401 cylinders, total 2930277168 sectors

Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes

Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes

I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes

Disk identifier: 0x00000000

 

  Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System

/dev/sda1       977153625  2930272064   976559220   83  Linux

/dev/sda2              63    15631244     7815591   82  Linux swap

/dev/sda3        15631245   977153624   480761190   83  Linux

 

Partition table entries are not in disk order

 

I formatted the first partition as reiserfs and then I then assigned it as the cache drive.

When I then look at the partitioning, I see it was replaced with a single partition.    

root@Tower2:/boot# fdisk -lu /dev/sda

 

Disk /dev/sda: 1500.3 GB, 1500301910016 bytes

1 heads, 63 sectors/track, 46512336 cylinders, total 2930277168 sectors

Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes

Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes

I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes

Disk identifier: 0x00000000

 

  Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System

/dev/sda1              64  2930277167  1465138552   83  Linux

Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary.

 

THIS BUG IS NOT FIXED IN THE 5.0beta7 RELEASE.

 

Joe L.

[squirrellydw]

I Know its only been a day or two but how stable is this now?   I would like to upgrade to get AFP support.  Any bugs or anything I should be aware of?  I'm on 4.7 now, Is unmenu supported and what plugins?

 

[gfjardim]

Tom, which Slackware version this build is this version based on?

[SSD]

If you have a >2TB hard drive which is using MBR partitioning (that is, using just 2TB), and you wish to retain your data on that drive, do not Start your array without posting here first for instructions on how to retain your data.

 

I am not using MBR partitioning, but have manually created an HPA, to downsize 2 3T drives each to 2.2T.

 

One is parity, and one is a data disk.

 

I also have a spare 3T drive that is precleared.  Not in the array.

 

I had planned to remove the HPA from the parity disk, zero the beginning of the disk, and then rebuild parity (should create a 3T parity).

 

Then unplug my 2.2T data drive and verify it is simulated properly.

 

Then rebuild the simulated 2.2T disk onto a new 3T drive (keeping the 2.2T physical disk as a backup).

 

If all goes well, add physical 2.2T data disk as my cache disk.  Perform some data comparision between it and the rebuilt 3T disks.

 

Fill the 3T disk.  Make sure it works up to close to its capacity.

 

Once convinced all is stable ... remove the HPA from the old 2.2T data disk, zero the beginning of the disk, run preclear on it, and add it to the array.

 

Finally, run a parity check.

 

Will this work?

 

Decided to push forward.

 

Ran parity check last night.

 

Based on Tom's warning - backed up my 2.2T disk (downsized 3T) to other disks during the day today.

 

Installed 5.0b7.  Rebooted.  All looked good.  2.2T drives recognized fine.  All drives either aligned or unaligned.  Started array.  All normal.  Ran parity check for 5-10 mins.  No sync errors.

 

Stopped array.  Removed parity from the array.  Started array.  Stopped array.  Reconfigured disk to 3T (it is actually a RAID-0 pair on an ARC-1200 controller).

 

Booted, assigned the 3T RAID-0 pair as parity.  Parity building now.  All normal so far.

 

To be continued ...

[Joe L.]

I Know its only been a day or two but how stable is this now?   I would like to upgrade to get AFP support.  Any bugs or anything I should be aware of?  I'm on 4.7 now, Is unmenu supported and what plugins?

 

Only bugs I know of so far are those involved in the identification of a valid unRAID MBR.   It still has the same issue with those disks with an HPA, or those where the BIOS has added drive ID bytes, and it still will clobber a cache drive that was partitioned manually to have multiple partitions.

 

Nobody, to my knowledge has done any testing with the GPT partitioning or upgrading from a 2TB to a 3TB drive, although one member of the forum is slowing going through the upgrade process.   Those bugs are still waiting...  (and it will be a small miracle if there are none)

 

unMENU works just fine, although I have not tested all the possible packages in the package manager.

 

Joe L.

[tyrindor]

Since 3TB support is important to me, I decided to upgrade to this beta from beta6a. All is going good, no syslog errors or anything.

 

3TB greens are $167 currently, while 2TB greens are $80. My server is actually full (21x2TB), and i'm sitting at 5.5TB free. I was getting worried, but I will wait a bit longer to see other peoples results with 3TB drives before I buy a few. I would prefer them to drop to about $130 before I go down that road, but for every 3TB drive I buy i'll have a 2TB drive to sell.. so it's not that bad.

[SSD]

This feels like a pretty minor release update.  The kernel has been updated, which sometimes causes problems and sometimes has benefits.  Problems with prior new kernels have sometimes been certain drivers have been "enhanced" and cause some type of problem.  But more often new kernels releases have benefits, like improved performance and improved support for newer hardware.  Perhaps some of the LAN chipsets that have been problematic may work with this release.  So far nothing feels much different with my configuration.

 

So if you aren't moving up to 3T disks, this may be more of a maintenance release to 5.0b6a, fixing a few bugs (e.g., spindown) and leaving other "bugs" unfixed (most notably no longer supporting multi-partitioned cache drives, which may just be the way it is going forward; but also including some Web GUI formatting issues of little consequence in practice.)

 

For people moving to 3T this is not so minor an update, but I am still somewhat optimistic about this version.  After all, the GPT structure vs the MBR structure makes little difference to the core of unRAID, which maintains parity on PARTITIONS, not on DISKS.  Remember the 4.7 version in which advanced format drives were supported moved from beta to release without any updates.   Supporting GPT partitions is a bit more complex, but should be very similar in terms of the changes that were required.  This is very different from something like AFP support which takes several betas to debug.

 

But only time will tell.  I would recommend, as with all betas, that users give a little time for people with test arrays to run this version through its paces. I am working on it from the 3T perspective and will update the community with progress.

 

For anyone interested, unRAID has successfully created a GPT partition on my 3T parity disk.  See below:

 

root@Tower:~# gdisk

GPT fdisk (gdisk) version 0.6.14

 

Type device filename, or press <Enter> to exit: /dev/sdb

Partition table scan:

 MBR: protective

 BSD: not present

 APM: not present

 GPT: present

 

Found valid GPT with protective MBR; using GPT.

 

Command (? for help): i

Using 1

Partition GUID code: EBD0A0A2-B9E5-4433-87C0-68B6B72699C7 (Linux/Windows data)

Partition unique GUID: 2360AB88-7BFA-41C7-BC5F-1E7866AEC95F

First sector: 64 (at 32.0 KiB)

Last sector: 5861132254 (at 2.7 TiB)

Partition size: 5861132191 sectors (2.7 TiB)

Attribute flags: 0000000000000000

Partition name:

[jinjorge]

updated from 5.0b3, performing parity check right now. so far so good.  With 5.0b3 one of my disk was from the list of disks even though it was installed.  when I upgraded and rebooted, I was able to select the disk from the drop down in the main page and start the array.

 

This is my play server, main server is still running 4.6rc5(yes, I should upgrade to 4.7 already)

 

Looking forward to installing Plex on the play server.

 

J

[PeterB]

Since 3TB drives are still a dream here in Philippines (I've been waiting for almost 3 weeks now for the shop to obtain a 2TB drive for me!) I have no need to exercise GPT so this is but a minor step from 5.06d.  I updated last night and, so far, after 12 hours, so good!

[tyrindor]

Really debating on pulling the trigger on about 5 3TB greens @ $139.99 a piece, however with this still in beta I worry about data loss and whatnot. I would have to use a 3TB as parity, so it's pretty risky until unRAID atleast goes 'stable' with 3TB support.

 

Hmm... Choices...

[PeterB]

5.0beta6/6a has been in use for several months and, with certain known exceptions, has been no problem for most users.  The only significant changes from beta6 to beta7 has been the spin down support for some recent HBAs and the imlementation of GPT partitions.

 

Once someone has tested GPT in a real system,  I would suggest that you could, tentatively, go for it.

 

Why not upgrade to beta6 or beta7 without your 3TB drives, and see how you get on?  That way, you would find out whether you will be afflicted by the unknown MBR problem, before you commit to 3TB drives.

 

If the worst comes to the worst, you can still use your 3TB drives to 2.2TB capacity while things settle down.

[Thomss]

Since updating from 4.7 now when I try and access a share from Windows it is asking for a username/password I did not set a username/password - do you know what this would be?

[jaybee]

Can someone point me to where I can read what each 5.0 beta release contains without having to go into the opening post of each beta thread and read everything? I basically want an easy to see list of reasons I should select 4.7 final or the latest stable 5.0 beta. I do not care for 3TB support at all, in fact I am surprised there is such a push for it. Thanks!

[PeterB]

Can someone point me to where I can read what each 5.0 beta release contains without having to go into the opening post of each beta thread and read everything?

 

If you read the release notes posted in the first message of this thread, you will see all the significant changes between 4.5.6 and the current 5.0beta7.

 

Unfortunately, because 5 was forked off before the current 4.x release, you cannot see the differences between 4.7 and the current 5.0 beta.  However, if you look at the 4.7 release notes, you should find the changes from 4.5.6 and 4.7.

[squirrellydw]

I upgraded to 5.0 beta 7 and everything was working fine.  I then added some unmenu plugins and now I can't access the unraid main page, its all blank.

syslog_part_1.txt

[squirrellydw]

syslog part 2

syslog_part_2.txt

[prostuff1]

I upgraded to 5.0 beta 7 and everything was working fine. 

 

 

I then added some unmenu plugins and now I can't access the unraid main page, its all blank.

 

This is not a 5.0b7 issue, esspecially if 5.0b7 was working before trying to install them.  Also, you gave us no information as to what plugins you tried to install.

 

Please start a thread in the support forum and list everything out, include the syslogs you attached to these posts.

[squirrellydw]

sorry, its posted over there, feel free to delete the above and this

[Joe L.]

I upgraded to 5.0 beta 7 and everything was working fine.  I then added some unmenu plugins and now I can't access the unraid main page, its all blank.

See here:

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=10840.msg103297#msg103297

 

The fix is easy.