unRAID Server Release 5.0-beta9 Available


Recommended Posts

got two issues with beta9.

 

i upgraded from beta6 and upon a reboot, my AMD X2 5000+ is stuck at 2600 MHz and it does not scale its speed. it does however when i run the command

modprobe powernow-k8

but it only scales down to 1000. It used to scale down to 800 with beta6.

 

the other issue is about the unMENU image server going crazy and spawning processes. See here for further info: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=5568.msg133452#msg133452

 

Then I would suggest you not use it.

 

yep, that's what i did and uninstalled it.

Link to comment
  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Tom - 10.7 Lion is available on the App store now.

 

Just create another partition on your MacBook, use the Disk Utility restore to copy over your 10.6 install to the new partition. Install 10.7 over it so you can have a couple of test environments.

 

Or, just chuck 10.6 into VirtualBox. 

 

:)

 

Yeah what's cool with Lion is you can virtualize Mac OS X natively while on Mac OS X.  Pretty slick.

Link to comment

Just installed Lion. Can't connect to my SMB shares anymore. I get:

 

There was a problem connecting to the server "unraid-SMB".

The server may not exist or it is unavailable at this time. Check the server name or IP address, check your network connection, and then try again.

 

I upgraded to 5.0beta9. I can connect to my (one and only) AFP share, but it is only used for Time Machine, and Time Machine doesn't work either. I get:

 

Time Machine could not complete the backup.

The network backup disk does not support the required AFP features.

Open Time Machine preferences to select a different backup disk.

 

Syslog attached.

syslog.txt

Link to comment

Slight issue here, not sure what's up.

 

I have several shares setup and only a handful are working after upgrading to 5.0b9

When trying to browse them from my windows machine I get the error that the network location cannot be found.

If I click the folders in the "Shares" tab, I can see all the files and folders there.

I'll include screenshots to hopefully explain more about what I mean:

 

Windows Seven can't browse "kidsmovies" share: (see attached PNG)

unRAID browsing subfolder under "kidsmovies" share: http://imm.io/7mug

 

When I create a new share, I get a "delete" check box, but this does not exist on any of the other (previous) shares.

 

What gives? Any thoughts? Clearly the data is still there...

 

Km.

Windows-cant-see-share.PNG.009a3ab0a033aacf2403076e97945d15.PNG

Link to comment
When trying to browse them from my windows machine I get the error that the network location cannot be found.

If I click the folders in the "Shares" tab, I can see all the files and folders there.

 

File/folder permissions?

 

When I create a new share, I get a "delete" check box, but this does not exist on any of the other (previous) shares.

 

Presumably, the newly created share is the only one which is empty.  All the older shares have files in them, so are not eligible for deletion

Link to comment

When trying to browse them from my windows machine I get the error that the network location cannot be found.

If I click the folders in the "Shares" tab, I can see all the files and folders there.

 

File/folder permissions?

 

When I create a new share, I get a "delete" check box, but this does not exist on any of the other (previous) shares.

 

Presumably, the newly created share is the only one which is empty.  All the older shares have files in them, so are not eligible for deletion

 

Hi Peter!

 

I have checked that the file/folder permissions are the same on all the shares.

Currently, I cannot access \\tower\disk1, \\tower\disk2  etc, which I believe are the "top level" shares from any SMB client.

Here's an odd thing, if I login to another amchine on the network, I have access to all the other shares, just not "movies, kidsmovies, and kidstv" from that machine... is there some kind of "rebuild" going on that I just don't see?

 

Ok, now this is strange... now they're all available again.. WEIRD.

Link to comment

Slight issue here, not sure what's up.

 

I have several shares setup and only a handful are working after upgrading to 5.0b9

When trying to browse them from my windows machine I get the error that the network location cannot be found.

If I click the folders in the "Shares" tab, I can see all the files and folders there.

I'll include screenshots to hopefully explain more about what I mean:

 

Windows Seven can't browse "kidsmovies" share: (see attached PNG)

unRAID browsing subfolder under "kidsmovies" share: http://imm.io/7mug

 

When I create a new share, I get a "delete" check box, but this does not exist on any of the other (previous) shares.

 

What gives? Any thoughts? Clearly the data is still there...

 

Km.

 

Happens to Win 7 and Vista every time you upgrade unRAID.  A simple reboot of the windows machine and all will be well.

 

 

Link to comment

I'm building a new server this weekend and trying to decide between 5.0-beta9 and 4.7. The general forum has a sticky calling 5.0b6a a "Stable" Beta. Is 5.0-beta9 also a "stable" beta? I could live with 4.7 but it would be nice to have some of the new features and avoid a future version upgrade. Thoughts?

Link to comment

I think no-one would officially endorse running a beta system to store your really important data. Having said that, there are a number of users (including me) who are doing just that.

 

Beta6a was labelled as 'Stable', but there was an announcement about a bug discovered in all versions prior to beta8 I believe that in some situations could result in data corruption (Something to do with writing to the array during a rebuild, in some situations).

 

Personally, I've had no problems, but I've only been playing with unRAID for about 2 months, and am running on un-certified hardware as well.

 

If you want to be 100% safe, go with 4.7 on certified hardware (if you can still find the parts), otherwise you take a calculated risk like some of us here.

Link to comment
Beta6a was labelled as 'Stable', but there was an announcement about a bug discovered in all versions prior to beta8 I believe that in some situations could result in data corruption (Something to do with writing to the array during a rebuild, in some situations).

 

...

 

If you want to be 100% safe, go with 4.7 on certified hardware

 

... except that 4.7 still has the data corruption bug, and 4.7.1 has not appeared yet.

 

Personally, I'm very happy with 5.0b9 ... but then, at the moment I have no data which is totally irreplaceable.

Link to comment

Question for Tom or anyone who has actually done this.

 

A friend of mine has a 3TB Drive that he used with unRAID prior to it supporting 3TB drives (Beta7). It was precleared and a MBR signature applied and added as a cache drive in unRAID as a 2TB drive. He has moved data off it and backed up the app setups etc. If he upgrades to 5.0 Beta9 will it automatically detect it is a 3TB drive and reformat it with a GPT, or does he need to do something (run a command)? I was not able to answer his question as my 3TB drive were purchased after the annoucment (beta7) that 3Tb support was added so I dont have experience with a 3Tb drive that had a MBR applied to in and looking like a 2 or 2.2 TB drive.

 

I guess the last question would be, to be on the safe side and proper understanding. His Parity drive is a 2TB drive, it should not matter to unRAID that the cache will be 3TB right? as it is not apart of the array.

Link to comment

Question for Tom or anyone who has actually done this.

 

A friend of mine has a 3TB Drive that he used with unRAID prior to it supporting 3TB drives (Beta7). It was precleared and a MBR signature applied and added as a cache drive in unRAID as a 2TB drive. He has moved data off it and backed up the app setups etc. If he upgrades to 5.0 Beta9 will it automatically detect it is a 3TB drive and reformat it with a GPT, or does he need to do something (run a command)? I was not able to answer his question as my 3TB drive were purchased after the annoucment (beta7) that 3Tb support was added so I dont have experience with a 3Tb drive that had a MBR applied to in and looking like a 2 or 2.2 TB drive.

 

I guess the last question would be, to be on the safe side and proper understanding. His Parity drive is a 2TB drive, it should not matter to unRAID that the cache will be 3TB right? as it is not apart of the array.

The only way to have used it with an MBR style of partition would have been to create a host-protected-area (HPA) to make it appear to the OS as a 2TB drive.

The HPA will have to be removed and the drive pre-cleared again, or at the minimum, the MBR cleared. Then it can be partitioned with a GPT. 

 

It does not matter if the cache drive is larger than the array parity drive.

Link to comment

Question for Tom or anyone who has actually done this.

 

A friend of mine has a 3TB Drive that he used with unRAID prior to it supporting 3TB drives (Beta7). It was precleared and a MBR signature applied and added as a cache drive in unRAID as a 2TB drive. He has moved data off it and backed up the app setups etc. If he upgrades to 5.0 Beta9 will it automatically detect it is a 3TB drive and reformat it with a GPT, or does he need to do something (run a command)? I was not able to answer his question as my 3TB drive were purchased after the annoucment (beta7) that 3Tb support was added so I dont have experience with a 3Tb drive that had a MBR applied to in and looking like a 2 or 2.2 TB drive.

 

I guess the last question would be, to be on the safe side and proper understanding. His Parity drive is a 2TB drive, it should not matter to unRAID that the cache will be 3TB right? as it is not apart of the array.

The only way to have used it with an MBR style of partition would have been to create a host-protected-area (HPA) to make it appear to the OS as a 2TB drive.

The HPA will have to be removed and the drive pre-cleared again, or at the minimum, the MBR cleared. Then it can be partitioned with a GPT.  

 

It does not matter if the cache drive is larger than the array parity drive.

 

I am going to check with him, but i know he does not know how to create a HPA, he precleared it with either 1.10 or 1.11 would that have not created the MBR, right? just not able to use the whole 3TB's. Or is that not possible.

Link to comment

I've just upgraded from 5.0-beta5b and have some questions :)

 

Upon reboot the admin panel didn't say "Stopped. Configuration Valid." as per the upgrade instructions. I reassigned all the disks as per my screenshot and it now says "Stopped. Initial Configuration".

 

I've checked all the MBR strings and none say "MBR: error", or "MBR: unknown", although the file system string is listed as unknown.

 

So is it safe to start the array?

Link to comment

Any update regarding the problem with the shutdown of the unraid server. I really would need to shut mine down and still cannot do it with Beta9, is that being fixed in Beta 10?

 

What bug would that be? I have no issues with mine.

 

The one which Tom is trying to track down which, in beta8 and beta9, can produce a 'Kernel: Oops' in some circumstances, for some people, when shutting down/rebooting the system.  It has been discussed in both beta8 and beta9 threads, with syslogs posted.

Link to comment

Any update regarding the problem with the shutdown of the unraid server. I really would need to shut mine down and still cannot do it with Beta9, is that being fixed in Beta 10?

 

What bug would that be? I have no issues with mine.

 

The one which Tom is trying to track down which, in beta8 and beta9, can produce a 'Kernel: Oops' in some circumstances, for some people, when shutting down/rebooting the system.  It has been discussed in both beta8 and beta9 threads, with syslogs posted.

 

I post as of beta 7, its a confirmed issue, I dont want to state it wrong so will leave it to Tom to explain. But he is aware and working on it (does not seem to be anything from his end, its to do with linux kernel and newer multi core processors and unmounts).

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

Just added a new cache drive..out of the box new and it added fine but shows unformated..I tried to use the format in the webgui and it shows started formatting but nothing at all happens the drive just shows as unformatted still..tried a few times now. Is there an issue formatting with beta 9?

 

This is an EARS drive without jumpers...I have 4 other EARS drives in the array with jumpers. Not sure if that is important or not

Link to comment

Just added a new cache drive..out of the box new and it added fine but shows unformated..I tried to use the format in the webgui and it shows started formatting but nothing at all happens the drive just shows as unformatted still..tried a few times now. Is there an issue formatting with beta 9?

 

This is an EARS drive without jumpers...I have 4 other EARS drives in the array with jumpers. Not sure if that is important or not

What IS important is a copy of your syslog... before you do anything else.
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.