limetech Posted August 5, 2011 Author Share Posted August 5, 2011 When using user share & fill-up method whenever any drive dips below threshold, windows will report both incorrect total size & free space on mapped share 16 drives fill up 25,000,000 min free space split 0 when any drive is > 25 gb windows reports 12.9 TB / 1.87 TB ... total / used space (the correct amount) any drive dips < 25; > 24 windows reports 12.0 / 1.78 any drive dips < 24; > 23 windows reports 10.6 / 1.74 any drive dips < 23; > 22 windows reports 9.77 / 1.69 any drive dips < 22; > 21 windows reports 2.72 / 1.57 (2.72 not a typo) Once drive space increases to above 'min free space' threshold normal readings appear. Incorrect reading continued on another unraid 5.0b10 server using split 3. Bother servers migrated from a 4.7 environment with no change in settings and not displaying this behavior. - correction there is 1 change; both servers currently have no parity drive set. They did in the 4.7 environment. Will set parity, rebuild and observe This is very interesting ... I'm just starting to play with this feature with large numbers of HDDs ... I'll need to keep a close eye on this and see if I get the same problem ... thanks for the warning (and hopefully Tom can find the bug if there is one). Parity rebuild completed, behavior persists. Narrowed and can duplicate on demand. This test is on another server running 5b10: 20 data + 1 parity, no cache 1 and only 1 user share labeled 'ALL' utilizing all disks available allocation = fill up min free space = 30,000,000 split = 3 free space on all 20 disks are > 30gb; windows correctly shows 32.7 tb/ 4.58 tb (total / free) 1st disk written with 4.35gb file to < 30 gb; windows reports 31.3 / 4.55 (disk 1 = 1.5 tb) - any further writing to this disk does not affect either value beyond the expected 2nd disk written with 4.35gb to < 30 gb; windows reports 30.0 / 4.52 (disk 2 = 1.5 tb) - further writing to disk no abnormal change 3rd disk written with 4.35gb to < 30gb; windows reports 28.7 / 4.49 (disk 3 = 1.5 tb) - further writing no abnormal change Data concludes that user shares is discarding total / free space of individual disks as they fall below min free space threshold. Able to duplicate this without writting by artificially raising / lower 'min free space' of user share and noting what windows displays. Yes, sorry about that - bug fixed in next beta. Quote Link to comment
Stokkes Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 Hey Tom, Any chances of adopting speeding ant's "Simple Features" GUI as the main unRAID interface for 5.0 final? If you haven't considered it yet, I would like to put my vote towards strongly considering it. It's very much indicative of what UI's in today's most cutting edge web apps look like and I think would give a much better impression to unRAID as a whole (marketing wise anyway). Cheers, Quote Link to comment
dgaschk Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 Yes. Great marketing tool! Quote Link to comment
shire Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 Hi! Hey Tom, Any chances of adopting speeding ant's "Simple Features" GUI as the main unRAID interface for 5.0 final? If you haven't considered it yet, I would like to put my vote towards strongly considering it. It's very much indicative of what UI's in today's most cutting edge web apps look like and I think would give a much better impression to unRAID as a whole (marketing wise anyway). Cheers, +1 I would like to see this too. Bye. Quote Link to comment
Ice_Black Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 If Tom want Unraid to become more popular, he really need to consider adding a few popular features from UnMenu from into Unraid... UnMenu lack of feature itself is really really silly. This is not how market should be done. Quote Link to comment
timsutton Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 the 5.0 beta is already subject to enough feature-creep. a big part of 5.0 was to incorporate a plugin system, and isn't Simple Features essentially a plugin? Tom has enough on his hands keeping the core code stable as he tests kernel upgrades to squash bugs. If Tom were to seriously consider adding all these extra features himself, we'd be waiting much longer for a stable 5.0 release. As far as marketing goes, unRaid's core functionality offers features that no other product does, period. For free. It's a no-brainer to set up as a basic NAS. What more do you want? Quote Link to comment
SSD Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 There are those that believe Tom should be more focused on internals (e.g., AFP, new drivers, P+Q parity speed improvements), rather than GUI enhancements (and remember the 5.0 GUI is new and much improved over 4.x!). Tom's plug in architecture will hopefullly provide ways for community GUIs, like speeding_ant's excellent contribution, to be more easily incorporated. But distributing community addons (even preclear) is not something Tom has done in the past, and there are some sticky issues there from ownership and support perspective. I doubt we will see it happen. There are enough beta issues related to parity checks, NIC drivers, free space, etc. reported that we should allow Tom to stay focused on those and similar issues in this thread. I believe this discussion including community GUIs in the std distribution belongs in the feature requests thread, and timing should be at a calmer time in the development cycle to avoid distracting the chief cook! Quote Link to comment
prostuff1 Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 the 5.0 beta is already subject to enough feature-creep. a big part of 5.0 was to incorporate a plugin system, and isn't Simple Features essentially a plugin? Tom has enough on his hands keeping the core code stable as he tests kernel upgrades to squash bugs. If Tom were to seriously consider adding all these extra features himself, we'd be waiting much longer for a stable 5.0 release. As far as marketing goes, unRaid's core functionality offers features that no other product does, period. For free. It's a no-brainer to set up as a basic NAS. What more do you want? I agree with what has been said above. Including the CSS changes that Simple Features gives would be nice, but I think some of the extras (email notifications, etc) of Simple Features should be left to plugins by the community. Just have some patience. Quote Link to comment
Chris Pollard Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 imho the current v5 gui is fine. Start doing fancy stuff and you will end up having to test it on loads of different devices and browsers. Performance and Features. Leave the fancy gui to the modders. Quote Link to comment
Stokkes Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 My point wasn't to start a heated discussion.. The work that was done on Simple Features is already done, there's nothing to say Tom can't focus on the internals and have someone else focus on the externals. He did, after all, say that the GUI was very important to the face of unRAID and essentially calling out any talented people: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=3461.0 I'm just saying.. Quote Link to comment
PeterB Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 I have two dislikes about the 'simple features' gui, and I would not wish it to become the standard offering in its current state: 1) Numerical columns are left justified, whereas they are right justified in the standard interface - right justification makes it much easier to compare values. 2) The line spacing has been increased, meaning that there is less information visible to a view and necessitating more scrolling. Quote Link to comment
intertan Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 ok I have a few questions 1. is beta 11 soon to be released and am I better off to wait for 11 before I upgrade from 4.7 2. I am planning on starting fresh with my flash drive. I have the pro key but if I assign the drives correctly I should be good? btw wil be using the original flash drive figure I would start 5.0 with an empty clean install Quote Link to comment
thica Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 Hi, I am stucked witch ACPI S3 on Beta 10. (browsed now for hours the forum) I have understood that echo -n 3 > /proc/acpi/sleep is not working anymore in 5.xx s2ram is not working starting beta4 as commented by Joe. Both packages are not available in unmeu 1.5 anymore echo -n mem >/sys/power/state stops the server working My mo-board is supporting S3 (by logfile). So: what is the actual method to set the server in S3 mode? If any tools needed, where to get them? Thanks for support Quote Link to comment
rvank Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 Hi All, I have setup a couple of shares on the cache drive and set them to: Use Cache disk: Only Export: Yes Security: Public In the shares overview these shares have an orange bullit instead of a green one. I cant see the shares on my mac finder, i can see the shares that have a green bullit in the overview Is this by design that i can not see the shares when connected as Guest I wanted to share a couple of folders on the cache drive, i use these folders for SABnzbd. Thx for the great work on unRAID Rob. Quote Link to comment
speeding_ant Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 A bug with the TimeMachine size limit. It appears that unRAID parses the number and inserts a space every 3 numbers. Eg, 428 600 This causes the limit to be 428Mb, and the share is renamed under Finder to be called "600". Quote Link to comment
Interstellar Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 I don't know if this a bug or something else but: I moved everything that was in a "Time-Machine" share to the root of the disk (disk 1) in this case. I deleted the "Time-Machine" share. But now the Time machine sparse bundle and other folders (What was in the Time-Machine share) in the root of disk 1 show up as user shares!?!? Whats going on here!? Edit 3: Adding disk 1 to the exclude from user shares has fixed it... *is happy now* Edit: Also my mover isn't running. Doesn't do it automatically. Runs fine when I click it to make it run tho. Edit 2: Seems to be fixed in the next beta! Quote Link to comment
DoeBoye Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Just in case Tom only has time to monitor this thread for beta-related issues, here is a link to my post re: beta10 parity check issues! Quote Link to comment
lionelhutz Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 But now the Time machine sparse bundle and other folders (What was in the Time-Machine share) in the root of disk 1 show up as user shares!?!? Not a bug. Any folder in the root of a disk is a user share.... Quote Link to comment
defected07 Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Hi All, I have setup a couple of shares on the cache drive and set them to: Use Cache disk: Only Export: Yes Security: Public In the shares overview these shares have an orange bullit instead of a green one. I cant see the shares on my mac finder, i can see the shares that have a green bullit in the overview Is this by design that i can not see the shares when connected as Guest I wanted to share a couple of folders on the cache drive, i use these folders for SABnzbd. Thx for the great work on unRAID Rob. - An orange bullet means the user share has files still on the cache drive. - I'm not sure if cache-only user shares have been implemented yet into unRAID. - If you'd like to view the contents of your cache drive, set your cache drive for Export: Yes, Security: Public -- not the shares. You'll be able to see the cache drive under Samba (not AFP) - Public means Guest will have read/write access. Quote Link to comment
SCSI Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 - An orange bullet means the user share has files still on the cache drive. - I'm not sure if cache-only user shares have been implemented yet into unRAID. - If you'd like to view the contents of your cache drive, set your cache drive for Export: Yes, Security: Public -- not the shares. You'll be able to see the cache drive under Samba (not AFP) - Public means Guest will have read/write access. The "cache-only" share feature was added on 5.0-beta8. Quote Link to comment
Interstellar Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 But now the Time machine sparse bundle and other folders (What was in the Time-Machine share) in the root of disk 1 show up as user shares!?!? Not a bug. Any folder in the root of a disk is a user share.... That explains it then. All ok here then Quote Link to comment
PeterB Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Not a bug. Any folder in the root of a disk is a user share.... That explains it then. All ok here then ... but you can turn off the exporting of any unwanted shares. Quote Link to comment
Interstellar Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Not a bug. Any folder in the root of a disk is a user share.... That explains it then. All ok here then ... but you can turn off the exporting of any unwanted shares. By adding the disk to the excluded user shares or by a different method? (Not that it matters at the moment but for future reference - i've done the former for disk 1 which is my T-M disk) Quote Link to comment
PeterB Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 ... but you can turn off the exporting of any unwanted shares. By adding the disk to the excluded user shares or by a different method? (Not that it matters at the moment but for future reference - i've done the former for disk 1 which is my T-M disk) By setting 'Export:' to 'No' in the management screen for each individual share. Quote Link to comment
Stokkes Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Anyone else notice that /mnt/user0 seems to disappear every now and then? Just got back from work and noticed it was no longer there... Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.