Problems accessing unRAID from windows 7 x64 machine(s)

[JustinChase]

Sorry for my delay in reporting back.  This issue has disappeared for me.

 

I upgraded to b14, added the cache dirs to the go script (see below) but I think the real solution was to remove all win7 machines from homegroups.  I had lots of weird issues with this (including machines in different workgroups being able to read/write to each other!), but in the end, I created a brand new workgroup with a name I'd never used before, connected all machines to this, and did not connect any machines to any homegroup afterwords, and have not had any issues since.  No hardware changes required.

 

#!/bin/bash
# Start the Management Utility
/usr/local/sbin/emhttp &
/boot/unmenu/uu
cd /boot/packages && find . -name '*.auto_install' -type f -print | sort | xargs -n1 sh -c
echo nameserver 192.168.1.254 >/etc/resolv.conf
echo 192.168.1.150 media >>/etc/hosts
/boot/cache_dirs -w

 

Life without this issue is bliss

[betaman]

Ok, this is definitely a n00b question but I'm not very familiar with networking so here goes:

 

If you have two different workgroups on the same home network, how do you copy files between workgroups?  Do you have to use FTP or some other protocol because my understanding is that the machines not in the same workgroup as the Win 7 x64 machines will not be visible.  Thanks in advance.

[One2go]

Sorry for my delay in reporting back.  This issue has disappeared for me.

 

I upgraded to b14, added the cache dirs to the go script (see below) but I think the real solution was to remove all win7 machines from homegroups.  I had lots of weird issues with this (including machines in different workgroups being able to read/write to each other!), but in the end, I created a brand new workgroup with a name I'd never used before, connected all machines to this, and did not connect any machines to any homegroup afterwords, and have not had any issues since.  No hardware changes required.

While I have been very skeptical about the Win 7 64bit machines my latest experience has sort of been revealing. I have a second server that runs v5b14 and is a HP N40L micro server and I have none of the issues that I have with the v4.7 server and the three Win 7 machines are in a workgroup but also have those three in the homegroup. I did move 4.5 TB from the v4.7 server to the v5.b14 server which put 4 of the 8 discs on the v4.7 server at less then 50% but the 4 other discs are at 90%, 88%, 82% and 70% capacity. The free space on those 2TB drives is 1.34 TB. I do not treasure the idea having to leave 250 Gig per 2TB drive free so that this annoying unavailability of the shares does not pop up, neither is it a pleasure to fire up a telnet session and do a dir /s to get the listing into memory before writing a 2k NFO file and a 8k XML file to the disc followed by several GBs of content.

 

It was a revelation to read the thread http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=17310.0 and see that others are having the same issue. It sort of negates my idea that perhaps the SMB securities and the permissions that are a cause of it. Did not see this one coming especially since we started posting about this problem months ago and the thread about 99% disc capacity causes performance issues was not posted until days ago.

 

Anyhow I am glad that we found a solution to this problem and who would have thought that MS's handling of discs filled to capacity as well as fragmentation is far better then Reiser FS handles it.

[JustinChase]

Ok, this is definitely a n00b question but I'm not very familiar with networking so here goes:

 

If you have two different workgroups on the same home network, how do you copy files between workgroups?  Do you have to use FTP or some other protocol because my understanding is that the machines not in the same workgroup as the Win 7 x64 machines will not be visible.  Thanks in advance.

 

That was kind of my point above, you're not supposed to be able to do it (I believe), which is why I mentioned it, since I thought it was not possible, which indicates I must have gotten something very screwed up to allow it to happen.

 

RE: full disks, this was never my problem.  Mine was a new build, and no disk had ever been filled even 50% while I was having my issues.  I suspect we had different problems, just with VERY similar symptoms.

 

Anyway, I hope I have non jinxed myself with saying it's been fine, but since all the workgroup/homegroup/win7 nuke/paving I did, it's been very responsive under all normal usage 

[ohlwiler]

Did not see this one coming especially since we started posting about this problem months ago and the thread about 99% disc capacity causes performance issues was not posted until days ago.

 

Actually I have seen this issue pop several times in the last year and a half. I asked about it here:

 

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=6098.msg58837#msg58837

 

Once you know it isn't a hardware problem, but a "feature" to work around then it isn't a issue any more. I suspect the drive cost issue is causing more people to delay purchasing new drives and thus filling their current drives fuller.

[One2go]

Actually I have seen this issue pop several times in the last year and a half. I asked about it here:

 

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=6098.msg58837#msg58837

 

Once you know it isn't a hardware problem, but a "feature" to work around then it isn't a issue any more. I suspect the drive cost issue is causing more people to delay purchasing new drives and thus filling their current drives fuller.

Thanks for pointing this out because I would have never looked for it with that type of description. I just assumed that something as basic as copying a file would not introduce this type of problem when there is enough space for the file, just not additional "overhead" in the order of 100Gig plus. That is an insane "feature".

 

I must say that the latest beta has not exhibited any of these problems yet but then my most populated drive is at 76%. We will see what happens when that one hits 90% plus.