unRAID Server Release 5.0-beta14 Available


limetech

Recommended Posts

* Which beta should I run if I have Supermicro aoc-saslp-mv8 (12?)

 

and b14 for SASLP-MV8 cards

 

 

Hmm, I'm not yet sold on full SASLP support:

 

1) With b14, I now get boot-up and periodic "libata" errors (see post: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=16840.msg163947#msg163947.  So far there doesn't appear to be any direct indication of hardware failures on drives attached to the SASLP that this misleading error would suggest.  All drives were 2TB.

 

2) I finally upgraded one drive on the SASLP to 3TB and now I'm getting "random" errors on a different drive on the card (same SAS port).  Although its possible that the other drive just so happened to start failing right after that upgrade, I don't believe in coincidences.  The suspect drive gets a clean bill of health from the long SMARTCTL report and I can rebuild data and parity check with no errors.  But eventually write or read errors will occur even though I don't directly transfer files to that drive specifically.  I'm on the second "red ball" incident so I will now replace this suspect drive with a new 3TB and see how this system functions...

 

Otherwise, for <=2TB drives, I've had no other problems.

 

I'm not sure if this is worth anything or just a rumor. when i was first beta testing the 3TB drives on the SASLP-MV8 I had seen warnings on other forums that mixing 3tb and 2tb on the saslp-mv8 was resulting in errors on the 2TB drives in windows. i think there was a link back to that in my 3TB on MV8 testing thread. i have not mixed any myself. but I have run 8x 3TB drives on them in beta14. (now replaced with M1015's and downgraded to beta12.) the same MV8's now have 2TB drives on them.

Link to comment
  • Replies 496
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I'm running a updated version with kernel 3.2.9 and samba 3.6.3

 

feel free to test -> http://www.filefactory.com/file/c35c621/n/bzroot_3.2.9-samba3.6.3.rar

 

I.m running beta 14 with kernel 3.3, if anyone want to try this, feel free -> http://www.filefactory.com/file/2qlr5qxok92v/n/bzimage_rar

Including samba 3.6.3-

 

//Peter

 

New kernel 3.3.1 and also verified that Tun/Tap and bridge is enabled as modules for OpenVPN.

-K10temp is also added for sensors for AMD.

 

 

http://www.filefactory.com/f/8dc509eb6d610f88/

 

has this new kernel been tested with the LSI cards yet? specifically the M1015?

Link to comment

* Which beta should I run if I have Supermicro aoc-saslp-mv8 (12?)

 

and b14 for SASLP-MV8 cards

 

 

Hmm, I'm not yet sold on full SASLP support:

 

1) With b14, I now get boot-up and periodic "libata" errors (see post: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=16840.msg163947#msg163947.  So far there doesn't appear to be any direct indication of hardware failures on drives attached to the SASLP that this misleading error would suggest.  All drives were 2TB.

 

2) I finally upgraded one drive on the SASLP to 3TB and now I'm getting "random" errors on a different drive on the card (same SAS port).  Although its possible that the other drive just so happened to start failing right after that upgrade, I don't believe in coincidences.  The suspect drive gets a clean bill of health from the long SMARTCTL report and I can rebuild data and parity check with no errors.  But eventually write or read errors will occur even though I don't directly transfer files to that drive specifically.  I'm on the second "red ball" incident so I will now replace this suspect drive with a new 3TB and see how this system functions...

 

Otherwise, for <=2TB drives, I've had no other problems.

 

I'm not sure if this is worth anything or just a rumor. when i was first beta testing the 3TB drives on the SASLP-MV8 I had seen warnings on other forums that mixing 3tb and 2tb on the saslp-mv8 was resulting in errors on the 2TB drives in windows. i think there was a link back to that in my 3TB on MV8 testing thread. i have not mixed any myself. but I have run 8x 3TB drives on them in beta14. (now replaced with M1015's and downgraded to beta12.) the same MV8's now have 2TB drives on them.

 

Interesting.  I never saw that thread.

 

So far with the "suspect" 2TB replaced with a 3TB, giving me now 2x 3TBs and 6x 2TBs on the SASLP, I have not experienced any errors the past 5 days (the first two days spent building data then parity check), and after performing large file transfers to all drives attached to the SASLP...

Link to comment

I'm running a updated version with kernel 3.2.9 and samba 3.6.3

 

feel free to test -> http://www.filefactory.com/file/c35c621/n/bzroot_3.2.9-samba3.6.3.rar

 

I.m running beta 14 with kernel 3.3, if anyone want to try this, feel free -> http://www.filefactory.com/file/2qlr5qxok92v/n/bzimage_rar

Including samba 3.6.3-

 

//Peter

 

New kernel 3.3.1 and also verified that Tun/Tap and bridge is enabled as modules for OpenVPN.

-K10temp is also added for sensors for AMD.

 

 

http://www.filefactory.com/f/8dc509eb6d610f88/

 

Thanks again, Peter!  I have installed the new kernel (3.3.1) on my test bed and it appears to work fine. 

 

I looked at the release notes for this version of the kernel and found that a number of NFS issues have been addressed.  I am wondering if any of the people who have had NFS issues have had time to test to see if anything has been resolved by the new kernel?

Link to comment

I still have issues with NFS, same that I have on previous kernels, so no fix in this kernel for NFS, but SAMBA work great with SMB2

 

//Peter

 

No luck here with my LSI card either... same issues :(

of course not, why would they think to put one of the most popular server chipsets into the kernel.

Link to comment

There is one, it's called Beta12. :)

 

 

LOL....i meant for the current kernel

 

What you might not realize is that the problem is the current kernel!!!  (Version 3 of the Linux kernel 'broke' the LSI drivers.)  What BRiT was trying to tell you is that beta 12 is the last release where the LSI cards will work because it uses one of last releases of version 2 of the Linux kernel.

Link to comment

There is one, it's called Beta12. :)

 

 

LOL....i meant for the current kernel

 

What you might not realize is that the problem is the current kernel!!!  (Version 3 of the Linux kernel 'broke' the LSI drivers.)  What BRiT was trying to tell you is that beta 12 is the last release where the LSI cards will work because it uses one of last releases of version 2 of the Linux kernel.

 

oh...thats makes much more sence......sorry i`m still half asleep.....

 

is 12 or 12a more suitable?

Link to comment

There is one, it's called Beta12. :)

 

 

LOL....i meant for the current kernel

 

What you might not realize is that the problem is the current kernel!!!  (Version 3 of the Linux kernel 'broke' the LSI drivers.)  What BRiT was trying to tell you is that beta 12 is the last release where the LSI cards will work because it uses one of last releases of version 2 of the Linux kernel.

 

according to the changelog beta 12 uses the 3.03 kernel.....beta 11 uses the 2.6.37.6 kernel and beta 13 uses the 3.1 kernel....so does this mean it was broken with the 3.1+ kernels?

Link to comment

There is one, it's called Beta12. :)

 

 

LOL....i meant for the current kernel

 

What you might not realize is that the problem is the current kernel!!!  (Version 3 of the Linux kernel 'broke' the LSI drivers.)  What BRiT was trying to tell you is that beta 12 is the last release where the LSI cards will work because it uses one of last releases of version 2 of the Linux kernel.

 

according to the changelog beta 12 uses the 3.03 kernel.....beta 11 uses the 2.6.37.6 kernel and beta 13 uses the 3.1 kernel....so does this mean it was broken with the 3.1+ kernels?

 

Yes.  Sorry, I should have looked up the version of the kernel being used for each release. 

 

I have a personal opinion about this version 3 release of Linux and that is that it is looking more like Windows than ever.  Meaning that there is a continuous stream of updates coming out to address various shortcomings in the code. 

 

Plus, it appears that recent releases have broken drivers and firmware for various hardware devices.  Of course the ones most of us are concerned are the ones for existing SATA cards.  What worries me is that if the manufacturers are the ones who will have to update the drivers and/or firmware, it may never happen if their marketing groups decide that the costs involved can not be paid back by the potential new sales of the older designed hardware. 

 

LimeTech is caught between a rock and hard spot at this point.  If he decides to stay with the old kernel, the old hardware will work.  However, this will mean that new hardware (with drivers and firmware designed for the new version of the kernel) will not work with this old kernel version.  Read about Realtec NIC driver issues for some insight into the problems of not keeping current on kernel version.

 

I suspect, at this point, he is playing a waiting game and hoping that some of the hardware issues and a couple of minor software (NFS problems???) are resolved in some future kernel update before releasing version 5.

Link to comment

Which is why I proposed two version of unRAID 5: one for older hardware and one for newer hardware.

 

At two years and counting with 5 in beta mode and no where near release as-is and dependent upon a development outside it's realm with said development not offering any solution in the near-term, I don't see any other alternatives :(

Link to comment

From my reading of this thread, it would not be two releases but more than three and possibly a great many more.  There are issues with the NIC's of certain Motherboards.  There are issues with SATA boards.  And you get software that does work with your particular SATA boards, I seem to recall that there can be spin-up issues if you want to use even the most primitive sort of power saving scheme.  Depending on what you want to be able to do with your unRaid box,  you might find that you can't get a configuration that will work unless you go back to 4.7.  Then you have the 2GB limitation on HD size. 

 

This thing is a real minefield for anyone trying to select a software setup that will work now and allow for future expansion.  I would really like some knowledgeable person to see if they could put together a matrix of software and hardware to help everyone who is attempting to use the version 5 beta.  Perhaps, there is something that I am missing but I don't think I am the only one who is confused as to what combinations of hardware and software work and don't work.

Link to comment

Why unRAID installed on Slackware?

 

Slackware is dying day by day and not active much anymore.

 

Tom should consider installing unRAID on Ubuntu or CentOS

 

unRAID is an appliance, not an application.  Once you understand that perspective, it clarifies a lot.

Link to comment

I'm looking at upgrading to V5 either this weekend or next weekend depending on time available. 

 

Based on the hardware list in my signature, which release of V5.0 should I use that would have the least driver issues and be most stable?

 

The biggest feature I am looking for is 3TB drive support.

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.