unRAID Server Release 5.0-rc1 Available


Recommended Posts

*** Taken Down ***

 

This is a "release candidate".  When/if no major, glaring bugs are found, it will be renamed to "final".

 

Changes include:

- kernel update to 3.3.2

- fixes for Active Directory

 

In other news, we're finally, about to announce a new server product.  This is a 10/14 drive rack mount server.  The "10/14" means there are two configurations: a 'standard' version that supports 10 trayless hot-swap 3.5" hard drives, and an optional configuration that includes additional 4 trayless hot-swap 2.5" bays.  You can install laptop drives or SSD's in these bays.

 

This 3U server is 19" deep and designed for low power and low noise (for example, we offer a 80+GOLD rated PSU).

 

The product page should be ready next week, and we will be offering a substantial "pre-order" discount.

 

 

Link to comment
  • Replies 331
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Have to get back to you on a specific thread...

 

What happened is, as soon as the drives spun down, error messages started filling the system log & then a drive red balled.

 

At that point I didn't go any further... I shut the array down, copied my backup to the flash, & rebooted back to 12a...  :)

 

I'll go looking through threads to find some specifics that relate to the problem I'm having.

 

 

Link to comment

Was so happy to see this annoncement today on my birthday  :-*

 

Only to find:

The Br10i on my test array has the same problems as before... :(

I'm assuming the M1015s won't work either... :-\

That really is a disappointment :'( - I was setting my hopes that this quite widespread card would be supported during/after the beta cycle  :'( 

 

Only encouragement is, that the latest version to support it (12a) works quite well for me for the basic stuff. Still hope card support will make it into the final product or a not too distant future release.

Link to comment

Again, folks need to realise the LSI issue (m1015/br10i etc) requires a fix in the Linux kernel, not the unRAID product per se.  Kernel 3.3.4 was released today with NFS improvements and md fixes, not sure if it addresses the LSI issue though.

 

Also those guys that compiled a new kernel with B14 didn't fix the LSI issue either, because it was STILL PRESENT in the newer kernel.

Link to comment

hmmm.

 

I get some wired messages:

Apr 28 11:38:51 nas kernel: scsi_verify_blk_ioctl: 36 callbacks suppressed
Apr 28 11:38:51 nas kernel: hdparm: sending ioctl 2285 to a partition!
Apr 28 11:38:53 nas last message repeated 5 times
Apr 28 11:38:53 nas kernel: smartctl: sending ioctl 2285 to a partition!
Apr 28 11:38:53 nas last message repeated 3 times
Apr 28 11:39:54 nas kernel: scsi_verify_blk_ioctl: 36 callbacks suppressed
Apr 28 11:39:54 nas kernel: hdparm: sending ioctl 2285 to a partition!
Apr 28 11:39:56 nas last message repeated 5 times
Apr 28 11:39:56 nas kernel: smartctl: sending ioctl 2285 to a partition!
Apr 28 11:39:56 nas last message repeated 3 times
Apr 28 11:40:56 nas kernel: scsi_verify_blk_ioctl: 36 callbacks suppressed
Apr 28 11:40:56 nas kernel: hdparm: sending ioctl 2285 to a partition!
Apr 28 11:40:56 nas last message repeated 3 times
Apr 28 11:40:58 nas kernel: mdcmd (32): spindown 4
Apr 28 11:40:59 nas kernel: hdparm: sending ioctl 2285 to a partition!
Apr 28 11:40:59 nas kernel: hdparm: sending ioctl 2285 to a partition!
Apr 28 11:40:59 nas kernel: smartctl: sending ioctl 2285 to a partition!
Apr 28 11:40:59 nas last message repeated 3 times
Apr 28 11:41:59 nas kernel: scsi_verify_blk_ioctl: 36 callbacks suppressed
Apr 28 11:41:59 nas kernel: hdparm: sending ioctl 2285 to a partition!
Apr 28 11:42:01 nas last message repeated 5 times
Apr 28 11:42:01 nas kernel: smartctl: sending ioctl 2285 to a partition!
Apr 28 11:42:01 nas last message repeated 3 times
Apr 28 11:43:01 nas kernel: scsi_verify_blk_ioctl: 36 callbacks suppressed
Apr 28 11:43:01 nas kernel: hdparm: sending ioctl 2285 to a partition!
Apr 28 11:43:03 nas last message repeated 5 times
Apr 28 11:43:03 nas kernel: smartctl: sending ioctl 2285 to a partition!
Apr 28 11:43:03 nas last message repeated 3 times

 

do I need to worry?

Link to comment

The issue was brought up in the Beta 13 and Beta 14 threads. Here is an explicit post that produced details as it was occurring: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=16125.msg149306#msg149306

 

The problem with any/all LSI Sata controllers (mptsas) is:

1. Spin down your drives.

2. Attempt to access spun-down drive.

3. Watch as drives produce thousands of false read-errors in syslog.

4. Watch as drives are red-balled on the EmHTTP management screen.

 

The fix:

Revert the used Linux Kernel to ANY of the 3.0.x series. For example, I have customized unRAID 5.0 beta 14 working nicely with the Linux Kernel 3.0.8.

 

FYI: Linux Kernel 3.3.4 was released yesterday, April 27th. It includes fixes for NFS and some for MD.

Link to comment

it is begining to seem that the developer does NO testing what so ever he just compiles and releases.......this LSI bug has been present for a long time now...you think he would use the lsi card in the test system.....i understand that the lsi and nfs bugs are kernel related...but yet he keeps upgrading to the newer yet still broken kernels.....instead of staying with a stable and solid kernel and just finishing the unraid code........

 

we have all paid good money for a license here....and to be forced to stick with a unfinished beta code is UNACCEPTABLE...........

Link to comment

we have all paid good money for a license here....and to be forced to stick with a unfinished beta code is UNACCEPTABLE...........

 

While I will not defend Tom's silence for months on end, I think the above is unfair.

 

I'm disappointed in the delays too - but I'm not aware of any formal guarantee that all future versions are free upgrades.  I am very happy that new versions are free, and do not consider it something he legally owes us.  (Or even morally)

Link to comment

we have all paid good money for a license here....and to be forced to stick with a unfinished beta code is UNACCEPTABLE...........

 

[move]While I will not defend Tom's silence for months on end[/move], I think the above is unfair.

 

I'm disappointed in the delays too - but I'm not aware of any formal guarantee that all future versions are free upgrades.  I am very happy that new versions are free, and do not consider it something he legally owes us.  (Or even morally)

 

+1

 

there is VERY few software programs out there that have free lifetime upgrades SO relax and enjoy 4.7 cause that's what you paid for....

Link to comment

we have all paid good money for a license here....and to be forced to stick with a unfinished beta code is UNACCEPTABLE...........

 

You paid for an unRaid License. You paid for 4.7, not beta code.

 

No one is FORCING you to use beta code.

 

Whenever 5.x becomes final, then you'll have a FREE UPGRADE (not written in stone that I'm aware of but has been Tom's past practice).

How many software companies do that? Very very few.

 

What is UNACCEPTABLE is your ENTITLEMENT mentality.

 

No wonder the world is going to hell in a hand basket.

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.