unRAID Server Release 5.0-rc1 Available


Recommended Posts

The offending line is:

smartctl: sending ioctl 2285 to a partition!

 

This is probably a bug in one of your plugins.  It's possible it's been around for a while, but unreported, and the guy writing the driver got around to flagging this error.  I can try and dig up what ioctl 2285 (0x8ED) refers to, but bigger fish to fry at the moment.  It would help to isolate which plugin is causing this.

 

It's likely one of the array/disk status email scripts that run at a regular interval. Don't quote me on it, but to determine what devices are actual hard drives it'll uses smartctl to test before checking SMART status.

 

Normally this isn't a problem, but seems like smartctl now logs the fact that you're trying to probe a partition instead of a hard drive.

Link to comment
  • Replies 331
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Tom always states to please run any unRAID beta without and modification, add-ins, etc. once one can establish all is well (this could take days) sleep drives, start/stop arrays, copy to and from array, speed test (network / parity sync). Only then should you start loading third party add-ons. Sanity for all.

Link to comment

For those with a m1015/br10i,

 

 

Thank you for that information.  One more experiment, replace this command:

 

hdparm -y /dev/sdc

 

with this:

 

hdparm -S1 /dev/sdc

 

This will set the internal drive spin down delay to it's minimum value (5 seconds).  After 5 sec you should hear the disk spin down.  Now repeat trying to read from that spun down disk and let's see if this also results in syslog errors.

 

According to the webui. the drive doesn't spin down...

 

Syslog attached.

syslog.txt

Link to comment

After joining to AD domain for the first time, go back to Main page, Stop array and then Start.  Let me know if this solves the authentication problem.  Also, what version of windows server are you using in your domain?

 

That worked! Thanks.  And I had to remove the file smb-extra.conf which I had from previous instructions.

Link to comment

Tom...

 

I would like an official statement if , How and when you  are going to add more drives to the array and how many ....

 

with how i mean with same license or a different license ...

 

I need  to weigh my options ... can't continue to wait and see....

I am running out of space and i still have like 4 x 500gb drives and 2 x 750gb drives laying around which are perfectly healthy....

Link to comment

Tom...

 

I would like an official statement if , How and when you  are going to add more drives to the array and how many ....

 

with how i mean with same license or a different license ...

 

I need  to weigh my options ... can't continue to wait and see....

I am running out of space and i still have like 4 x 500gb drives and 2 x 750gb drives laying around which are perfectly healthy....

 

How many drives do you want to install in a single server?

Link to comment

Tom...

 

I would like an official statement if , How and when you  are going to add more drives to the array and how many ....

 

with how i mean with same license or a different license ...

 

I need  to weigh my options ... can't continue to wait and see....

I am running out of space and i still have like 4 x 500gb drives and 2 x 750gb drives laying around which are perfectly healthy....

 

How many drives do you want to install in a single server?

I think a lot of people you love to have 24 data slots available so they could fill all hot swap bays on a Norco 4224 with data drives.

Link to comment

i seem to be getting an error that i have not seen in the past

cut for space

Apr 28 19:26:09 Tower kernel: scsi_verify_blk_ioctl: 32 callbacks suppressed

Apr 28 19:26:09 Tower kernel: hdparm: sending ioctl 2285 to a partition!

 

The offending line is:

smartctl: sending ioctl 2285 to a partition!

 

This is probably a bug in one of your plugins.  It's possible it's been around for a while, but unreported, and the guy writing the driver got around to flagging this error.  I can try and dig up what ioctl 2285 (0x8ED) refers to, but bigger fish to fry at the moment.  It would help to isolate which plugin is causing this.

 

That error should be able to be safely suppressed from the syslog. It was apparently added to help with debug from when it was discovered that direct access to devices could be used to take over system memory. Atleast this is how I understand it, but here is a message from Linus Torvald about the error.

 

https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/1/26/447

 

Hope this eases some minds and helps Tom out at the same time,  8)

Link to comment

I'll just quote myself from earlier as nobody answered my question:

 

 

OK I have some questions.

1: Can someone provide a list of current known bugs that 5.0-RC1 does NOT address/fix. As far as I am aware the only known bugs are:

- LSI Controller card support

- Major drop in parity rebuild speed reported since beta 12 ?

 

 

With regard to LSI supported cards, I just had a quick look on a well known UK supplier of computer hardware, and 8 port cards are available from 5 manufacturers:

 

Areca

Highpoint

LSI

Lycom

Supermicro

 

Which of the above would be based on the LSI chipset, or would it depend on a particular card?

 

Link to comment

I'll just quote myself from earlier as nobody answered my question:

 

 

OK I have some questions.

1: Can someone provide a list of current known bugs that 5.0-RC1 does NOT address/fix. As far as I am aware the only known bugs are:

- LSI Controller card support

- Major drop in parity rebuild speed reported since beta 12 ?

 

 

With regard to LSI supported cards, I just had a quick look on a well known UK supplier of computer hardware, and 8 port cards are available from 5 manufacturers:

 

Areca

Highpoint

LSI

Lycom

Supermicro

 

Which of the above would be based on the LSI chipset, or would it depend on a particular card?

 

 

-beta12 fixed a parity sync speed issue.  I see no speed decrease on any of my test systems.

Link to comment

jaybee:  I can tell you that:

  Areca

  Highpoint

  LSI

Make both controller chips and controller cards - so cards under their brand will almost certainly always be using their own controller chips.

 

  Lycom

  Supermicro

Are card manufacturers that utilise controller chips made by other manufacturers (LSI, SiliconImage, others)

 

You'll need to check compatibility of any controller, not just if they're based on an LSI chip.

Link to comment

Hi Tom,

thanks of all for the new Version of unRaid.

 

Just one quick question, you included v3.6.3 of Samba which suffers from the root credential remote code execution vulnarebility, which was discovered last month.

 

I know nearly all of the unRaid servers are ment to be used in an closed environment, but nevertheless is the Version of 3.6.3 patch against this vulnarebility?

Link to comment

 

actually there are quite alot of software with lifetime licenses.....and besides that... i paid for unraid as a whole from 4.7 to whenevr it stops being free for upgrades............if tom wishes to charge for the 5.0 upgrade that would be fine if it worked.......if 5.0 was to be a paid upgrade it would have been announced at the beginning of the beta....

 

I thought that Tom had posted in these forums that upgrades will always be free .... but I could well be mistaken.

 

have you not read that the lsi cards are a kernel problem so that's out of  limetech's control as far as i knoiw

 

I know that the problems (LSI and NFS) only show up when the kernel is updated, however, the Linux kernels are so widely used that I'm sure there would be lots of reports in other forums if the problems are not unRAID specific.

 

Has anyone searched for reports of these problems in other environments?

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.