jumperalex Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 Cricky, but they are a LOT of log entries for a 60 second check in email notifications. And they might not be errors, but still they are filling up the log at a high rate. anyway to filter them out? EDIT:In fact it is a new entry every 1 min 14 sec. Quote Link to comment
speeding_ant Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 Not sure. I'll be re-working the email notifications script in the next few SimpleFeatures versions, it's using an old version of unraid_notify script made yonks ago. Quote Link to comment
Joe L. Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Not sure. I'll be re-working the email notifications script in the next few SimpleFeatures versions, it's using an old version of unraid_notify script made yonks ago. Apparently it is invoking hdparm on a partition, not on the base drive. Quote Link to comment
speeding_ant Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Correct - it uses hdparm to detect which devices are actual hard drives I believe. Quote Link to comment
Marky Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Ok now i really need some help to get everything back to normal. Running 5.0B14, doing a non correcting parity check, was working fine for quite a few hours. Before upgrading i was running 4.7 and did a check there to make sure everything was running fine. No errors at all. One of the drives has gone offline and redballed. smartctl has shown the drive is fine. Sure its more of a software fault than hardware. How can i get it back to green without doing any rebuilds or parity checks as i know the drive is fine. Thanks Mark Quote Link to comment
pantner Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Ok now i really need some help to get everything back to normal. Running 5.0B14, doing a non correcting parity check, was working fine for quite a few hours. Before upgrading i was running 4.7 and did a check there to make sure everything was running fine. No errors at all. One of the drives has gone offline and redballed. smartctl has shown the drive is fine. Sure its more of a software fault than hardware. How can i get it back to green without doing any rebuilds or parity checks as i know the drive is fine. Thanks Mark i would suggest creating your own thread, this thread is for discussion about 5.0-rc1. Post exactly what you did, detailed system specs and if possible, a system log. Quote Link to comment
Influencer Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 It would probably be more worthwhile to surpress the error from showing on syslog, the log will be removed in a future release, and is harmless in the meantime. Its something that has been happening for quite a while, just we've never been on a kernel that showed it. It will be a moot point anyway if Tom does as he said and compiles RC2 on 3.0.x, the error will no longer be in kernel. Quote Link to comment
Marky Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Ok now i really need some help to get everything back to normal. Running 5.0B14, doing a non correcting parity check, was working fine for quite a few hours. Before upgrading i was running 4.7 and did a check there to make sure everything was running fine. No errors at all. One of the drives has gone offline and redballed. smartctl has shown the drive is fine. Sure its more of a software fault than hardware. How can i get it back to green without doing any rebuilds or parity checks as i know the drive is fine. Thanks Mark i would suggest creating your own thread, this thread is for discussion about 5.0-rc1. Post exactly what you did, detailed system specs and if possible, a system log. Might be an idea but posted here as if you see my previous posts in this thread its due to upgrading to 5.0rc1 first that caused me to downgrade to b14. Tom himself has said that rc1 is a lemon. Thought i'd keep everything related in the same thread. Quote Link to comment
caimakale Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Here is the list of issues gleened from this thread: -kingping: reports "hdparm sending ioctl 2285 to a partition!" filling system log same here ... but i must admit I'm also still running add-on: unmenu and simple features. I just started a preclear and I seem to be getting these errors. I am also using simple features. CONFIRMED: I took out Simple Features and the log entries stopped. Tracked it down to email notifications in Simple Features. Stopping email notifications stops the log entries. Makes sense. I use SF beta7 but don't use the email notifications feature and have zero entries for this error in my syslog. Quote Link to comment
bonienl Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 RC1 just completed a parity check. It is a tad slower than before, 63.1 MB/s versus 63.7 MB/s (this is the average over the completed process) Quote Link to comment
jaybee Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Here is the list of issues gleened from this thread: -several users: lsi based controllers have issue accessing spun down disks -sacretagent: wants 24 disk support -kingping: reports "hdparm sending ioctl 2285 to a partition!" filling system log -crankbearing: wants to know what version of lm_sensors is being used [it's 3.1.2] -peter_sm: has issue where subtitles disappear using NFS -dlandon: clicking utils/system log constantly refreshes using IE9 -darkside40: samba 3.6.3 has a vulnerabilty which apparently has a patch somewhere -marky (and others): webGui freezing, especially during parity sync -burnaby_boy, _vern_: writes via network much slower vs. -beta14 -Fred: can't get flash share to export It looks like the last kernel that was reliable with the LSI based controllers was the 3.0.x series. It also appears the 3.0.x series is being actively maintained. So what I'm going to do is take down -rc1 and rebuild with latest 3.0 kernel (3.0.30) and release as -rc2. Sorry -rc1 has turned out to be such a lemon. Some things are my fault, some are issues in the linux kernel. As an aside - I liked linux kernel development method the way it used to be: if the second digit was even, it meant it was a "stable" release, if odd it meant it was a development release. Now it's hard to know when to update the kernel. I will also say this: not everyone is experiencing the kinds of issues being reported in this thread, and none of these issues affect data integrity (except perhaps for LSI issue). Thankyou for your continued effort and information in here. We all look forward to a stable 5.0 release so much. The idea to go back to a stable Kernel sounds like a good idea right now to me. I'd like to see RC2 so some kind people here can do some tests. Quote Link to comment
PeterB Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 -peter_sm: has issue where subtitles disappear using NFS I'm not sure whether this is the same thing as the frequent 'stale nfs handle' errors which I experience. To get around this, without having to reboot, a 'umount -f ...' usually gets things going again. I've not been able to run anything later than b11 successfully, but this exhibits the 'kernel oops' error during shutdown. Has that problem been resolved in an interim release? Quote Link to comment
dlandon Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Here is the list of issues gleened from this thread: -dlandon: clicking utils/system log constantly refreshes using IE9 You might just want to hold on this for the moment. I think I may have spoken too soon. This worked on the "bare bones" unraid, but later became an issue now that I think back on it. I will strip all add ons/plugins/customizations off and then add one at a time to see which one is/might be causing the issue. I violated the rule of testing with "bare bones" unraid and only reporting issues from that. My bad. I'll rewind and start over and see if I can find what is causing this to happen. I think Tom's time is better spent on those "bigger fish". Quote Link to comment
TheWombat Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Upgraded from 4.7 to 5.0rc1 over the weekend. My first time on the 5.0 version. Other than not being able to access the folders/shares until after I rebooted my Windows 7 client machine the upgrade went without a hitch and so far seems to be running like a champion. I need to look into whether my plugins are still there etc and will try to preclear a 2TB HDD during the week. System: Lian Li PC-A77FB Gigabyte GA-880GMA-UD2H SUPERMICRO AOC-SASLP-MV8 x 2 Hitachi Deskstar 5k3000/7k3000 x 10 HDDs seem to spindown fine. thanks Alex Quote Link to comment
bonienl Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 A small thing... Is it possible that configuration files are stored in linux format (lines ending on LF). 'cfg' files are now stored in windows format (CRLF), no big deal, but as said: might be nice to have for consistency purposes. Quote Link to comment
Marky Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Upgraded from 4.7 to 5.0rc1 over the weekend. My first time on the 5.0 version. Other than not being able to access the folders/shares until after I rebooted my Windows 7 client machine the upgrade went without a hitch and so far seems to be running like a champion. I need to look into whether my plugins are still there etc and will try to preclear a 2TB HDD during the week. System: Lian Li PC-A77FB Gigabyte GA-880GMA-UD2H SUPERMICRO AOC-SASLP-MV8 x 2 Hitachi Deskstar 5k3000/7k3000 x 10 HDDs seem to spindown fine. thanks Alex Would you mind doing a test on your setup with RC1 and run a parity check, non correcting as you can stop it after the test is done. Would like to see what your parity speeds are. I upgraded from 4.7 and only got ~17.50MB/sec. Someone else on this thread also reported that kind of speed and was also using SUPERMICRO AOC-SASLP-MV8 cards. I use those cards also, if yours is slow then maybe these cards are the comman factor causing the slowdown. Mark Quote Link to comment
dlandon Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Here is the list of issues gleened from this thread: -dlandon: clicking utils/system log constantly refreshes using IE9 You might just want to hold on this for the moment. I think I may have spoken too soon. This worked on the "bare bones" unraid, but later became an issue now that I think back on it. I will strip all add ons/plugins/customizations off and then add one at a time to see which one is/might be causing the issue. I violated the rule of testing with "bare bones" unraid and only reporting issues from that. My bad. I'll rewind and start over and see if I can find what is causing this to happen. I think Tom's time is better spent on those "bigger fish". Ok the culprit appears to be the apcupsd plug in. I install it manually (no other plug ins are installed) and all is good. I did not start the daemon. Then I reboot and the constant log refresh starts. I don't think this one is in your court Tom. Quote Link to comment
GFOviedo Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 I've had RC1 since it came out, and I haven't had any issues, but I also do not have any pluggings installed other than those from the UnMenu pckg manager. Probably the reason why is working fine. I'll leave it like that till RC2 comes out. Only issues I've had are some network issue with dropped packets, error and frames, but I don't think those are related. Quote Link to comment
pfp Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 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'd like to fill my Norco case without the use of a cache drive. So 1 parity and 23 data. Quote Link to comment
jimwhite Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 I think it would be more useful if parity check speeds were accompanied by the number of drives in the array. Quote Link to comment
duderaid Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 And where the parity drive is connected, on the motherboard or on an add on card (plus card model). I think it would be more useful if parity check speeds were accompanied by the number of drives in the array. Quote Link to comment
graywolf Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Throw in disk speeds into the mix also. I'm sure an array of all Black drives would perform differently than an array of all Green drives or a mix. Quote Link to comment
Marky Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Either give number of drives and speed or maybe parity check speeds across versions of unraid. As for mine. 4.7 ~55.00MB/sec 5.0RC1 ~17.50MB/sec 5.0B14 ~50.00MB/sec Exact same hardware only changed unraid version. Quote Link to comment
emorydively Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 If we go back to the other Kernel path instead of the one currently run by RC-1, how will this affect the compatibility with some of the newer MLBs and Realtek ethernet adapters? I know some people were using unsupported MLBs/ethernet boards in the 5.0b that wouldn't work in 4.7. Quote Link to comment
S80_UK Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Updating from an earlier post... My 12TB server set up - Asrock H67M-ITX, i3-2125 CPU, 4GB RAM; (LAN chip is RTL8111E in case that happens to be relevant) four drives on AOC-SASLP-MV8, remainder on the motherboard; drives are 6 data x 2TB (WD20EARS green), parity 2TB (WD20EARS green on motherboard), cache 1TB (WD10EADS green on motherboard) Parity check (corrections disabled) - 6 hrs 25 minutes which seems quite fast, so maybe I don't see the parity check slow down that others are seeing. But - data reads from the server are 50Mbytes/sec and writes to the server cache are about 35Mbytes/sec (both are slower than they were with 5b14). Writes that go straight to the array and not to cache are about half the speed (17Mbytes/sec). I am accessing from a Win 7 machine and use a network monitor gadget. I see that with 5.0-rc1 the transfers seem to be frequently interrupted whereas with 5b14 they are more or less continuous. (Note I did not change or reboot the Windows machine between the two sets of tests. Test results seem to be repeatable.) 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.