unRAID Server Release 5.0-rc2 Available


159 posts in this topic Last Reply

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 158
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

The start up problems that bugged me in RC2-test are now gone.  I have had flawless running today.  Read speeds are excellent, and parity check is about as fast as it's possible to be on my hardware (6 hrs 25 minutes with an array of 2TB green drives).  Writing could be a little quicker but I am not complaining.

My 12TB server set up -

    Asrock H67M-ITX, i3-2125 CPU, 4GB RAM; (LAN chip is RTL8111E)

    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)

 

 

Link to post

ya the kernel: smartctl: sending ioctl 2285 to a partition! is gonna make logs large

 

Myk

 

Turn off the email notifications in Simple Features and they will stop.

It is a bug in SimpleFeatures.  It should not be attempting to use smartctl on a disk partition.  Report it to its developer, or fix it yourself if you have the programming skills.

 

More accurately, it's a bug with unraid_notify :)  I'll be rebuilding email notifications in SimpleFeatures with the unMenu script as I now have Joe's permission!

 

Cheers  :D

Link to post

This will never reach final, if you guys keep adding add-ons and complaining. Most of the good/great contributors in the forum are waiting on 5.0 final before fixing/updating plugins. So please test the RC's as they come straight from Tom. This way he does not have to weed thought these logs/complaints, or worse, start igroning post because this simple instruction cannot be followed. Once 5.0 is solid and final the contributors will put the time in. Plain and simple.

 

 

Link to post

I've upgraded to 5.0RC2 from 4.7 but when i check my disks one disk hasnt correctly recognised.

 

I guess the only option is to rebuilt the disk from parity?

 

2n9kzcx.jpg

 

Is that disk on a different controller than the rest?  I had the same problem with 4.7 to 5 ages ago (was 4 disks too -- had to rebuild with clean disks and move the data back over).  All 4 disks were on a controller that went through a massive driver rewrite so the labels were different.

Link to post

Happy with RC2. It starts/stops without issue, no webgui freezes as of yet. AFP is behaving itself (did you rollback or fix a config issue?), and TimeMachine is working without issue.

 

Seems to be a nice solid update so far  :)  I'll post results of parity check speeds soon.

Link to post

I've upgraded to 5.0RC2 from 4.7 but when i check my disks one disk hasnt correctly recognised.

 

I guess the only option is to rebuilt the disk from parity?

 

2n9kzcx.jpg

 

Is that disk on a different controller than the rest?  I had the same problem with 4.7 to 5 ages ago (was 4 disks too -- had to rebuild with clean disks and move the data back over).  All 4 disks were on a controller that went through a massive driver rewrite so the labels were different.

 

Yes, this disk is on a 2port sata card together with the cache drive, i've rebuild the disk now so it's fixed

Link to post

  I don't think it is UnRaid, but the drive may not be seated good. Once in a while when I reboot the server, one of the drives act just like that, and as soon as I remove it, and reseat it, upon refreshing the browser, it comes on line.

 

By the way, for the first time since 4.5 I can now stop the array, and start it without the system crashing.

So far all is well with the exception of my parity drive not wanting to mount, but this is not an RC5 issue

. I think it has something to do with the drive but don't know where to look. (I posted the log in the RC1 thread incase someone wants to take a look at it.)

I've upgraded to 5.0RC2 from 4.7 but when i check my disks one disk hasnt correctly recognised.

 

I guess the only option is to rebuilt the disk from parity?

 

 

Link to post

I see you are using a norco 4224, becarefully with the drive cage, some of the backplane are not manufactured well. After the latch locks give the whole drive cage a lite push (on the right side) to seat it a bit better into the back plane port. Also check your wiring, sometime you have to re-path as its a pinch you cannot see but will have issues. These are the 2 common problems with that chassis.

Link to post

N40L with 4 3TB and 1 1TB drive upgraded and started up without a problem.  No problems to report yet, everything is smooth sailing.

 

It appears as though most problems are minor and/or are related to plug-ins so hopefully those that have berated you in the past have the huevos to commend you now.  Great job!

Link to post

Thanks!

 

I forgot to mention that I have tried the drive in question in all the empty slots, and even move some of the dives to try it in those slots as well.

The drive shows up fine, and allows to me add it the the server, but when I try to bring the array on line (Mount the drives) the array will not start.

 

I see you are using a norco 4224, becarefully with the drive cage, some of the backplane are not manufactured well. After the latch locks give the whole drive cage a lite push (on the right side) to seat it a bit better into the back plane port. Also check your wiring, sometime you have to re-path as its a pinch you cannot see but will have issues. These are the 2 common problems with that chassis.

Link to post

Okay, I believe that I have a work-around for the hanging file transfers.

 

If I mount the network shares as udp, rather than the default nfs, then file transfers from unRAID do not hang.

 

Testing with transferring a single 16GB file from unRAID to my Ubuntu desktop, I get an average transfer rate well in excess of 90MB/s (I saw a peak of over 97MB/s).

 

I have tried other suggested work-arounds (async/sync etc), but only the udp option seems to offer a solution (other than artificially slowing down the transfers).

 

This means that I can now move on to current unRAID releases, but I do still regard this as a work-around solution.

 

Questions:

1) Why does tcp not work?

2) Why is there no problem with unRAID 5b11, and earlier (in other words, v2.x kernels)?

3) Does the blame lie with unRAID or with Ubuntu?

 

All current test are performed with Ubuntu 12.04 (3.2.0-24 kernel) and running AMD (64bit) mode.

 

I believe that the stale file handle problem still exists (copying to unRAID)

 

Edit:

 

Yes, I can confirm that the stale file handle problem still persists.

 

@Tom

Research on the net suggests that the reason for a stale file handle is that the contents of a directory has been changed without the modification time of the directory itself having been updated.  Is it possible that this might occur in unRAID - perhaps when a cache drive is in use?

 

Also, it seems that file transfers to unRAID are a little slower using udp than they were with tcp, I'm getting around 75MB/sec compared with 95+ previously - I'm not sure whether this might be expected or not.

Link to post

Updated, virtualbox can't start any hosts, but everything else appears to be functional.

 

After a couple Virtualbox rebuilds, and feeling like ripping out what hair I have left, I found the cause of the problem.  After a successful build and reboot I needed to run:

 

VBoxManage setproperty websrvauthlibrary null

 

This is the first time I've moved kernels, so I assume this step is always needed if you're running Virtualbox, and I was unaware of it (I cannot remember it being necessary when updating Virtualbox to a new version).  Hopefully this information helps someone else. 

 

Then everything worked properly, including USB device availability for attaching to hosts.

 

 

Link to post

I've upgraded to 5.0RC2 from 4.7 but when i check my disks one disk hasnt correctly recognised.

 

I guess the only option is to rebuilt the disk from parity?

 

2n9kzcx.jpg

 

Is that disk on a different controller than the rest?  I had the same problem with 4.7 to 5 ages ago (was 4 disks too -- had to rebuild with clean disks and move the data back over).  All 4 disks were on a controller that went through a massive driver rewrite so the labels were different.

 

Yes, this disk is on a 2port sata card together with the cache drive, i've rebuild the disk now so it's fixed

 

What is this card name/type? I have one 2-port PCIe x1 Sil3132-based controller with two data drives attached, so that makes me worried :-(

Link to post

What is this card name/type? I have one 2-port PCIe x1 Sil3132-based controller with two data drives attached, so that makes me worried :-(

 

I don't think that it's anything to get too worked up about.  One controller/driver combination is truncating the device string at 16 characters, whereas another controller/driver passes a longer string.  This makes unRAID believe that the drive configuration has changed when it hasn't really.

 

I guess that there are two ways of getting round this - one is that you have to change the assigned drive and then force a 'trust my parity', or you can simply accept that the drive gets rebuilt.  The difficulty would arise when this has happened to more than one drive!

Link to post

What is this card name/type? I have one 2-port PCIe x1 Sil3132-based controller with two data drives attached, so that makes me worried :-(

 

I don't think that it's anything to get too worked up about.  One controller/driver combination is truncating the device string at 16 characters, whereas another controller/driver passes a longer string.  This makes unRAID believe that the drive configuration has changed when it hasn't really.

 

I guess that there are two ways of getting round this - one is that you have to change the assigned drive and then force a 'trust my parity', or you can simply accept that the drive gets rebuilt.  The difficulty would arise when this has happened to more than one drive!

 

If you know your data is good (and do not want to do a 'trust my array' action) you could also rebuild parity by removing and adding the parity drive when you have multiple data drives on these controllers.

Link to post

Array is now starting during boot.  Seems to be working great, flying through parity test at ~95MB/Sec.  Will post syslog when it's done (<6hrs for 13TB of parity protected data).

 

Unrelated, and I'm sure this is a fix required by whoever developed the custom UI you are using (which looks fantastic btw) but shouldn't that say "Array of seven protected data disks" ?

 

a) There are technically seven data drives which are protected

b) Parity drive is not included in the total size (nor should it be)

c) Cache & Flash are also not protected disks

 

Alternatively it could be reworded to something like "Array of eight protected disks (including parity)"  or "Array of eight (including parity) protected disks" 8)

array.png.c998cd9e8960ff721cf978a151b6c7ae.png

Link to post

This will never reach final, if you guys keep adding add-ons and complaining. Most of the good/great contributors in the forum are waiting on 5.0 final before fixing/updating plugins. So please test the RC's as they come straight from Tom. This way he does not have to weed thought these logs/complaints, or worse, start igroning post because this simple instruction cannot be followed. Once 5.0 is solid and final the contributors will put the time in. Plain and simple.

 

 

+1

Link to post

This will never reach final, if you guys keep adding add-ons and complaining. Most of the good/great contributors in the forum are waiting on 5.0 final before fixing/updating plugins. So please test the RC's as they come straight from Tom. This way he does not have to weed thought these logs/complaints, or worse, start igroning post because this simple instruction cannot be followed. Once 5.0 is solid and final the contributors will put the time in. Plain and simple.

 

I agree. After so many betas, I hope we don't get as many  or more RCs. Please Tom, just iron out the bugs and get a stable 5.0 incl stable NFS support. Adding features can be done later.

Link to post

This will never reach final, if you guys keep adding add-ons and complaining. Most of the good/great contributors in the forum are waiting on 5.0 final before fixing/updating plugins. So please test the RC's as they come straight from Tom. This way he does not have to weed thought these logs/complaints, or worse, start igroning post because this simple instruction cannot be followed. Once 5.0 is solid and final the contributors will put the time in. Plain and simple.

 

I agree. After so many betas, I hope we don't get as many  or more RCs. Please Tom, just iron out the bugs and get a stable 5.0 incl stable NFS support. Adding features can be done later.

 

 

i thought the idea was after beta 14, there would be 2 RC releases and then a stable version.. I recall something like that, gonna look it up ;)

 

But how it looks now, it seems more RC will be released.... :(

I hope we dont get 14 RC releases.... if u know what i mean

 

 

 

edit: quote from Tom:

 

The LimeTech forum has been updated to latest SMF release.  Please let me know if you see any problems.

 

Other news:

 

Next unRaid release - now that linux kernel 3.2 is released, I will integrate and post one more 5.0-beta, thereafter, 5.0-rc1, then 5.0 "final".

 

 

Link to post

This will never reach final, if you guys keep adding add-ons and complaining. Most of the good/great contributors in the forum are waiting on 5.0 final before fixing/updating plugins. So please test the RC's as they come straight from Tom. This way he does not have to weed thought these logs/complaints, or worse, start igroning post because this simple instruction cannot be followed. Once 5.0 is solid and final the contributors will put the time in. Plain and simple.

 

 

+1

 

+2

Link to post

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.