axeman Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 I see we're deleting posts when you don't want to hear what's written.... what was the post that was deleted? Quote Link to comment
Joe L. Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 well the simplefeatures trick for the processor info works on my newer server with a Intel® Pentium® CPU G840 @ 2.80GHz - 2.833 GHz but not on my Intel® Core2 Duo CPU E6550 @ 2.33GHz procesor in the older server although this processor is 64 bit capable so i guess simple features will need to update that thingie to include older processors if you want to make this stock .... Is it possible the CPU is 64 bit capable, but the motherboard support chipset is not? Quote Link to comment
prostuff1 Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 I see we're deleting posts when you don't want to hear what's written.... The posts where deleted because they were off topic for this thread and because of the cursing in it Quote Link to comment
limetech Posted January 30, 2013 Author Share Posted January 30, 2013 I see we're deleting posts when you don't want to hear what's written.... No they were deleted because they violated the Announcement Board Rules. Quote Link to comment
lionelhutz Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 No they were deleted because they violated the Announcement Board Rules. LOL, Seriously? If you want to stick to the letter of those rules then that means every post in this thread is violating those rules, including your initial post. If you want to stick to the off-topic part then how is posting that RC12 will be required to test the fix to the slow write issue off topic? How is posting that I believe the finding of the swap-disable bug in RC10 in indicative of it being too soon to simply consider RC11 as release material without further testing off topic? I didn't comment before but there has already been a post about a bug fix being done in RC11a in the RC11 thread. Quote Link to comment
limetech Posted January 30, 2013 Author Share Posted January 30, 2013 No they were deleted because they violated the Announcement Board Rules. LOL, Seriously? If you want to stick to the letter of those rules then that means every post in this thread is violating those rules, including your initial post. If you want to stick to the off-topic part then how is posting that RC12 will be required to test the fix to the slow write issue off topic? How is posting that I believe the finding of the swap-disable bug in RC10 in indicative of it being too soon to simply consider RC11 as release material without further testing off topic? I didn't comment before but there has already been a post about a bug fix being done in RC11a in the RC11 thread. It was deleted because one member called another member (not me) an asshole. So I deleted that post and the few posts that led up to it just like how in a few hours I'm going to delete this post and the posts asking about why I deleted the posts. Quote Link to comment
Vocatus Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 So I deleted that post and the few posts that led up to it just like how in a few hours I'm going to delete this post and the posts asking about why I deleted the posts. I don't know if I was supposed to laugh out loud at this line, but I did. I say keep up the nuking, if the comments weren't contributing to the discussion of the release schedule and goals. Quote Link to comment
axeman Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 So I deleted that post and the few posts that led up to it just like how in a few hours I'm going to delete this post and the posts asking about why I deleted the posts. I don't know if I was supposed to laugh out loud at this line, but I did. I say keep up the nuking, if the comments weren't contributing to the discussion of the release schedule and goals. yo dog - i heard you don't like deleted posts. so i deleted the posts about deleting posts. sorry - your post made me think of that guy. Quote Link to comment
NAS Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 well the simplefeatures trick for the processor info works on my newer server with a Intel® Pentium® CPU G840 @ 2.80GHz - 2.833 GHz but not on my Intel® Core2 Duo CPU E6550 @ 2.33GHz procesor in the older server although this processor is 64 bit capable so i guess simple features will need to update that thingie to include older processors if you want to make this stock .... try this will you on the older CPU grep --color=always -iw lm /proc/cpuinfo In theory if it is 64bit capable you will see "lm" in red Quote Link to comment
Glo8al Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Thx for the hard work. Can't wait for the 64bit version and upgraded netatalk Would also like if possible a easier way to delete shares that has been shared with Macs? I don't do it a lot, but when I do I have to telnet in to delete the hidden crap that AFP and Macs put on the share, before I can delete the share. rm -rf /mnt/disk1/"Folder name" This seems to be the only way I can do it. Quote Link to comment
mrow Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Thx for the hard work. Can't wait for the 64bit version and upgraded netatalk Would also like if possible a easier way to delete shares that has been shared with Macs? I don't do it a lot, but when I do I have to telnet in to delete the hidden crap that AFP and Macs put on the share, before I can delete the share. rm -rf /mnt/disk1/"Folder name" This seems to be the only way I can do it. Enter "defaults write com.apple.desktopservices DSDontWriteNetworkStores true" in the terminal on any Macs you have and none of that stuff will get written to network shares any more. EDIT: This apparently only works for the .DS_Store files, not the .AppleDouble folders. Sorry. Quote Link to comment
Glo8al Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Thx for the hard work. Can't wait for the 64bit version and upgraded netatalk Would also like if possible a easier way to delete shares that has been shared with Macs? I don't do it a lot, but when I do I have to telnet in to delete the hidden crap that AFP and Macs put on the share, before I can delete the share. rm -rf /mnt/disk1/"Folder name" This seems to be the only way I can do it. Enter "defaults write com.apple.desktopservices DSDontWriteNetworkStores true" in the terminal on any Macs you have and none of that stuff will get written to network shares any more. EDIT: This apparently only works for the .DS_Store files, not the .AppleDouble folders. Sorry. I have that set You can still get .DS_Store files on the server with this on. If you copy a folder over, the .DS_Store file in that folder will get copied over as well. If you create a folder on the server, a DS_Store file will not be created. A program call BlueHarvest help this out a bit. Quote Link to comment
Ice_Black Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 What is "cache pool" ? Quote Link to comment
JustinChase Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 What is "cache pool" ? It's where the caches go to relax and cool off on a hot summer day Quote Link to comment
sacretagent Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 well the simplefeatures trick for the processor info works on my newer server with a Intel® Pentium® CPU G840 @ 2.80GHz - 2.833 GHz but not on my Intel® Core2 Duo CPU E6550 @ 2.33GHz procesor in the older server although this processor is 64 bit capable so i guess simple features will need to update that thingie to include older processors if you want to make this stock .... try this will you on the older CPU grep --color=always -iw lm /proc/cpuinfo In theory if it is 64bit capable you will see "lm" in red got twice LM in red root@p5bplus:~# grep --color=always -iw lm /proc/cpuinfo flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe nx lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts aperfmperf pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx smx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm lahf_lm dtherm tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe nx lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts aperfmperf pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx smx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm lahf_lm dtherm tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority Quote Link to comment
RobJ Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Just curious Tom, but with all the talk of v5.0 Final and a 64bit version to follow, where does the Plugin Manager fit in? It was my impression (and my memory may be very wrong) that you had been working on it (and other things?) for a v5.1 beta, while waiting for kernel fixes for v5.0? No need to answer if you aren't ready to reveal anything. (Now I'll slip back into the pool...) Quote Link to comment
NAS Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 OK here is a better command that shoulod in theory reliably tell you if your CPU is 64bit capable cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep -Gq "flags.* lm " && echo '64bit' || echo '32bit' So for my system root@SERVER:~# cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep -Gq "flags.* lm " && echo '64bit' || echo '32bit' 64bit because this acts on PROC it should be kernel agnostic Quote Link to comment
skank Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Anyone know if an amd athlon II x2 240e is 64bit capable? I'm not much up into this command things... Quote Link to comment
SavellM Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Anyone know if an amd athlon II x2 240e is 64bit capable? I'm not much up into this command things... Yes it is Quote Link to comment
skank Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 cool, so i'm sure a 64bit unraid version will work? Nice ! Quote Link to comment
dheg Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 What is "cache pool" ? It's where the caches go to relax and cool off on a hot summer day ):))) Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2 Quote Link to comment
unevent Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Another method to determine 32/64-bit CPU: lscpu | grep "op-mode" Results: root@Tower:~#lscpu | grep "op-mode" CPU op-mode(s): 64-bit Unraid 5.0-rc10 - Asus M5A78L-MLX Plus (RT8111E) - AMD Athlon II X3 450 Rana 3.2GHz - 8GB DDR3 - Antec NEO ECO 620W - Antec Three Hundred Case - 1x Rosewill RC-211 (cache) - Parity: 1T Seagate ST1000DM005/HD103SJ - DATA: 3x WD Black 750G - 1x 1T Seagate ST1000DM003 - 1x 500G Seagate ST500DM002, Cache: Intel X25-V SSD 40GB w/8GB swap partition Quote Link to comment
Joe L. Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Another method to determine 32/64-bit CPU: lscpu | grep "op-mode" Results: root@Tower:~#lscpu | grep "op-mode" CPU op-mode(s): 64-bit Sorry, but that command does not exist on earlier versions of unRAID root@Tower3:~# lscpu | grep "op-mode" -bash: lscpu: command not found root@Tower3:~# Quote Link to comment
unevent Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Another method to determine 32/64-bit CPU: lscpu | grep "op-mode" Results: root@Tower:~#lscpu | grep "op-mode" CPU op-mode(s): 64-bit Sorry, but that command does not exist on earlier versions of unRAID root@Tower3:~# lscpu | grep "op-mode" -bash: lscpu: command not found root@Tower3:~# Upgrade Quote Link to comment
lionelhutz Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 I just wanted to point out that it would be wrong at this point in time to expect RC11 to be the 5.0 final release and that another release will be necessary if any further work is done to fix the slow write issue. RC10 was released on the 11th. The release poll was 80% in favor of releasing RC10 and 5.0 final with that thread starting on the 12th. the first posting about that swap-disable being broken in RC10, was on the 20th, 9 days after RC10 was released. Based on this, I'd say it way too early to consider the positive results with RC11 as proof it should be released as 5.0 final. Besides, it sounds like you did a bunch of changes on RC11 by your write-up on how duplicate object reporting completely changed. I don't consider a bunch of new coding just for the sake of changing something a good plan when the idea is to working towards a quality final release. I know you're really want 5.0 to be released Tom and I applaud your efforts to date. But, I don't want to see you rush things at the 11th hour and end up with a release with major bugs in it. It would not have inspired much confidence if you had switched RC10 to be 5.0 and then had to announce a 5.1 bug fix days later. 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.