unRAID Server Release 5.0-rc12 Available


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 480
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

One argument for leaving a lot of the ancillary functionality to addons is that not everyone wants every function.  unRAID, being a totally memory-resident system will suffer from an increased memory footprint for each function which is built in.

So let me understand the logic with your statement a bit better.

 

We would suffer for what has either been requested or previously promised should it be incorporated (from the increase of the memory footprint, which some of the requested additions/fixes would not, just a mere code addition/change/optimization, but lets keep going with this for a moment), BUT we won't suffer with the addition of "btrfs/cache pool", "a function not everyone may want nor requested" because THAT would not add to the memory footprint? That sounds a bit off wouldn't you say?

 

Should we go back to the whole how in an RC are we adding modules/kernel changes and completely new code to incorporate "btrfs", oh right its an unRAID thing...

I commend the supporters I really do (good bless, I was in the past), but you can't sell me that the BS isn't plied thick here.

 

The get out of jail free card here is should you lose data because "All effort has been made to ensure the integrity of data on your hard drives, but realize THIS IS A BETA RELEASE" does this look familiar? that's because it is what you see when you hit the main page with every Beta/RC of 5.0

 

Fixing 5.0 with what it has at this point (that means AFP, NFS, SMB, speed, stability, etc. everything that started off with from day one, leave the broken promises out and the repeated requests for other items and any new stuff like btrfs/cache pools) and start all the new stuff and previous requested/promised to 5.1 (or whatever version it may be labeled). Would be the saving grace, and acceptable by the majority.

 

So time being used to incorporate btrfs, 64-bit build, new hardware to sell, updating the lime webpage but not fixing what is already in 5.0 to get to final is good use of time? Priorities are skewed. Did Tom every get that Supermicro board with Xeon processor to get to the bottom of the slow writes, which he stated he ordered, anyone know?

 

 

Link to comment

I'm no Linux guru thats for sure, what I found was "Slackware 13.37 now supports btrfs fully with the btrfs-progs package ( moved from testing ) although you may want to use something else for the /boot slice."

 

Also not a Linux guy, but I do know that some folks already use hardware RAID controllers to implement RAID arrays for the cache drive;  so I suspect this is just doing effectively the same thing with a built-in feature of the latest Slackware release.    I'm a bit surprised that if it's that simple it wasn't included in the latest RC so Tom could at least get some feedback on it -- that MAY mean there'll be one more RC before final !!  [Or perhaps it's such a simple thing to do, there's no real "risk", so Tom can simply incorporate it as the last change before final  :) ]

 

Link to comment
[Or perhaps it's such a simple thing to do, there's no real "risk", so Tom can simply incorporate it as the last change before final  :) ]

Unfortunately, that is totally unrealistic. ANY change in functionality can cause seemingly unrelated things to break. Release candidates traditionally do not add features, only bug fixes, so any included feature set is as bug free as possible. This current timeline Tom has maintained is the reason I'm still running 4.7, and will continue to do so until a traditional feature frozen release candidate has been thoroughly banged on by the community. Rumblings about adding features before 5.0 is final means the current "release candidate" is really just another beta. Right now it seems like every bug fix has introduced either more untested features, or different bugs. That's fine, and I'm not complaining, I'm just sitting back and waiting until things settle down.
Link to comment

One argument for leaving a lot of the ancillary functionality to addons is that not everyone wants every function.  unRAID, being a totally memory-resident system will suffer from an increased memory footprint for each function which is built in.

So let me understand the logic with your statement a bit better.

 

We would suffer for what has either been requested or previously promised should it be incorporated (from the increase of the memory footprint, which some of the requested additions/fixes would not, just a mere code addition/change/optimization, but lets keep going with this for a moment), BUT we won't suffer with the addition of "btrfs/cache pool", "a function not everyone may want nor requested" because THAT would not add to the memory footprint? That sounds a bit off wouldn't you say?

 

My memory must be worse than I thought ... can you show me where I expressed support for "btrfs/cache pool" being included in the build?

Link to comment

We are making a lot of assumptions based on a system that he will be selling in the future. Tom has never mentioned adding in any of these into 5 final. We are bitching just to bitch. If you don't like the product move to something else. As soon as 5 final is out we will be bitching about 5.1 and 6. It will never stop. Be happy with what you have or move on to something that will work for you.

Link to comment

At this point there's no real reason to speculate on what will/won't be in v5.0, or who advocated/didn't advocate for certain features -- it will be what it is.    One reasonably encouraging bit of "status" is the note on the web site for the new servers, which says "We expect to ship pre-ordered servers by June 1" ==> that's certainly a good indication that v5 will be final by that date  :)

 

... of course projected ship dates DO "slip" for a variety of reasons -- so that's no guarantee.

Link to comment

+1

RC12a is rock-solid for everything I use it for.  I am, however, a "plain vanilla" user -- just the base install plus UnMenu with the CleanPowerDown and APC UPS packages (to provide automatic shutdown in the event of power outages > 10 minutes)

 

Another "plain vanilla" user here. Do you have anything running to make your 5x server go to sleep X amount of inactivity?

 

No, it's always on.  However, it only draws ~ 20W with all drives spun down  :)

 

Did anyone else here have any success putting their 5x systems to S3 sleep automatically after a specified amount of inactivity? I do this today in 4.7 using the S3 sleep script. Just wondering if this is still possible with 5x.

 

Link to comment

Did anyone else here have any success putting their 5x systems to S3 sleep automatically after a specified amount of inactivity? I do this today in 4.7 using the S3 sleep script. Just wondering if this is still possible with 5x.

 

Successful S3 sleep is primarily a function of the hardware, so if it works on your v4.7 system, it should work on v5 as well.    The last page here outlines a couple of things you have to do with v5 for it to work correctly:  http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=3657.msg224387#msg224387    [The key seems to be that you have to install the bwm-ng package in UnMenu in addition to the S3 script]

Link to comment

At this point there's no real reason to speculate on what will/won't be in v5.0, or who advocated/didn't advocate for certain features -- it will be what it is.    One reasonably encouraging bit of "status" is the note on the web site for the new servers, which says "We expect to ship pre-ordered servers by June 1" ==> that's certainly a good indication that v5 will be final by that date  :)

 

... of course projected ship dates DO "slip" for a variety of reasons -- so that's no guarantee.

 

Using the glass half empty view, the 5.0 could be released live, with these new features, but only certified to work on the new servers Tom is selling.

 

There certainly isn't enough time for a proper community beta(RC) test cycle that includes these proposed new features.

Link to comment

Of course that date did NOT include a year.

 

True  :) :)

... and given the history of v5 development, one can understand your skepticism !!

I DO think we're getting very close to v5 ... and that June may actually be a good date ... although I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's not the 1st

 

 

Link to comment

... and given the history of v5 development, one can understand your skepticism !!

I DO think we're getting very close to v5 ... and that June may actually be a good date ... although I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's not the 1st

 

Or, alternatively - seeing as the remaining defects are very difficult to squash, maybe he's spending all his time testing all the known potential failure modes on this new hardware platform.

 

That way he could sell the known hardware solution + RC12/13, and have a product he can stand by.

Link to comment

+1

RC12a is rock-solid for everything I use it for.  I am, however, a "plain vanilla" user -- just the base install plus UnMenu with the CleanPowerDown and APC UPS packages (to provide automatic shutdown in the event of power outages > 10 minutes)

 

Another "plain vanilla" user here. Do you have anything running to make your 5x server go to sleep X amount of inactivity?

 

No, it's always on.  However, it only draws ~ 20W with all drives spun down  :)

 

Did anyone else here have any success putting their 5x systems to S3 sleep automatically after a specified amount of inactivity? I do this today in 4.7 using the S3 sleep script. Just wondering if this is still possible with 5x.

 

It works on my system running 5.0 R12a and simple features

Link to comment

Tom and others do we have a list of problems that are still in 5.0-rc12a ?

As far as I can tell most things are fixed or am I wrong. I did read the forum but I just cant grasp what is still outstanding.  ;D

 

As far as I know there is still a stale file issue with NTFS. Past that I'm not quite sure. Various people are having better performance with different RC's (although a lot seem to prefer RC-10), but I don't think that's the main reason for holding up final.

 

Edit: Some of the current issues are discussed in this thread:

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=25306.0

Link to comment

Tom and others do we have a list of problems that are still in 5.0-rc12a ?

As far as I can tell most things are fixed or am I wrong. I did read the forum but I just cant grasp what is still outstanding.  ;D

 

As far as I know there is still a stale file issue with NTFS. Past that I'm not quite sure. Various people are having better performance with different RC's (although a lot seem to prefer RC-10), but I don't think that's the main reason for holding up final.

 

Edit: Some of the current issues are discussed in this thread:

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=25306.0

 

The stale handle issue is related to NFS not NTFS.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment

So I upgraded from 5.0-rc8a to 5.0-rc12a using the instructions in the release notes and my 2 non-parity drives show a partition format of "MBR: unaligned" and a file system type of "unknown".  Did something go wrong during the upgrade, or is this normal?  Thanks!

Link to comment

So I upgraded from 5.0-rc8a to 5.0-rc12a using the instructions in the release notes and my 2 non-parity drives show a partition format of "MBR: unaligned" and a file system type of "unknown".  Did something go wrong during the upgrade, or is this normal?  Thanks!

 

Probably best to post this issue in the support forum.

Link to comment

So I upgraded from 5.0-rc8a to 5.0-rc12a using the instructions in the release notes and my 2 non-parity drives show a partition format of "MBR: unaligned" and a file system type of "unknown".  Did something go wrong during the upgrade, or is this normal?  Thanks!

It is NOT normal.  The file system type should not be unknown.  DO NOT START THE ARRAY WITHOUT GUIDANCE FROM LIMETECH.

 

DO NOT FORMAT ANY DISK, BE VERY CAREFUL, DATA LOSS IS VERY POSSIBLE IF YOU LET UNRAID CLEAR THOSE DRIVES.

 

Joe L.

Link to comment

Good I am ordering a 4 tb seagate for parity and cash/hot spare. Truly don't need the room but I want to go to this bigger drive size and see how it will work. Also heard very good things about the speed and performance so I want to see how this new version of 5 will handle the drives.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.