unRAID Server Release 6.0-beta3-x86_64 Available

[Loch]

Just to confirm (in case anyone was interested), I looked up the Intel Celerons (430, 440, etc) which do not support VT-x or VT-D. So they look to be in the same boat at the Atoms.

[dirtysanchez]

Just to confirm (in case anyone was interested), I looked up the Intel Celerons (430, 440, etc) which do not support VT-x or VT-D. So they look to be in the same boat at the Atoms.

 

But there are a large number of Celerons that do, especially the Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, and Haswell ones.  The legacy Core2 units you listed do not. 

 

Of the 28 Core i generation "desktop" Celerons listed on ARK, 24 support VT-x.  The most used Celerons of the Core i generation (based on what I've seen in the forums) such as the G550, G1610, G1620, etc all support VT-x.

[BLKMGK]

These days I'd be seriously considering Haswell based hardware. They're faster and much more energy efficient. The ability to virtualize is a big plus HOWEVER don't buy anything K based! I built my first machine to run ESX and used a Sandy 2600K - I promptly found that the vt-d option was frayed out. Turns out that Intel unlocks these CPU and then promptly kills the vt-d option, no passthru allowed :-( Ran fine otherwise without vt-d. I also have an AMD system that when booting FreeNAS flashes a message telling me that it's a no go for KVM. I never did figure out what was up with that and moved to an older i7 9200 which seems to work fine with XenServer. I'll be trying 6.x as soon as I get my license :-)

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SchoolBusDriver]

These days I'd be seriously considering Haswell based hardware.

 

1. I am a fan of both AMD and Intel.

 

2. My AMD is $100 dollars cheaper plus I get 8 cores.

 

3. Been converting a lot of my files from x.264 to x.265 and the extra cores are nice to have.

 

4. x.265 with the same quality as x.264 is about 60% smaller. With better quality about 40 - 50% (depends on the source).

 

5. Without Hardware Video Acceleration still only running 20 - 30% on my CPU.

[dirtysanchez]

The ability to virtualize is a big plus HOWEVER don't buy anything K based! I built my first machine to run ESX and used a Sandy 2600K - I promptly found that the vt-d option was frayed out. Turns out that Intel unlocks these CPU and then promptly kills the vt-d option, no passthru allowed :-(

 

While this is in general true, there have been 3 K-series SKU's that support VT-d.  All were LGA2011 though, which is not a common platform for unRAID.

[bobmagnuson]

 

3. Been converting a lot of my files from x.264 to x.265 and the extra cores are nice to have.

 

4. x.265 with the same quality as x.264 is about 60% smaller. With better quality about 40 - 50% (depends on the source).

 

5. Without Hardware Video Acceleration still only running 20 - 30% on my CPU.

 

SchoolBusDriver, what are you using to convert from x.264 to x.265?  Are you converting from original source?

[coppit]

So I got through the Windows setup, and my VNC session was disconnected. No biggie, I figured I'd just reconnect after the reboot. But I'm just getting a black screen and a few seconds later tightvnc crashes. I tried destroying and recreating the domain, and removing the Windows install ISO from the cfg file and setting it to boot from C drive. Still no dice.

 

I see some suspicious errors in qemu-dm-windows7.log (below), and xl-windows7.cfg says this:

 

Waiting for domain windows7 (domid 14) to die [pid 21535]

 

Anyone have any ideas?

 

domid: 14
-videoram option does not work with cirrus vga device model. Videoram set to 4M.
Strip off blktap sub-type prefix to /mnt/vms/windows/disk.img (drv 'aio')
Using file /mnt/vms/windows/disk.img in read-write mode
Watching /local/domain/0/device-model/14/logdirty/cmd
Watching /local/domain/0/device-model/14/command
Watching /local/domain/14/cpu
qemu_map_cache_init nr_buckets = 10000 size 4194304
shared page at pfn feffd
buffered io page at pfn feffb
Guest uuid = 4350987a-9889-4529-bf69-87f8815af92c
populating video RAM at ff000000
mapping video RAM from ff000000
Register xen platform.
Done register platform.
platform_fixed_ioport: changed ro/rw state of ROM memory area. now is rw state.
xs_read(/local/domain/0/device-model/14/xen_extended_power_mgmt): read error
Log-dirty: no command yet.
I/O request not ready: 0, ptr: 0, port: 0, data: 0, count: 0, size: 0
I/O request not ready: 0, ptr: 0, port: 0, data: 0, count: 0, size: 0
vcpu-set: watch node error.
[xenstore_process_vcpu_set_event]: /local/domain/14/cpu has no CPU!
I/O request not ready: 0, ptr: 0, port: 0, data: 0, count: 0, size: 0
xs_read(/local/domain/14/log-throttling): read error
qemu: ignoring not-understood drive `/local/domain/14/log-throttling'
medium change watch on `/local/domain/14/log-throttling' - unknown device, ignored
I/O request not ready: 0, ptr: 0, port: 0, data: 0, count: 0, size: 0
cirrus vga map change while on lfb mode
mapping vram to f0000000 - f0400000
platform_fixed_ioport: changed ro/rw state of ROM memory area. now is rw state.
platform_fixed_ioport: changed ro/rw state of ROM memory area. now is ro state.

[Loch]

Just to confirm (in case anyone was interested), I looked up the Intel Celerons (430, 440, etc) which do not support VT-x or VT-D. So they look to be in the same boat at the Atoms.

 

But there are a large number of Celerons that do, especially the Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, and Haswell ones.  The legacy Core2 units you listed do not. 

 

Of the 28 Core i generation "desktop" Celerons listed on ARK, 24 support VT-x.  The most used Celerons of the Core i generation (based on what I've seen in the forums) such as the G550, G1610, G1620, etc all support VT-x.

 

Thanks for clarification.  By the way, you figure these Celerons (especially my old one) will be able to handle unRaid with the VMs? By the way it sounds, the VM doesn't add too much overhead.

[pyrater]

Currently i have Dom0 running 8 cores and 2 gigs of ram, Is this a issue as i am actually running 12 cores and 8 gigs?.... Ie does Zen remove resources from Dom0 or add to it ?

 

8 cores Dom0

+

4 cores Dom1

 

= 12 cores?

 

or

 

8 cores Dom0

-

4 cores Dom1

 

= 8 cores used..?

 

Basicly should unraid see all the resources or only those assigned to it? If it only see whats assigned to it are the rest of the resources "wasted"? I hope that was clear as it is hard to explain.

[dalben]

What's the possibility of having an option to download a version of 6.x unRAID with a demo/example/stock xen vm image of a plain jane Ubuntu/ContOS/Whatever flavour of Linux ?

 

Purely on a no support basis but for many people, myself included, I learn quicker by looking at something already in place and hacking away/changing/modifying and seeing the results.

 

The idea would be to have the 6.x (even if it's only during beta stage) oversized download that would expect the user to install x files to the usbdrive and then x files to the yy cache drive in whatever directory structure it's needed in.

 

Boot, and voila, a working linux VM along with Beta unRAID

[ironicbadger]

What's the possibility of having an option to download a version of 6.x unRAID with a demo/example/stock xen vm image of a plain jane Ubuntu/ContOS/Whatever flavour of Linux ?

 

Purely on a no support basis but for many people, myself included, I learn quicker by looking at something already in place and hacking away/changing/modifying and seeing the results.

 

The idea would be to have the 6.x (even if it's only during beta stage) oversized download that would expect the user to install x files to the usbdrive and then x files to the yy cache drive in whatever directory structure it's needed in.

 

Boot, and voila, a working linux VM along with Beta unRAID

 

Take a look at my arch appliance VM. This is a plop and drop solution you can have up in 30 mins or less including download time.

 

This is as close to what you're asking as will ever exist.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[dalben]

This is as close to what you're asking as will ever exist. 

 

Why's that ?  I'm asking if Tom would consider a Lime Tech supplied example which would be part of the beta add-on.

[limetech]

This is as close to what you're asking as will ever exist. 

 

Why's that ?  I'm asking if Tom would consider a Lime Tech supplied example which would be part of the beta add-on.

 

That's a possibility but these images are really big & I pay for bandwidth.  What I'll end up doing is create a webGui plugin that will install a VM.

[dalben]

This is as close to what you're asking as will ever exist. 

 

Why's that ?  I'm asking if Tom would consider a Lime Tech supplied example which would be part of the beta add-on.

 

That's a possibility but these images are really big & I pay for bandwidth.  What I'll end up doing is create a webGui plugin that will install a VM.

 

Ah, I didn't think about bandwidth.  I wonder if releasing it as a torrent is a viable solution.

 

WebGUI plugin sounds handy as well.

[ironicbadger]

Dalben, what you want is already out it just requires a bit of effort.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dalben]

dalben, what you want is already out it just requires a bit of effort.

 

No offence icon, but I'd much rather try something Tom endorses/provides first if possible.  If not then I'll wait and see until a clear community supplied vm becomes the defacto standard around here.

 

I don't know Linux or VM Technology well enough to delve into the bleeding edge when I only have 1 live server to play on.

[ironicbadger]

Fair enough. I'm not sure it's in Limetech's interest to officially support a VM image, instead they should focus on the unRAID product and let the community do the VMs (you know let experts play where they are best). Take a look at my videos, they show you what's possible without needing to download a thing. You can probably skip part 1.

 

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgUdkYSObfxotSl4c4KJlQKNyQbPAduLl

 

For what it's worth, I'm not trying to start a pissing contest. 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ockingshay]

For beta4 can the default syslinux option be xen+unraid for those of us with headless test systems please?

 

cheers

[ironicbadger]

For beta4 can the default syslinux option be xen+unraid for those of us with headless test systems please?

 

cheers

 

Just edit your syslinux.cfg file in the /boot/syslinux folder.

 

Move the 'menu default' line to the option you want as default.

[Ockingshay]

aha, thanks! i was hoping it would be that simple!

 

as simple as that?

 

default /syslinux/menu.c32
menu title Lime Technology
prompt 0
timeout 50
label unRAID OS
  kernel /bzimage
  append initrd=/bzroot
label unRAID OS Safe Mode (no plugins)
  kernel /bzimage
  append initrd=/bzroot unraidsafemode
label Memtest86+
  kernel /memtest
label Xen/unRAID OS
  menu default
  kernel /syslinux/mboot.c32
  append /xen dom0_mem=2097152 --- /bzimage --- /bzroot
label Xen/unRAID OS Safe Mode (no plugins)
  kernel /syslinux/mboot.c32
  append /xen dom0_mem=2097152 --- /bzimage --- /bzroot unraidsafemode

[meep]

aha, thanks! i was hoping it would be that simple!

 

as simple as that?

 

default /syslinux/menu.c32
menu title Lime Technology
prompt 0
timeout 50
label unRAID OS
  kernel /bzimage
  append initrd=/bzroot
label unRAID OS Safe Mode (no plugins)
  kernel /bzimage
  append initrd=/bzroot unraidsafemode
label Memtest86+
  kernel /memtest
label Xen/unRAID OS
  menu default
  kernel /syslinux/mboot.c32
  append /xen dom0_mem=2097152 --- /bzimage --- /bzroot
label Xen/unRAID OS Safe Mode (no plugins)
  kernel /syslinux/mboot.c32
  append /xen dom0_mem=2097152 --- /bzimage --- /bzroot unraidsafemode

 

That will do it.

[Ockingshay]

thanks, it certainly did....on with testing

[ironicbadger]

I've created an FAQ for using Xen in an effort to reduce double questions about stuff. If I've missed anything let me know! It's hard to put yourself in a beginners shoes sometimes, so please approach it as one and tell me how I can make the FAQ better. (In that thread, keep this one on topic).

 

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=31716.0

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

 

[MrLondon]

can we actually use xencenter with the xen version in unRaid?

 

Thanks

 

MrLondon

[binhex]

so...unless im missing something, so far 6.0 b3 has no known issues regarding the basic functions of unraid itself, yeah?, thats pretty impressive if thats the case, anybody got ANY issues (excluding virtualisation)