unRAID Server Release 6.0-beta3-x86_64 Available

[ironicbadger]

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

 

Thanks

 

MrLondon

 

No.

[dlandon]

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)

 

Plugin installation is started before the network (Internet connection) is ready and plugin downloads fail causing plugins to not install on boot up.

[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)

 

Plugin installation is started before the network (Internet connection) is ready and plugin downloads fail causing plugins to not install on boot up.

 

thanks dlandon, ok thats not a show-stopper for me but obviously not ideal, im guessing tom is aware of this and will fix in b4. off topic i know but my only other slight concern is regards some of the older scripts such as powerdown, and cache_dirs, i know pre-clear works ok on 6.x but not sure about the other two, will go and find out what the score is, thanks again!.

[dlandon]

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)

 

Plugin installation is started before the network (Internet connection) is ready and plugin downloads fail causing plugins to not install on boot up.

 

thanks dlandon, ok thats not a show-stopper for me but obviously not ideal, im guessing tom is aware of this and will fix in b4. off topic i know but my only other slight concern is regards some of the older scripts such as powerdown, and cache_dirs, i know pre-clear works ok on 6.x but not sure about the other two, will go and find out what the score is, thanks again!.

 

I am in communication with WeeboTech to get powerdown updated.  I am experiencing a lockup when powering down after mounting a drive with SNAP.

[ironicbadger]

This isn't a bug so much as it is a feature.

 

When bridge networking is enabled it takes 10-30 seconds for the host to get network access after the Tower: prompt is reached.

[Dephcon]

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

 

Thanks

 

MrLondon

 

No.

 

Is it possible to add unraid components to xenserver(dom0) like users have been doing to arch and centos?

[peter_sm]

I have created a UnRAID VM and passtrough one SATA card with a few disk, works just fine. it runs without a license key.

Just to play with and do some stuff on 

 

//Peter

[dirtysanchez]

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.

 

The experts can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see why they wouldn't be able to handle VM's.  Worst case scenario the VM's just run slow due to a lack of resources.

 

If your CPU doesn't support VT-x you can still run PV VM's (linux distros), you just can't run HVM VM's (unmodified proprietary OS's, like Windows).

[doorunrun]

It seems like NFS in this version mounts shares as read only. The issue has been pointed out in this thread, http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=31687.msg288543#msg288543.

I'm new to NFS and maybe this has been covered in the past. I've tried to connect from two different clients and using the "touch" test approach yields a "read only file system" error message.

 

Thanks!

[coppit]

Success with Win7 64 bit! Details: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=31674.msg288613#msg288613

[cfant]

sensors app doesn't work. It is compiled for 32-bit and run-time library is not available.

[binhex]

It seems like NFS in this version mounts shares as read only. The issue has been pointed out in this thread, http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=31687.msg288543#msg288543.

I'm new to NFS and maybe this has been covered in the past. I've tried to connect from two different clients and using the "touch" test approach yields a "read only file system" error message.

 

Thanks!

 

so is this bug only related to using autofs for unraid nfs shares, or are nfs shares read only regardless of connection method?, if so thats a fairly large bug.

[doorunrun]

It seems like NFS in this version mounts shares as read only. The issue has been pointed out in this thread, http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=31687.msg288543#msg288543.

I'm new to NFS and maybe this has been covered in the past. I've tried to connect from two different clients and using the "touch" test approach yields a "read only file system" error message.

so is this bug only related to using autofs for unraid nfs shares, or are nfs shares read only regardless of connection method?, if so thats a fairly large bug.

 

I tried attaching to the unRAID NFS shares from my Ubuntu workstation as well as IronicBadger's ArchVM build. Both cases failed. I don't think Ubuntu uses autofs.

[binhex]

It seems like NFS in this version mounts shares as read only. The issue has been pointed out in this thread, http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=31687.msg288543#msg288543.

I'm new to NFS and maybe this has been covered in the past. I've tried to connect from two different clients and using the "touch" test approach yields a "read only file system" error message.

so is this bug only related to using autofs for unraid nfs shares, or are nfs shares read only regardless of connection method?, if so thats a fairly large bug.

 

I tried attaching to the unRAID NFS shares from my Ubuntu workstation as well as IronicBadger's ArchVM build. Both cases failed. I don't think Ubuntu uses autofs.

 

ahh right, might be worth waiting for b4 me thinks.

[bmfrosty]

It seems like NFS in this version mounts shares as read only. The issue has been pointed out in this thread, http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=31687.msg288543#msg288543.

I'm new to NFS and maybe this has been covered in the past. I've tried to connect from two different clients and using the "touch" test approach yields a "read only file system" error message.

so is this bug only related to using autofs for unraid nfs shares, or are nfs shares read only regardless of connection method?, if so thats a fairly large bug.

Ran into the issue in OS-X as well.  Was able to mount as SMB and move files around though.

I tried attaching to the unRAID NFS shares from my Ubuntu workstation as well as IronicBadger's ArchVM build. Both cases failed. I don't think Ubuntu uses autofs.

[mattkhan]

This isn't a bug so much as it is a feature.

 

When bridge networking is enabled it takes 10-30 seconds for the host to get network access after the Tower: prompt is reached.

It is a defect. It may or may not be an easily fixable defect but that doesn't make it any less of a defect. What is the root cause? No dependency based boot sequence in Slackware? Something else?

[bmfrosty]

This isn't a bug so much as it is a feature.

 

When bridge networking is enabled it takes 10-30 seconds for the host to get network access after the Tower: prompt is reached.

It is a defect. It may or may not be an easily fixable defect but that doesn't make it any less of a defect. What is the root cause? No dependency based boot sequence in Slackware? Something else?

An easy way to work around would be to put a while loop in before plugins are installed to look for internet connectivity.  Of course this would have to have a built in timeout so that we still boot if we're *never* going to get connectivity.

[MrLondon]

hi there all,

 

today I installed the beta on my production server as I wanted to test xen, however as soon as I select the zen option it just shows a screen with lots of strange numbers, unfortunately I don;t know how to capture besides a picture, I have already booted several times. When I choose the non xen option it works fine. Below is the mainboard I am using. I have attached the syslog from the normal boot.

 

Motherboard: ASUSTeK Computer INC. - P7H55-M LX

CPU: Intel® Core i3 CPU 540 @ 3.07GHz

Speed: 3.066 GHz

Cache: 128 kB, 512 kB, 4096 kB

Memory: 4096 MB (max. 16 GB)

Network: eth0: 1000Mb/s - Full Duplex

syslog_04022014.txt

[doorunrun]

hi there all,

 

today I installed the beta on my production server as I wanted to test xen, however as soon as I select the zen option it just shows a screen with lots of strange numbers, unfortunately I don;t know how to capture besides a picture, I have already booted several times. When I choose the non xen option it works fine. Below is the mainboard I am using. I have attached the syslog from the normal boot.

 

Motherboard: ASUSTeK Computer INC. - P7H55-M LX

CPU: Intel® Core i3 CPU 540 @ 3.07GHz

Speed: 3.066 GHz

Cache: 128 kB, 512 kB, 4096 kB

Memory: 4096 MB (max. 16 GB)

Network: eth0: 1000Mb/s - Full Duplex

My guess is "virtualization technology" is not turned on in your mobo BIOS settings.

[limetech]

hi there all,

 

today I installed the beta on my production server as I wanted to test xen, however as soon as I select the zen option it just shows a screen with lots of strange numbers, unfortunately I don;t know how to capture besides a picture, I have already booted several times. When I choose the non xen option it works fine. Below is the mainboard I am using. I have attached the syslog from the normal boot.

 

Motherboard: ASUSTeK Computer INC. - P7H55-M LX

CPU: Intel® Core i3 CPU 540 @ 3.07GHz

Speed: 3.066 GHz

Cache: 128 kB, 512 kB, 4096 kB

Memory: 4096 MB (max. 16 GB)

Network: eth0: 1000Mb/s - Full Duplex

My guess is "virtualization technology" is not turned on in your mobo BIOS settings.

Another possibility is something didn't get copied over correctly to the flash.  I'd suggest preserving 'config' directory, and anything else you want to preserve, and then re-format flash, install, restore preserved stuff and try again.

[MrLondon]

Hi there,

 

I actually deleted everything but the config directory from the original key, and then extracted the contents of the download. VT-D is enabled I verified that. I could try another usb key without my pro key just to make sure that this was not the issue maybe?

 

MrLondon

[MrLondon]

I now tried a completely different USB key which I formatted before, I copied the config directory from the old key and the complete contents of the download but still get the strange screen as soon as the bzimage is loaded, the screen changes to the attached picture

 

[limetech]

I now tried a completely different USB key which I formatted before, I copied the config directory from the old key and the complete contents of the download but still get the strange screen as soon as the bzimage is loaded, the screen changes to the attached picture

 

Maybe your download is corrupted?  You can check the md5sum of the download zip file against the value on the Downloads page.

[ironicbadger]

It seems like NFS in this version mounts shares as read only. The issue has been pointed out in this thread, http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=31687.msg288543#msg288543.

I'm new to NFS and maybe this has been covered in the past. I've tried to connect from two different clients and using the "touch" test approach yields a "read only file system" error message.

so is this bug only related to using autofs for unraid nfs shares, or are nfs shares read only regardless of connection method?, if so thats a fairly large bug.

 

I tried attaching to the unRAID NFS shares from my Ubuntu workstation as well as IronicBadger's ArchVM build. Both cases failed. I don't think Ubuntu uses autofs.

 

Yes, NFS is broken in v6 b3 from all distros. I've made Tom aware.

[limetech]

It seems like NFS in this version mounts shares as read only. The issue has been pointed out in this thread, http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=31687.msg288543#msg288543.

I'm new to NFS and maybe this has been covered in the past. I've tried to connect from two different clients and using the "touch" test approach yields a "read only file system" error message.

so is this bug only related to using autofs for unraid nfs shares, or are nfs shares read only regardless of connection method?, if so thats a fairly large bug.

 

I tried attaching to the unRAID NFS shares from my Ubuntu workstation as well as IronicBadger's ArchVM build. Both cases failed. I don't think Ubuntu uses autofs.

 

Yes, NFS is broken in v6 b3 from all distros. I've made Tom aware.

Working on it...