I am using the first release of 4.4  I have the unMenu 1.1 package installed.  I have the powerdown package installed.

 

I go to the stock unRAID menu, stop the array and click the powerdown button.  The system reboots - tried this 3 times.

 

I tried to shut it down via telnet by starting a session and typing "powerdown".  Appears to do so, then reboots!

 

I have attached a syslog if anyone can help or offer suggestions.

 

Many thanks,

Bill

I've seen this behavior caused by 1) overclocking and 2) ACPI/power management bugs.

 

Reset your BIOS to stock/safe.  Try disabling ACPI and powermanagment in your BIOS.

Thanks BubbaQ,

 

I'll hook up a console and check it.  Strange though, this is a new Limetech build that has been working as-is since I got it two weeks ago.  I did not alter the BIOS settings at all.  It has been powered on/off numerous times before.

 

Thanks,

Bill

No obvious clues in your syslog.  ACPI reports a checksum error (off by one) in the ACPI tables, but that is probably not significant.  I can't say I'm expert enough to spot a power down related clue though.

 

To clarify, the Powerdown button had been working fine?  but stopped after installing unRAID v4.4, UnMENU 1.1, and the powerdown package?

No obvious clues in your syslog.  ACPI reports a checksum error (off by one) in the ACPI tables, but that is probably not significant.  I can't say I'm expert enough to spot a power down related clue though.

 

To clarify, the Powerdown button had been working fine?  but stopped after installing unRAID v4.4, UnMENU 1.1, and the powerdown package?

 

Thanks for looking at my syslog Rob.  unRAID and unMenu 1.1 and 4.4 had been working fine for awhile.  The powerdown package is the most recently installed.

 

To update - I tried turning off ACPI in BIOS and the server would not shut down at all.  Turned ACPI back on, and set the powerdown package to *not* autoinstall.  The next shutdown via web interface power down button was as expected.

 

I will test this further tomorrow.  For the next several hours, I am upgrading one of the disks.  I plan to upgrade to 4.4.2 at some point as well.

 

Thanks again.

Not at some point. Soon.

4.4 is very buggy.

 

I've also seen this behavior in a bad power supply. I had one just like this after it was hit with a power outage. If your power supply comes on without it being hooked up to the motherboard the remote power off circuit is toast.

4.4 is very buggy.

 

No it's not.

Have to concur. Apart from the the few bugs thats been about for a while and we all know about (one of which Tom has just said hes fixing) I find 4.4.2 perfectly stable with zero issues. In fact its been up and used solidly since the day of release.

4.4 is very buggy.

 

No it's not.

 

NLS, I think this puts you solidly on the naughy list. 

 

The only somwhat serious issue with 4.4.2 that I'm aware of is the slow write performance without queue depth reduction to 1.  There is also some generally weirdness with the read and write counts.  Other than these pretty minor things, it is very stable and working quite well IMO.

Doesn't matter, I've always been naughty.

 

I have at least two people that have bought unRAID after my suggestion, plus have a very positive review in my (Greek) blog.

 

Tom needs to find time to make unRAID step to 21 century (it wouldn't hurt cooperate with at least two people in here that have really pushed the feature set further), instead of just "correcting" me (so... if 4.4 is not buggy, I guess 4.4.1, 4.4.2 and the betas in between are all... feature additions eh?).

 

Now naughty list or not, I am still a client. (how sweet, this is the magic thing that happens from stepping from free/share/donate to commercial)

 

 

Doesn't matter, I've always been naughty.

 

I have at least two people that have bought unRAID after my suggestion, plus have a very positive review in my (Greek) blog.

 

Tom needs to find time to make unRAID step to 21 century (it wouldn't hurt cooperate with at least two people in here that have really pushed the feature set further), instead of just "correcting" me (so... if 4.4 is not buggy, I guess 4.4.1, 4.4.2 and the betas in between are all... feature additions eh?).

 

Now naughty list or not, I am still a client. (how sweet, this is the magic thing that happens from stepping from free/share/donate to commercial)

 

Hmmm ... you were saying 4.4 is buggy, not 4.4.2.  Perhaps saying "4.4 was buggy" would have made it clear that you were talking about the very specific 4.4 release, and not the entire "4.4 version" which may have been the way Tom interpreted your comment.  Its certainly the way I read it the first time.

 

The real problem with 4.4 had to do with user shares and the new Samba.  The issue was big but localized.  I ran 4.4 successfully for quite a while since I don't use user shares.  Tom issued 4.4.1 and then 4.4.2 in a very responsive way to address the problems that were found.

 

The comments in THIS email are a little different - talking about widening the feature set and cooperating with forum initiatives vs. "bugs".  Whether Tom should include a larger unRAID Linux solution, as bubbaQ has developed, has been debated.  It opens him up to a much wider range of support issues.  His silence on the issue and the fact that he has taken no steps in subsequent releases to make it more difficult, mean (IMO) silent acceptance if not endorsement for the effort.  unmenu is not as big an impact, and I think Tom should make his Web interface stronger.  That was Joe's point I think.  But the project has engendered cooperation and contribution for a pretty wide audience here.  Maybe Tom is showing his support by NOT trying to replace it.  In fact he is talking about a set of unRAID services that would be callable through a standard mechanism to enable it to be expanded.  This sounds at least a little like cooperation. 

 

I urge you to make your feature requests known.  Although slow to respond to certain ones, I think Tom examines our requests and they help him steer the course for his product.

Doesn't matter, I've always been naughty.

 

I have at least two people that have bought unRAID after my suggestion, plus have a very positive review in my (Greek) blog.

 

Tom needs to find time to make unRAID step to 21 century (it wouldn't hurt cooperate with at least two people in here that have really pushed the feature set further), instead of just "correcting" me (so... if 4.4 is not buggy, I guess 4.4.1, 4.4.2 and the betas in between are all... feature additions eh?).

 

Now naughty list or not, I am still a client. (how sweet, this is the magic thing that happens from stepping from free/share/donate to commercial)

 

Hmmm ... you were saying 4.4 is buggy, not 4.4.2.  Perhaps saying "4.4 was buggy" would have made it clear that you were talking about the very specific 4.4 release, and not the entire "4.4 version" which may have been the way Tom interpreted your comment.  Its certainly the way I read it the first time.

 

The real problem with 4.4 had to do with user shares and the new Samba.  The issue was big but localized.  I ran 4.4 successfully for quite a while since I don't use user shares.  Tom issued 4.4.1 and then 4.4.2 in a very responsive way to address the problems that were found.

 

The comments in THIS email are a little different - talking about widening the feature set and cooperating with forum initiatives vs. "bugs".  Whether Tom should include a larger unRAID Linux solution, as bubbaQ has developed, has been debated.  It opens him up to a much wider range of support issues.  His silence on the issue and the fact that he has taken no steps in subsequent releases to make it more difficult, mean (IMO) silent acceptance if not endorsement for the effort.  unmenu is not as big an impact, and I think Tom should make his Web interface stronger.  That was Joe's point I think.  But the project has engendered cooperation and contribution for a pretty wide audience here.  Maybe Tom is showing his support by NOT trying to replace it.  In fact he is talking about a set of unRAID services that would be callable through a standard mechanism to enable it to be expanded.  This sounds at least a little like cooperation. 

 

I urge you to make your feature requests known.  Although slow to respond to certain ones, I think Tom examines our requests and they help him steer the course for his product.

I have also been running 4.4.2 since its release, it runs just fine, and I do use User-shares for media playback.  (and I ran 4.4, and 4.4.1 too when they were released)  Tom quickly addressed the issues as they were identified.  There is no way for him to test all the possible configurations of hardware we use.

 

unMENU was created as a tool to identify ways in which the unRAID user interface might be improved.  There was a thread with lots of suggestions, and I created a rapid development environment web-server and plug-in system using "awk," a utility that ships with the stock distribution of unRAID.  My intent was exactly as you describe... to explore how Tom might make the lime-tech supplied management page better.

 

Over time, unMENU has become a very useful addition to our unRAID servers.  It makes it much easier to keep an eye on what is happening and to manage the server without having to use the linux command line.    It is good that Tom is thinking on how he might provide the additional "hooks" needed to start and stop other processes we are running on our servers.  It will only make his product better than his competition, and more likely to be suggested as a solution than the competition.

 

Over time, Tom will probably build some of the features we created in unMENU into unRAID.  (At least I hope so)    He has a lot on his "Laundry-list" to impliment before he catches up.  (e-mail notifications of server status, better SMART status display, better NFS support, NTFS-3g instead of "ntfs", performance, etc)

 

Joe L.

I think we all agree here.