Tom mentioned 5.06 would have the new WebGUI and plugin manager.  Is this still on the cards ?

 

It's starting to feel that 5.05 will be the last of the 5x releases with all iof Tom's efforts going towards getting a live Xenified 6.* release out. 

 

Is 5.05 the new 4.7 ?

 

Edit: fixed last 4.x version

Is 5.05 the new 4.5.7 ?

 

  The final v4 release was v4.7

 

There was a mention at one time of v4.7.1, but it never materialized ... probably because by that time v5 was well into the Beta releases.

 

It's starting to feel that 5.05 will be the last of the 5x releases with all iof Tom's efforts going towards getting a live Xenified 6.* release out. 

 

Good I say.

It's starting to feel that 5.05 will be the last of the 5x releases with all iof Tom's efforts going towards getting a live Xenified 6.* release out. 

 

Good I say.

 

Not really.  When it's been promised, or at least broadcasted, that certain features are bound for 5.x, then they need to come. If after the promised features are in Tom tells people the next 5.x is on best efforts with no guarantee, then everyone knows what to expect.

Is 5.05 the new 4.5.7 ?

 

  The final v4 release was v4.7

 

There was a mention at one time of v4.7.1, but it never materialized ... probably because by that time v5 was well into the Beta releases.

 

I am pleased to see that you really went out of your bounds to not answer the actual relevant question.

 

 

Ahmmm.... Garycase doesn't work for limetech so not sure how he would be able to answer the question. As far as I can see he was just offering a correction which dalben made to he original post.  It would be up to tom (i.e. limetech) to answer anyone else is just offering their opinion.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

 

Is 5.05 the new 4.5.7 ?

 

  The final v4 release was v4.7

 

There was a mention at one time of v4.7.1, but it never materialized ... probably because by that time v5 was well into the Beta releases.

 

There was a serious defect discovered during the 5.0 beta testing that was supposed to be made in release 4.7.1. Not sure why it never happened. But anyone still running 4.7 should upgrade to 5.0. This probably is a pretty small population because 4.7 didn't support drives larger than 2.2T.

 

Just my opinion, but I do expect more 5.0 releases, including the promised 5.0.6. But it is true that 6.0 is Tom's priority at the moment.

Is 5.05 the new 4.5.7 ?

 

  The final v4 release was v4.7

 

There was a mention at one time of v4.7.1, but it never materialized ... probably because by that time v5 was well into the Beta releases.

 

I am pleased to see that you really went out of your bounds to not answer the actual relevant question.

I can see what he was doing.  He was answering what he thought was a final question NOT a sarcastic remark.

Personally I would like to see 5.x run a little further simply because I am locked in currently to some 32 bit add-ons (and they are not current plug-ins that may garner 64 bit support).  While I could learn how to run them in their own environments under 6.x, I am disinclined to do so simply because what I have works well and is very stable.  Yes, I could eventually learn how to manage these within a Xen based system (or whatever the correct terminology would be), but the time that I have to do this is very limited at present.

Personally I would like to see 5.x run a little further simply because I am locked in currently to some 32 bit add-ons (and they are not current plug-ins that may garner 64 bit support).  While I could learn how to run them in their own environments under 6.x, I am disinclined to do so simply because what I have works well and is very stable.  Yes, I could eventually learn how to manage these within a Xen based system (or whatever the correct terminology would be), but the time that I have to do this is very limited at present.

 

I agree! I have not burning desire to have a bunch of VMs. My CPU is prior generation, and memory upgrades for it are crazy expensive. My machine is great for unRAID and a few addons. Plus, 5.0 was in beta forever - 3-4 years! Doesn't seem fair it would only be in release for a few months!!

 

But I suppose I will move along to the new version as it matures, butya new motherboard and CPU, and learn to love it. Darnit!

The only reason that I am glad we are currently focusing on V6 is to flatten the versions being used out there. Less versions means more focus and V6, even if you choose to run it without Xen, is the future.

 

We NEED V5 to be maitianined until at least V6.1 for continutiy reasons but the sooner we can focus on having one stable and not potentially 3 some time this year the better

There was a serious defect discovered during the 5.0 beta testing that was supposed to be made in release 4.7.1. Not sure why it never happened. But anyone still running 4.7 should upgrade to 5.0. This probably is a pretty small population because 4.7 didn't support drives larger than 2.2T.

 

Just my opinion, but I do expect more 5.0 releases, including the promised 5.0.6. But it is true that 6.0 is Tom's priority at the moment.

 

Uhh, I'm still on 4.7 because I have customized a lot of things in it, am only using 2TB drives (I really don't trust the 3 and 4's yet) and it has been working flawlessly for me for years. What exactly is this "serious defect" that it has? This is the first I've heard about it.

Uhh, I'm still on 4.7 because I have customized a lot of things in it, am only using 2TB drives (I really don't trust the 3 and 4's yet) and it has been working flawlessly for me for years. What exactly is this "serious defect" that it has? This is the first I've heard about it.

 

Just how serious the known defects in v4.7 are is a matter of perspective, and the likelihood of encountering them depends on lot of your usage pattern.    There are 3 known bugs that could corrupt data in 4.7:

 

(1)  A write to a disk could potentially be lost during a re-construction or an initial parity sync.  Simple work-around:  do NOT write to an array during a drive re-construction or initial parity sync.

 

(2)  The MBR on existing disks can be overwritten and result in it pointing to the WRONG sector in certain circumstances when the super.dat file on the flash drive is rebuilt.... as when a flash drive dies and is replaced.    To avoid this, keep a backup of your config folder, just in case your flash drive fails => then you can simply copy the backup to another flash drive, get a new key tied to that GUID, and all will be well 

 

(3)  A bug where a temporary file created on a disk, when renamed to the original name in a user-share other than the original physical disk does not unlink the original file, resulting in a duplicate file error AND the original contents NOT being re-written, leading to potential data loss.  This is only an issue if you're copying a newer version of an existing file and the allocation method results in the replacement being on a different disk than the original.    The way to avoid it is to DELETE the original file; then copy the new one.

 

We really need to catch this information in the wiki/manual so it it clear to users why they should update. Not sure where it should go for best impact.