unRAID Server Release 6.0-beta9-x86_64 Available

[jonp]

Hi I was wondering if btrfs has growing overhead? I migrated all my data to the cashe drive that only showed 1gb overhead prior, I then migrated all data off. Then it showed 5gb when empty is this normal?

 

Thank you in advance.

 

Can you walk us through how you're getting your #'s?

[Thornwood]

No problem with beta 8 since my array was rtfs I set all drives  to xfs, but did not hit format. I copied my other servers important info to cashe only drive. 1.23 tb small files and large combined about 513000 of them. Once all were on the cashe I hit format wiping the array of the same data. Then I changed the share to use cashe and named a root folder the correct name so the mover would run. Waited till complete. When the cashe drive was empty and mover stopped I see main page cache drive says 5gb used?? So I run mover but nothing to move so I format drive xfs and now 32mb... I think I can reproduce if you want.

 

Hope this helps.

[kstile]

another cache drive unformatted. moving from 6b7 to 6b9

 

full syslog: http://pastebin.com/gznY615W

thought this was interesting...

 

Sep 13 22:11:52 tower emhttp: shcmd (34): mkdir -p /mnt/cache
Sep 13 22:11:52 tower emhttp: cacheUUID: 
Sep 13 22:11:52 tower emhttp: cacheNumDevices: 1
Sep 13 22:11:52 tower emhttp: cacheTotDevices: 0
Sep 13 22:11:52 tower emhttp: cacheNumMissing: 0
Sep 13 22:11:52 tower emhttp: cacheNumMisplaced: 0
Sep 13 22:11:52 tower emhttp: cacheNumExtra: 1
Sep 13 22:11:52 tower emhttp: mount_pool: no btrfs UUID
Sep 13 22:11:52 tower emhttp: mount error: -1
Sep 13 22:11:52 tower emhttp: shcmd (35): rmdir /mnt/cache

[limetech]

another cache drive unformatted. moving from 6b7 to 6b9

 

If you are still in this config, please type this command and post it's output:

 

btrfs fi show /dev/sdf1

[neilt0]

I removed my ReiserFS cache drive from Server 1 (unassigned).

 

Then I formatted a cache drive in Server 2 as BTRFS.

 

I took the BTRFS cache drive and put it in Server 1.

 

Assigned it as the cache drive and it showed up as unformatted.

 

Stopped the array, changed the cache drive to BTRFS, started the array, and it showed up correctly.

 

I don't know if this is related to the issues mentioned above, but shouldn't unRAID be able to recognise the drive, no matter the FS?

[itimpi]

I removed my ReiserFS cache drive from Server 1 (unassigned).

 

Then I formatted a cache drive in Server 2 as BTRFS.

 

I took the BTRFS cache drive and put it in Server 1.

 

Assigned it as the cache drive and it showed up as unformatted.

 

Stopped the array, changed the cache drive to BTRFS, started the array, and it showed up correctly.

 

I don't know if this is related to the issues mentioned above, but shouldn't unRAID be able to recognise the drive, no matter the FS?

What you describe sounds like correct behaviour?   

 

If you have told unRAID that a drive is a particular format, and when it looks on array start and it is not then it should be treated as unformatted.  If not, then it would be impossible to change a drive from one format to another one via the GUI.  Having said that some sort of 'auto' format option where a drive was recognised by its existing format would be nice (albeit possibly confusing so perhaps would not be the default).  However you would still need explicit formats to be specified for new drives.

[limetech]

I removed my ReiserFS cache drive from Server 1 (unassigned).

 

Then I formatted a cache drive in Server 2 as BTRFS.

 

I took the BTRFS cache drive and put it in Server 1.

 

Assigned it as the cache drive and it showed up as unformatted.

 

Stopped the array, changed the cache drive to BTRFS, started the array, and it showed up correctly.

 

I don't know if this is related to the issues mentioned above, but shouldn't unRAID be able to recognise the drive, no matter the FS?

 

Pretty sure it's this bug:

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=35048.0

[PeterB]

I removed my ReiserFS cache drive from Server 1 (unassigned).

 

Then I formatted a cache drive in Server 2 as BTRFS.

 

I took the BTRFS cache drive and put it in Server 1.

 

Assigned it as the cache drive and it showed up as unformatted.

 

Stopped the array, changed the cache drive to BTRFS, started the array, and it showed up correctly.

 

I don't know if this is related to the issues mentioned above, but shouldn't unRAID be able to recognise the drive, no matter the FS?

 

Pretty sure it's this bug:

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=35048.0

 

... but if that is considered to be a bug how, as itimpi queries, can you change the FS on an existing formatted drive?

 

You stop the array, use the web gui to change a drive's FS from RFS to XFS, restart the array, the drive is immediately recognised as being RFS, so the system changes its configuration back to RFS???

[limetech]

I removed my ReiserFS cache drive from Server 1 (unassigned).

 

Then I formatted a cache drive in Server 2 as BTRFS.

 

I took the BTRFS cache drive and put it in Server 1.

 

Assigned it as the cache drive and it showed up as unformatted.

 

Stopped the array, changed the cache drive to BTRFS, started the array, and it showed up correctly.

 

I don't know if this is related to the issues mentioned above, but shouldn't unRAID be able to recognise the drive, no matter the FS?

 

Pretty sure it's this bug:

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=35048.0

 

... but if that is considered to be a bug how, as itimpi queries, can you change the FS on an existing formatted drive?

 

You stop the array, use the web gui to change a drive's FS from RFS to XFS, restart the array, the drive is immediately recognised as being RFS, so the system changes its configuration back to RFS???

 

No, when a new drive is assigned to a slot the fstype is set to 'auto'.  Upon subsequent start, the actual fstype will be discovered and fstype will be set to that.  Before you click start, you can click on the device and explicitly set it to the format you want.  Or you can stop array, set the type you want, and the start.  The bug is that once it's been set off auto, it does not get set back to auto even if you unassign the device and assign a new one.

[itimpi]

I removed my ReiserFS cache drive from Server 1 (unassigned).

 

Then I formatted a cache drive in Server 2 as BTRFS.

 

I took the BTRFS cache drive and put it in Server 1.

 

Assigned it as the cache drive and it showed up as unformatted.

 

Stopped the array, changed the cache drive to BTRFS, started the array, and it showed up correctly.

 

I don't know if this is related to the issues mentioned above, but shouldn't unRAID be able to recognise the drive, no matter the FS?

 

Pretty sure it's this bug:

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=35048.0

 

... but if that is considered to be a bug how, as itimpi queries, can you change the FS on an existing formatted drive?

 

You stop the array, use the web gui to change a drive's FS from RFS to XFS, restart the array, the drive is immediately recognised as being RFS, so the system changes its configuration back to RFS???

 

No, when a new drive is assigned to a slot the fstype is set to 'auto'.  Upon subsequent start, the actual fstype will be discovered and fstype will be set to that.  Before you click start, you can click on the device and explicitly set it to the format you want.  Or you can stop array, set the type you want, and the start.  The bug is that once it's been set off auto, it does not get set back to auto even if you unassign the device and assign a new one.

OK - that makes sense and also answers how you change formats (I never saw the auto option as I was using disks that were already assigned).

[kstile]

another cache drive unformatted. moving from 6b7 to 6b9

 

If you are still in this config, please type this command and post it's output:

 

btrfs fi show /dev/sdf1

 

 

 

Linux 3.16.2-unRAID.
root@tower:~# btrfs fi show /dev/sdf1

ERROR: No btrfs on /dev/sdf1

[dlandon]

What are the things that LT wants to get done before V6 is taken to RC?

[JonathanM]

What are the things that LT wants to get done before V6 is taken to RC?

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?board=64.0

[dlandon]

What are the things that LT wants to get done before V6 is taken to RC?

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?board=64.0

 

I see this as new features and a wish list for new features.  Will all of these features/requests make it to RC?

[JustinChase]

What are the things that LT wants to get done before V6 is taken to RC?

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?board=64.0

 

I see this as new features and a wish list for new features.  Will all of these features/requests make it to RC?

 

LimeTech will have to say for certain, but that board was created by them, and populated by them with the things they intended (at that time) to have in Version 6.0.  There are other boards for 6.1 and 6.2.

 

If those intentions have changed internally, we don't know, but publicly, yes, all that is supposed to make it into version 6.0

[dlandon]

What are the things that LT wants to get done before V6 is taken to RC?

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?board=64.0

 

I see this as new features and a wish list for new features.  Will all of these features/requests make it to RC?

 

LimeTech will have to say for certain, but that board was created by them, and populated by them with the things they intended (at that time) to have in Version 6.0.  There are other boards for 6.1 and 6.2.

 

If those intentions have changed internally, we don't know, but publicly, yes, all that is supposed to make it into version 6.0

 

Can LT mark the ones that are completed?

[limetech]

Linux 3.16.2-unRAID.
root@tower:~# btrfs fi show /dev/sdf1

ERROR: No btrfs on /dev/sdf1

 

There's your answer then, right?

[dlandon]

Docker is not being shutdown in the rc.local_shutdown script and if a power down is initiated and the array is not stopped, an unclean shutdown occurs.  This is what happens when the power button is pressed momentarily to shutdown unRAID.

 

Xen is being shutdown in the rc.local_shutdown, but not docker.

 

[jonp]

What are the things that LT wants to get done before V6 is taken to RC?

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?board=64.0

 

I see this as new features and a wish list for new features.  Will all of these features/requests make it to RC?

 

LimeTech will have to say for certain, but that board was created by them, and populated by them with the things they intended (at that time) to have in Version 6.0.  There are other boards for 6.1 and 6.2.

 

If those intentions have changed internally, we don't know, but publicly, yes, all that is supposed to make it into version 6.0

 

Can LT mark the ones that are completed?

Go look at the icons next to each post in the roadmap forums.  A green light bulb indicates its been implemented in an available version  already.

[dlandon]

What are the things that LT wants to get done before V6 is taken to RC?

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?board=64.0

 

I see this as new features and a wish list for new features.  Will all of these features/requests make it to RC?

 

LimeTech will have to say for certain, but that board was created by them, and populated by them with the things they intended (at that time) to have in Version 6.0.  There are other boards for 6.1 and 6.2.

 

If those intentions have changed internally, we don't know, but publicly, yes, all that is supposed to make it into version 6.0

 

Can LT mark the ones that are completed?

Go look at the icons next to each post in the roadmap forums.  A green light bulb indicates its been implemented in an available version  already.

 

Ok.  I see it now.

[jumperalex]

- unraid: permit "md_write_method" to be set via mdcmd

 

DOH, how'd we miss this.  Thanks for bringing it back!

[jowe]

I have a problem to find a driver for my fan control chipset, W83793.ko that works with V6 of unraid. I would like to be able to control my fans by the temperature of the disks.

 

My mobo is Supermicro X7SBE

 

If i try to insmod the driver (that i can find) nothing happends, and in the log i get a message that its the wrong version.

 

regards

/jowe

[BRiT]

I have a problem to find a driver for my fan control chipset, W83793.ko that works with V6 of unraid. I would like to be able to control my fans by the temperature of the disks.

 

My mobo is Supermicro X7SBE

 

If i try to insmod the driver (that i can find) nothing happends, and in the log i get a message that its the wrong version.

 

regards

/jowe

 

You need to request that LimeTech build that into the release. Do so in the Features forum.

[PeterB]

I have a problem to find a driver for my fan control chipset, W83793.ko that works with V6 of unraid. I would like to be able to control my fans by the temperature of the disks.

 

My mobo is Supermicro X7SBE

 

If i try to insmod the driver (that i can find) nothing happends, and in the log i get a message that its the wrong version.

 

regards

/jowe

 

You need to request that LimeTech build that into the release. Do so in the Features forum.

 

I load the W83627ehf module at run time and fan control works perfectly.  Perhaps the W83793 driver simply needs to be added to the build and included at sys/module in the disk image.

[jonp]

I have a problem to find a driver for my fan control chipset, W83793.ko that works with V6 of unraid. I would like to be able to control my fans by the temperature of the disks.

 

My mobo is Supermicro X7SBE

 

If i try to insmod the driver (that i can find) nothing happends, and in the log i get a message that its the wrong version.

 

regards

/jowe

 

You need to request that LimeTech build that into the release. Do so in the Features forum.

 

I load the W83627ehf module at run time and fan control works perfectly.  Perhaps the W83793 driver simply needs to be added to the build and included at sys/module in the disk image.

Please post this as a request in the roadmap.  Thanks!