reluctantflux Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 So far, I'm having some trouble just getting the darn thing to boot to the installation media. Quote Link to comment
reluctantflux Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Finally got an openelec vm running on virtual box, so I could just copy the qcow over to unraid, that is proving fruitless. I guess I'll wait for unVM's. I'd be very happy to be an early tester! Quote Link to comment
reluctantflux Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Looking to whip up an openelec vm. Any gotchas or is it pretty straightforward? Or should I wait for the unvm release? If you have any success with this please let us know! I'm pretty certain that Jon and team had to create a custom build to incorporate the needed drivers and such. John Jonp, Is this true? If so that's beyond my skills or available time to learn. Quote Link to comment
sparklyballs Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 The good news is I already have a solution for this, but need to have Eric implement it. The solution is to let folks download the unVM for OpenELEC and start it without starting the array. this starting openelec without starting the array, if this gets implemented is there any way we can leverage this ability so say for instance we can virtualise firewall VMS and have them run whether the array was active or not ? Quote Link to comment
jonp Posted February 28, 2015 Author Share Posted February 28, 2015 The good news is I already have a solution for this, but need to have Eric implement it. The solution is to let folks download the unVM for OpenELEC and start it without starting the array. this starting openelec without starting the array, if this gets implemented is there any way we can leverage this ability so say for instance we can virtualise firewall VMS and have them run whether the array was active or not ? Depending on how we implement this, it could, yes, but only if the virtual disks for these particular VMs were stored on devices outside the array. This would also require us to make libvirt start with emhttp and not stop with the array. Not impossible, but it does add some complications (e.g. what if there is a running vm that has a vdisk on the array/cache and the array is stopped?). Right now, it will stop libvirt which will in turn send stop commands to all the VMs. So yes, I am going to try hard to work with Eric and Tom make this happen. Quote Link to comment
sparklyballs Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 complications, lol, they're for smart people to figure out. Quote Link to comment
johnodon Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Jon, You touched on OE/Kodi unVM at the end of the interview. Now that the 6.0 Final release date has been made public (15JUN2015), are you able to provide a soft date for the OE unVM release? John Quote Link to comment
bertrandr Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Thanks for all the hard work! I am definitely looking forward to this so I can consolidate my stand alone OE system into my UR box. Aside from GPU pass-through, curious how USB pass-through will work for IR receivers. Keeping / managing and sharing a known working OE+UnRaid HCL is a good idea, especially useful for new builds. Have the ability to (not) auto-start UR while initially testing & configuring OE makes sense. But then have a master switch to auto start everything once OE testing & setup is confirmed. The core NAS services should always be the priority. Always willing to test. Cheers, Bertrand. Quote Link to comment
johnodon Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Aside from GPU pass-through, curious how USB pass-through will work for IR receivers. I'm doing this now with Flircs and long USB runs. Quote Link to comment
CHBMB Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Aside from GPU pass-through, curious how USB pass-through will work for IR receivers. I'm doing this now with Flircs and long USB runs. Flircs are flircing awesome bits of kit... Quote Link to comment
jonp Posted June 27, 2015 Author Share Posted June 27, 2015 UPDATE: Pull request to the openelec team has been submitted!! https://github.com/OpenELEC/OpenELEC.tv/pull/4215 And now we wait... Quote Link to comment
jonp Posted June 27, 2015 Author Share Posted June 27, 2015 Well the good news is that the OE team was fast to review. The bad news is that they are not going to accept the PR because it would implicate that they are officially supporting virtualization, which they aren't comfortable doing at this point as they don't have anyone on the project that is doing that just yet. They did acknowledge our PR was rather basic in nature and that if we can show good adoption in a fork, they would consider official support in the future. With all of this being said, we are just waiting their approval to keep the name / logo the same before we release anything official from Lime Tech. Quote Link to comment
sparklyballs Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Well the good news is that the OE team was fast to review. The bad news is that they are not going to accept the PR because it would implicate that they are officially supporting virtualization, which they aren't comfortable doing at this point as they don't have anyone on the project that is doing that just yet. They did acknowledge our PR was rather basic in nature and that if we can show good adoption in a fork, they would consider official support in the future. With all of this being said, we are just waiting their approval to keep the name / logo the same before we release anything official from Lime Tech. did i just read they think there are only 4 users of it ? that's gonna change soon, lol. Quote Link to comment
jonp Posted June 27, 2015 Author Share Posted June 27, 2015 And as fast as I posted that, they already approved us keeping the name as is! Woo hoo!/ OE on unRAID coming soon!! Quote Link to comment
jonp Posted June 27, 2015 Author Share Posted June 27, 2015 Yeah I'm not sure where the "four users" comment came from on the github discussion, but maybe they are basing it off github downloads, which isn't where we hosted our image from previously. Quote Link to comment
johnodon Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Do you think they could be talked into including the virtio drivers in an upcoming official release? They wouldn't need to provide support for virtualization...or even advertise that they are included. My guess would be "no" since they are so intent on keeping the footprint as small as possible or fear that the drivers may break other functionality. Quote Link to comment
jonp Posted June 27, 2015 Author Share Posted June 27, 2015 Meh, no point from my perspective as its not enough to do what we need. Quote Link to comment
eschultz Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Yeah I'm not sure where the "four users" comment came from on the github discussion, but maybe they are basing it off github downloads, which isn't where we hosted our image from previously. Oh, I took it as "it's a 4-person company" (must have seen our About Team page) Quote Link to comment
jonp Posted June 27, 2015 Author Share Posted June 27, 2015 Yeah I'm not sure where the "four users" comment came from on the github discussion, but maybe they are basing it off github downloads, which isn't where we hosted our image from previously. Oh, I took it as "it's a 4-person company" (must have seen our About Team page) Could be. Either way, I took no offense to the comment. We are still relatively new to these guys in the grand scheme of things, and it certainly seems like there is a bit of hesitancy to supporting VMs from past attempts. Where we will shine is in expertise on virtualization and in our sole interest in supporting this for GPU pass through. Quote Link to comment
JustinChase Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Okay, so when do we get it? Quote Link to comment
CHBMB Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Yeah I'm not sure where the "four users" comment came from on the github discussion, but maybe they are basing it off github downloads, which isn't where we hosted our image from previously. Oh, I took it as "it's a 4-person company" (must have seen our About Team page) Out of interest Eric, how many people do you have at LT? Quote Link to comment
jonp Posted June 28, 2015 Author Share Posted June 28, 2015 Yeah I'm not sure where the "four users" comment came from on the github discussion, but maybe they are basing it off github downloads, which isn't where we hosted our image from previously. Oh, I took it as "it's a 4-person company" (must have seen our About Team page) Out of interest Eric, how many people do you have at LT? It is 4. Tom, TomH, me, and Eric. Quote Link to comment
CHBMB Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Yeah I'm not sure where the "four users" comment came from on the github discussion, but maybe they are basing it off github downloads, which isn't where we hosted our image from previously. Oh, I took it as "it's a 4-person company" (must have seen our About Team page) Out of interest Eric, how many people do you have at LT? It is 4. Tom, TomH, me, and Eric. I find it amazing that a four man team can bring out a piece of software as awesome as Unraid V6, even more impressed. Quote Link to comment
METDeath Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 UPDATE: Pull request to the openelec team has been submitted!! https://github.com/OpenELEC/OpenELEC.tv/pull/4215 And now we wait... Sadly, that went about how I expected it... they just flat shut down anyone trying to run OE in a VM on their own forum. Quote Link to comment
jonp Posted June 30, 2015 Author Share Posted June 30, 2015 UPDATE: Pull request to the openelec team has been submitted!! https://github.com/OpenELEC/OpenELEC.tv/pull/4215 And now we wait... Sadly, that went about how I expected it... they just flat shut down anyone trying to run OE in a VM on their own forum. It's really no big deal. They even acknowledged the fact that our changes were pretty minimal / clean. It just comes down to supportability and they don't have anyone on their team that would have this setup yet, so they don't want to imply that it is a supported use-case by the dev team. The reality is that I don't necessarily blame them because of the history with supporting virtualization. This is the nature of open source and we will support the project as a fork because for us to maintain it really requires very minimal effort. In due time if we show enough adoption, maybe the OE team brings it under their wings directly. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.