unRAID Server release 4.5-beta6 available

[SuperW2]

As noted, you are running 16 data drives which is a beta feature.  You are also using NFS support, another beta feature, which certainly qualifies you for posting in this beta thread!  Those are 2 of the only 3 features (the other being Active Directory support) that I would consider still unstable, from user reports of issues.  It is possible therefore that you are running into a problem involving the beta support for either the increased drive count or the NFS support, but I see no actual errors related to either in the syslog.  Perhaps a longer syslog covering a period where you hammer the server with stutter producing actions, might reveal something further.  (copied from other thread)

 

I responded in your other thread (found here:  http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=4151), thank you for that, but since you are using 2 beta features, possibly suspect, you probably should continue here.

 

I like your red highlight box with shadow, what tool do you use?  One tip I use for capturing wide screens, drag your browser's right edge way in, enough to narrow the screen capture to better fit the screen size of other users, but not so narrow that it crowds the columns too much.  Then capture the screen, then drag the edge back.

 

Ok, so I moved the Included Disks to 1-15 and removed the NSF Export (which I wasn't using for this share anyhow)... rebooted the UnRaid and see nothing different (95% of the \Backup\ contents on the disk shares not showing up on "Backup" user share).

 

Can I remove the share and recreate without losing all of the data I have in the individual \backup\ folders on each of the disk shares... I have a few hundred GB of stuff in there, so it won't be easy to move it around manually

 

 

 

Bump for the question on last part about deleting and recreating the user share without moving my stuff all around

[cwr]

so.. this beta seems to be taking alot longer than the others to get to the next beta or final

 

is tom still working on the next update?

[NAS]

He is certainly working on the next one.

 

Historically when he goes MIA he comes back with a relatively large upgrade. However this MIA period is longer than any I have ever seen before and hes not even posting on the forum or replying to PMs. That must be a good sign hopefully (although I personally think Limetech should never be MIA from their own forums for quarter of a year... but it is a resources issue and the ubers can carry the load worst case)

[bubbaQ]

He is not MIA... he regularly logs into the forum and is responsive to inquiries that require his attention.

 

I would often "disappear" from outbound contact with the general public, other than emergencies or things that REQUIRED my attention, for months when working on intensive programming projects.  A few of times, several people though I had quit or been fired since I was invisible for so long.

 

 

[SSD]

Tom certainly does not need to respond to the day to day questions and problems with people like Joe L., RobJ, and others doing such a good job, but there have been several direct questions of him in the forums by senior members that he didn't respond to.  There has also been this wiki spamming issue that he has not addressed despite several requests to change the security and hours spent by forum members to fix the mess.  There has been no comment on the 20 disk drive problem.  There is not a forum category for 4.5 releases.  Tom kicked off the WebGUI forum in March and has not used it to post back and show progress.  And the "weekly polls" are still on the question asked April 26.

 

We've also had 2 stable 4.5 beta versions that have not gone final.

 

I'm hopeful that Tom is working on the next version, but fearful that he has just lost interest.

[NAS]

He is not MIA... he regularly logs into the forum and is responsive to inquiries that require his attention.

 

Last active 2 weeks ago, last post 3 months ago. Thats MIA.

 

I would often "disappear" from outbound contact with the general public, other than emergencies or things that REQUIRED my attention, for months when working on intensive programming projects.  A few of times, several people though I had quit or been fired since I was invisible for so long.

 

Thats fair enough but this is the official Limetech support forums. There have been plenty of times in the last quarter of a year where Limetechs input was required.

 

This is our age old debate and is the very definition of pointless. Tom chooses to run his support one way and thats cool, but it is unusual and it is to be expected there will be polar opinions about it since it is unusual.

 

Update: I believe Tom is doing stuff as we speak as I can see the wiki permissions change.

[Bigdady92]

Memory usage.

 

I'm noticing a considerable spike in memory usage. I have 3GB of RAM and it's using every single solitary bit of it. This is causing horrible streaming problems for video and stuttering to occur.

 

op - 22:51:14 up  4:05,  1 user,  load average: 2.37, 2.18, 2.13

Tasks:  72 total,  2 running,  70 sleeping,  0 stopped,  0 zombie

Cpu(s):  2.7%us, 22.3%sy,  0.0%ni, 53.7%id, 20.9%wa,  0.2%hi,  0.3%si,  0.0%st

Mem:  3115880k total,  3026248k used,    89632k free,    34824k buffers

Swap:        0k total,        0k used,        0k free,  2909136k cached

 

  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND

1502 root      20  0 14324 4748 3540 S    2  0.2  3:53.32 smbd

1430 root      20  0 55464 3708  548 S  22  0.1  56:04.68 shfs

1290 root      20  0 12692 3256 2524 S    0  0.1  0:00.03 smbd

1288 root      20  0  8308 1772 1196 S    0  0.1  0:00.09 nmbd

1511 root      20  0  7180 1728 1364 R    0  0.1  0:00.02 in.telnetd

1295 root      20  0 12692 1672  940 S    0  0.1  0:00.00 smbd

1296 root      20  0 53772 1520 1124 S    0  0.0  0:01.87 emhttp

1512 root      20  0  2428 1304 1052 S    0  0.0  0:00.01 bash

1240 root      20  0  3980 1212  940 S    0  0.0  0:00.01 ntpd

 

 

 

What I am doing:

bitorrent-2 downloading 1 uploading utorrent.

Streaming an AVI (not mkv)

 

 

That's it. no other file transfer or massive activity. I'm on a gigabit network and it's showing full gigE:

 

eth0: negotiated 1000baseT-FD flow-control, link ok

 

 

both my computer (WinVista x64) and this server are just going slow. I can't get full gig line speed as I'll hit 100mbps (bit not Bytes) i'm lucky to hit 60mb which there's no way it should be going that slow.

 

Any idea what is going on or is this some quirk with 4.5b6?

 

 

[SuperW2]

As noted, you are running 16 data drives which is a beta feature.  You are also using NFS support, another beta feature, which certainly qualifies you for posting in this beta thread!  Those are 2 of the only 3 features (the other being Active Directory support) that I would consider still unstable, from user reports of issues.  It is possible therefore that you are running into a problem involving the beta support for either the increased drive count or the NFS support, but I see no actual errors related to either in the syslog.  Perhaps a longer syslog covering a period where you hammer the server with stutter producing actions, might reveal something further.  (copied from other thread)

 

I responded in your other thread (found here:  http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=4151), thank you for that, but since you are using 2 beta features, possibly suspect, you probably should continue here.

 

I like your red highlight box with shadow, what tool do you use?  One tip I use for capturing wide screens, drag your browser's right edge way in, enough to narrow the screen capture to better fit the screen size of other users, but not so narrow that it crowds the columns too much.  Then capture the screen, then drag the edge back.

 

Ok, so I moved the Included Disks to 1-15 and removed the NSF Export (which I wasn't using for this share anyhow)... rebooted the UnRaid and see nothing different (95% of the \Backup\ contents on the disk shares not showing up on "Backup" user share).

 

Can I remove the share and recreate without losing all of the data I have in the individual \backup\ folders on each of the disk shares... I have a few hundred GB of stuff in there, so it won't be easy to move it around manually

 

 

 

Bump for the question on last part about deleting and recreating the user share without moving my stuff all around

 

2nd bump..still need an answer...

[WeeboTech]

Memory usage.

 

I'm noticing a considerable spike in memory usage. I have 3GB of RAM and it's using every single solitary bit of it. This is causing horrible streaming problems for video and stuttering to occur.

 

Any idea what is going on or is this some quirk with 4.5b6?

 

 

This particular issue really belongs in another thread. I'll answer if re-posted outside of this thread.

[olympia]

Tom certainly does not need to respond to the day to day questions and problems with people like Joe L., RobJ, and others doing such a good job, but there have been several direct questions of him in the forums by senior members that he didn't respond to.  There has also been this wiki spamming issue that he has not addressed despite several requests to change the security and hours spent by forum members to fix the mess.  There has been no comment on the 20 disk drive problem.  There is not a forum category for 4.5 releases.  Tom kicked off the WebGUI forum in March and has not used it to post back and show progress.  And the "weekly polls" are still on the question asked April 26.

 

We've also had 2 stable 4.5 beta versions that have not gone final.

 

I'm hopeful that Tom is working on the next version, but fearful that he has just lost interest.

 

I agree all except the 2 stable 4.5 beta release. Until the cache drive issue is not solved, 4.5 cannot go final.

 

"I'm hopeful that Tom is working on the next version, but fearful that he has just lost interest."

I am also fearful about that...

[SuperW2]

Maybe if the publisher has lost interest, my interest is dropping also...there are other players in this space... A support forum where multiple questions go unanswered and no development updates in months....sure sounds like a dead platform to me

[res0nat0r]

Tom is alive and working. I emailed him with a couple of quetions related to which server I should purchase from Lime. He responded in about an hour. He also emailed me the next day to say my server would be ready to ship this Thursday. He is probably currently focusing on other things right now not reading/responding to every forum post every user deems needs a response from the software author.

[dinaras]

I also got a reply from Tom yesterday regarding the purchase of a limetech server.

[dlmh]

Indeed, Tom responds to my emails concerning AFP/Avahi as well, so he's still there to support us. But I have to align myself in queue about the cache disk issue. Last week I migrated all my existing data (5TB) to my new unRAID server, without the parity or cache disk enabled. Now, I add both drives and parity works like a charm. However, if I write to a user share the throughput is really slow (about 10 MB/s), but it shows up on the cache disk. When I write directly to the cache disk my write speeds are as they should be (about 50-60 MB/s).

 

I'm really hoping this will be fixed soon in a future beta, or it's something I can fix with some instructions by Tom.

[bubbaQ]

Remember this:  "Beta" means "broken."  That is a truism that has been in place for decades in this business. 

 

If you want stable, don't use a beta.  If you want a feature that is not available in stable, but only in beta, then you have to accept you are using a piece of test software, that is only for testing.  Running a beta in a production environment takes a special kind of insanity.  I'm not saying I haven't done it, but it is a very last resort.  Hell, even running the LATEST new stable version in a production environment is something I don't do unless I have to.

 

Beta is a testing environment.... there is no commitment to fix ANYTHING in a beta.  Indeed, some features that show up in a beta NEVER make it to production, because the beta period proved that the feature was not doable from any number of perspectives.

 

Bugs in betas should of course be reported, but the solution to a particular bug sometimes is simply the removal of that feature from a future release.  I'm still running my production unRAID on 2.6.27.7 / 4.4.2.... no beta.... and I waited till 4.4.2 had been out for several months.

 

[NAS]

Thats all true.

 

but...

 

Beta 6 is kind of  "hanging in the air" with no Limetech responses to beta tester feedback for months. If you release a beta and ask for testers you should at least have the courtesy to talk to them.

 

[cj0r]

f I write to a user share the throughput is really slow (about 10 MB/s), but it shows up on the cache disk. When I write directly to the cache disk my write speeds are as they should be (about 50-60 MB/s).

 

I'm really hoping this will be fixed soon in a future beta, or it's something I can fix with some instructions by Tom.

 

Heh you're lucky... I stopped getting good speeds even while just writing directly to the cache (\\Tower\Cache\*... via Total Commander).

[WeeboTech]

Thats all true.

 

but...

 

Beta 6 is kind of  "hanging in the air".........<snip>

 

Tom We love you and miss you here!!! 

[olympia]

f I write to a user share the throughput is really slow (about 10 MB/s), but it shows up on the cache disk. When I write directly to the cache disk my write speeds are as they should be (about 50-60 MB/s).

 

I'm really hoping this will be fixed soon in a future beta, or it's something I can fix with some instructions by Tom.

 

Heh you're lucky... I stopped getting good speeds even while just writing directly to the cache (\\Tower\Cache\*... via Total Commander).

 

Have you read/try this?

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=3799.0

[RobJ]

Can I remove the share and recreate without losing all of the data I have in the individual \backup\ folders on each of the disk shares... I have a few hundred GB of stuff in there, so it won't be easy to move it around manually

 

Sorry, I've been busy, feeling rather overwhelmed for awhile.  I'll try to get back into helping a little, as I can.

 

The share system is 'virtual', and is 'lost' every time you turn the machine off.  It is created fresh each time you boot, if User Shares are turned on.  So there is no problem with turning it on and off, or reconfiguring it radically.  The physical data on the data drives is unaffected by these changes.  I do think it is safest to reboot after major configuration changes to the User Shares settings, so that it will build a fresh User Shares system.

[cj0r]

f I write to a user share the throughput is really slow (about 10 MB/s), but it shows up on the cache disk. When I write directly to the cache disk my write speeds are as they should be (about 50-60 MB/s).

 

I'm really hoping this will be fixed soon in a future beta, or it's something I can fix with some instructions by Tom.

 

Heh you're lucky... I stopped getting good speeds even while just writing directly to the cache (\\Tower\Cache\*... via Total Commander).

 

Have you read/try this?

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=3799.0

 

Yes I have actually and it doesn't seem to matter. I get around 12MB/s transferring to the shares or to the cache whether I use TC or not. I know I've gotten better speeds in the past (4.4.2 etc.) but I can't afford to give up the features that 4.5 has been providing.

[SuperW2]

Can I remove the share and recreate without losing all of the data I have in the individual \backup\ folders on each of the disk shares... I have a few hundred GB of stuff in there, so it won't be easy to move it around manually

 

Sorry, I've been busy, feeling rather overwhelmed for awhile.  I'll try to get back into helping a little, as I can.

 

The share system is 'virtual', and is 'lost' every time you turn the machine off.  It is created fresh each time you boot, if User Shares are turned on.  So there is no problem with turning it on and off, or reconfiguring it radically.  The physical data on the data drives is unaffected by these changes.  I do think it is safest to reboot after major configuration changes to the User Shares settings, so that it will build a fresh User Shares system.

 

How would one remove a single user share... I've removed all of the text input fields for a given share (my "broken" Backup share in this case), clicked Apply, and it all just comes back..... I know I can enable/disable all of the user shares, but that's not what I'm trying to do.

[RobJ]

How would one remove a single user share... I've removed all of the text input fields for a given share (my "broken" Backup share in this case), clicked Apply, and it all just comes back..... I know I can enable/disable all of the user shares, but that's not what I'm trying to do.

 

When unRAID creates a fresh and virtual User Share file system, it bases it on both your share settings AND all top level folders on the data drives, except those folder names beginning with a period.  So to completely remove a share, you would need to also delete the top level folder too.  If that is not something you want to do, you can either move the folder down a level, into another folder, or just ignore the Share, possibly mark it hidden.  (I don't use User Shares myself, so this may not be completely accurate.)

[ridley]

Two problems with cache drive.

 

I installed a cache drive yesterday and added it to the system then added it to my user share. When I started transferring data to the user share I could see the free space on the cache drive going down and I could browse to the drive and see the new data there. However without the cache drive I had been getting 18Mb/s writing to the user share now with the cache drive Iam getting <10Mbs. Something does not seem right here.

 

But now I cannot seem to get the mover to work, I noticed this morning that the cache drive was still full, checked the syslog and could see nothing about the mover starting (mover log is on), so I tried manually started the mover and still nothing.

 

Any idea what is going on?

 

Ridley

 

I have attached my syslog.

[RobJ]

Two problems with cache drive.

 

I installed a cache drive yesterday and added it to the system then added it to my user share. When I started transferring data to the user share I could see the free space on the cache drive going down and I could browse to the drive and see the new data there. However without the cache drive I had been getting 18Mb/s writing to the user share now with the cache drive Iam getting <10Mbs. Something does not seem right here.

 

But now I cannot seem to get the mover to work, I noticed this morning that the cache drive was still full, checked the syslog and could see nothing about the mover starting (mover log is on), so I tried manually started the mover and still nothing.

 

Ridley

 

Not sure I can help, but I'll make a couple of comments.  I believe there have been a few posts about a possible performance problem with the use of the cache drive in this beta, nothing I can help with.

 

Your syslog looks OK, but is very short, covers about 2 minutes only.  You completed booting at about 11:40:09, with NFS support, then appeared to Stop the array about 2 minutes later, complete at 11:42:08.  At 11:42:12, there is a call to the mover, but of course that was ignored as the array was down, and that is the end of the syslog, so nothing else was logged.

 

Your Cache drive is an older IDE drive, a SAMSUNG SP2514N, connected to a JMicron port, but it can't be too old as it does support UDMA/133 mode.  It also has a Gigabyte HPA installed on it, so be careful about choosing to remove it.  None of your SATA drives on the onboard ports have a Gigabyte HPA, so the first drive that could get it is sda, your Disk 1.