unRAID Server Release 6.0-beta13-x86_64 Available


limetech

240 posts in this topic Last Reply

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 239
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I admit being a bit scared. I finally have one docker setup, with the help of Sparklyballs. Thanks for that. It runs in unraid 6 beta10 BTW.

 

Will this docker still work in beta 13? And will my Pro license still work.

No reason to suspect that the docker will not work with B13.  In fact it is likely to work better due to the bugs being fixed in this area.  Having said that it would not do any harm to back up your docker image file first.  You also get to take advantage of the built-in Dynamix GUI introduced at b12 and the enhanced functionality around this.

 

You Pro license will definitely continue to work without problems.

 

Thanks for that.

 

Does the docker image hold all dockers, configurations and other docker related stuff?

 

Do I only need to copy the docker folder to another server if I want to use it there?

 

Is BTRFS or XFS preferred for the disk holding dockers?

Link to post

A slight problem with apcupsd is that NISIP is set to loaclhost in the distributed apcupsd.conf file, preventing other machines from chaining off the same UPS via the NIS server running on unRAID.  Edits to this file will not survive a reboot, so need a little SED script to change this setting.

 

New release of apcupsd plugin fixes this.

Link to post

Is BTRFS or XFS preferred for the disk holding dockers?

 

Personally I prefer XFS, it is more mature than BTRFS, if however you have created a cache pool then there is no other choice but BTRFS.

 

And for the record: upgrade to B13 went without any issues on my system.

 

Link to post

A slight problem with apcupsd is that NISIP is set to loaclhost in the distributed apcupsd.conf file, preventing other machines from chaining off the same UPS via the NIS server running on unRAID.  Edits to this file will not survive a reboot, so need a little SED script to change this setting.

 

New release of apcupsd plugin fixes this.

 

Confirmed.  My desktop machine has contact with the UPS once again.

Link to post

After upgrading to -beta13 if your cache disk now appears 'unformatted', please do not run file system check or scrub, or reformat.  Instead please capture the system log without rebooting and post here.  Probably what's happening is this: those who experience this issue have probably manually partitioned their cache disk, or perhaps partitioned and built file system on some other linux distro.  I need to know if this is the case before implementing a fix.  thx

 

This should be in the OP.

 

In general every single thing we work out should be put in the OP. user should not be expected to read hundreds of posts :)

Link to post

After upgrading to -beta13 if your cache disk now appears 'unformatted', please do not run file system check or scrub, or reformat.  Instead please capture the system log without rebooting and post here.  Probably what's happening is this: those who experience this issue have probably manually partitioned their cache disk, or perhaps partitioned and built file system on some other linux distro.  I need to know if this is the case before implementing a fix.  thx

 

This should be in the OP.

 

In general every single thing we work out should be put in the OP. user should not be expected to read hundreds of posts :)

Not until its confirmed.

Link to post

On the 'Settings', 'Notifications' page, what is the purpose of the 'Advanced settings:' checkbox?  When I click on the 'off/on' checkbox, it opens up a additional section where there are checkboxs for various SMART Id parameters that indicate the state of the health of each disk drive.  I checked all of them the first time I opened it (at least, I think I did!).  When I finish and I click on the 'Apply' and I am right back to the unchecked box.  I guess my question is: 

 

Is the checkbox just to open the advance settings options (in which case, should it not be a button?)

 

    OR

 

Is it to indicate that the Advance notifications are on (in which case, it is not doing that)?

Link to post

On the 'Settings', 'Notifications' page, what is the purpose of the 'Advanced settings:' checkbox?  When I click on the 'off/on' checkbox, it opens up a additional section where there are checkboxs for various SMART Id parameters that indicate the state of the health of each disk drive.  I checked all of them the first time I opened it (at least, I think I did!).  When I finish and I click on the 'Apply' and I am right back to the unchecked box.  I guess my question is: 

 

Is the checkbox just to open the advance settings options (in which case, should it not be a button?)

 

    OR

 

Is it to indicate that the Advance notifications are on (in which case, it is not doing that)?

 

The purpose is to show or hide the advanced settings, in that respect it is more a button, or even better; a slider ala docker ...

 

Link to post

Hey thanks for the update! Updated with no problems.

 

I want to report that I am still having the "issue" (likely expected behavior) of unRAID creating a docker image and starting docker on reboot using last stored information. This is great if you want to use docker, but since I stopped docker, deleted my docker image (via putty) and tried to "save" with no information in the location and size lines having a docker image auto remade is annoying.

 

Keep up the good work.

Link to post

I don't think it's emperors new clothes but since i've updated stop/start of dockers is snappier. Pre-update on initial boot my sysload was up around 12-13 while everything autostarted , 9 out of 11 of my dockers autostart and one ubuntu 14.04 lts VM autostarts.

 

I also have dynamix cache folder, dynamix system temps and stats, plus nerd tools plugins and my initial sysload after booting hasn't gone above 5 , that's in 3 test reboots thus far.

Link to post

After upgrading to -beta13 if your cache disk now appears 'unformatted', please do not run file system check or scrub, or reformat.  Instead please capture the system log without rebooting and post here.  Probably what's happening is this: those who experience this issue have probably manually partitioned their cache disk, or perhaps partitioned and built file system on some other linux distro.  I need to know if this is the case before implementing a fix.  thx

 

This should be in the OP.

 

In general every single thing we work out should be put in the OP. user should not be expected to read hundreds of posts :)

Not until its confirmed.

 

Wait what?!?! That is absurd! You are asking people to provide you with trouble shooting info to a potential problem AND telling them to not do something that may specifically cause data loss. That should 100% be in the OP.

 

We're not talking about untested work arounds; I agree those must be confirmed first. Instead, as is, they are more likely (wrongly I admit) try to fix the problem themselves creating irreparable loss.

Link to post

After upgrading to -beta13 if your cache disk now appears 'unformatted', please do not run file system check or scrub, or reformat.  Instead please capture the system log without rebooting and post here.  Probably what's happening is this: those who experience this issue have probably manually partitioned their cache disk, or perhaps partitioned and built file system on some other linux distro.  I need to know if this is the case before implementing a fix.  thx

 

This should be in the OP.

 

In general every single thing we work out should be put in the OP. user should not be expected to read hundreds of posts :)

Not until its confirmed.

 

Wait what?!?! That is absurd! You are asking people to provide you with trouble shooting info to a potential problem AND telling them to not do something that may specifically cause data loss. That should 100% be in the OP.

 

We're not talking about untested work arounds; I agree those must be confirmed first. Instead, as is, they are more likely (wrongly I admit) try to fix the problem themselves creating irreparable loss.

Toms post was just a theory. Until we confirm with folks through syslog review that this is the issue we are not going to update the OP.

 

It's not absurb, its common sense.

Link to post

On the 'Settings', 'Notifications' page, what is the purpose of the 'Advanced settings:' checkbox?  When I click on the 'off/on' checkbox, it opens up a additional section where there are checkboxs for various SMART Id parameters that indicate the state of the health of each disk drive.  I checked all of them the first time I opened it (at least, I think I did!).  When I finish and I click on the 'Apply' and I am right back to the unchecked box.  I guess my question is: 

 

Is the checkbox just to open the advance settings options (in which case, should it not be a button?)

 

    OR

 

Is it to indicate that the Advance notifications are on (in which case, it is not doing that)?

 

The purpose is to show or hide the advanced settings, in that respect it is more a button, or even better; a slider ala docker ...

 

Might I suggest changing it to a button and label it 'View'.  That would make what happens on the screen be consistent with what many users expect to happen with a button as opposed to what is expected with a checkbox.  (With the present setup, my first impression is that the 'Advance Notifications' are 'off' until I check the box.  It was only after  your explanation that I was sure as to what was going on.)

Link to post

After upgrading to -beta13 if your cache disk now appears 'unformatted', please do not run file system check or scrub, or reformat.  Instead please capture the system log without rebooting and post here.  Probably what's happening is this: those who experience this issue have probably manually partitioned their cache disk, or perhaps partitioned and built file system on some other linux distro.  I need to know if this is the case before implementing a fix.  thx

 

This should be in the OP.

 

In general every single thing we work out should be put in the OP. user should not be expected to read hundreds of posts :)

Not until its confirmed.

 

Wait what?!?! That is absurd! You are asking people to provide you with trouble shooting info to a potential problem AND telling them to not do something that may specifically cause data loss. That should 100% be in the OP.

 

We're not talking about untested work arounds; I agree those must be confirmed first. Instead, as is, they are more likely (wrongly I admit) try to fix the problem themselves creating irreparable loss.

Toms post was just a theory. Until we confirm with folks through syslog review that this is the issue we are not going to update the OP.

 

It's not absurb, its common sense.

 

It would be common sense to at least put:

 

"After upgrading to -beta13 if your cache disk now appears 'unformatted', please do not run file system check or scrub, or reformat.  Instead please capture the system log without rebooting and post here."

 

In the OP that way people know there is a potential problem and that they shouldn't do the above, without reading through the entire announcement thread.

 

You also need to add the information about properly updating the apcupsd plugin.

 

You guys have some serious communication issues that you need to address, you shouldn't have to read through the entire thread to find out that there is a specific way you should be updating the plugin, but no one pointed that out in the announcement post.

Link to post

[sigh] Just so I understand, you're telling me that it is a "theory" to tell people, "if you experience any problem with drives showing as unformatted, DO NOT TR Y TO FIX IT, and send us a syslog"

I see what you're getting at. Will address when I get to the office.

Link to post

After upgrading to -beta13 if your cache disk now appears 'unformatted', please do not run file system check or scrub, or reformat.  Instead please capture the system log without rebooting and post here.  Probably what's happening is this: those who experience this issue have probably manually partitioned their cache disk, or perhaps partitioned and built file system on some other linux distro.  I need to know if this is the case before implementing a fix.  thx

I can confirm that my single-partition, btrfs-formatted cache drive displaying as "unformatted" after the b13 upgrade was created using cgdisk from the b12 command line, not the GUI.

Link to post

[sigh] Just so I understand, you're telling me that it is a "theory" to tell people, "if you experience any problem with drives showing as unformatted, DO NOT TR Y TO FIX IT, and send us a syslog"

I see what you're getting at. Will address when I get to the office.

 

Thank you jon.

Link to post

I have a BTRFS Cache pool with 2 SSD drives that's now coming back as unformatted when I start the array after updating to beta 13.

Unfortunately I've restarted (multiple times) / reverted back to beta 12 (Still didn't fix the issue) and then reinstalled beta 13 already, so I'm not sure how useful the syslog will be.  I don't believe I've run a system check, and I haven't reformatted or done a scrub yet.  The drives were setup through the GUI in a previous beta, possibly 9 or 10a.

 

file -s /dev/sdd1

/dev/sdd1: BTRFS Filesystem sectorsize 4096, nodesize 16384, leafsize 16384)

 

file -s /dev/sde1

/dev/sde1: data

 

As seen in the following screenshot the 2nd cache drive is showing a blue icon indicating a new drive, which isn't the case.

http://gyazo.com/50ab47397cabe74688ddd112b281c201

 

After starting the array:

http://gyazo.com/50c2910c498dc48056f6c93f035745a9

 

root@unRAID:/var/log# btrfs filesystem show

warning devid 2 not found already

Label: none  uuid: 4b26bea4-4d80-4dcf-a8ed-d839b0d999b0

Total devices 2 FS bytes used 56.04GiB

devid    1 size 232.89GiB used 232.89GiB path /dev/sdd1

*** Some devices missing

 

Btrfs v3.18.2

 

Attached syslog

 

Edit: I am recalling having the /dev/sde drive setup as just an ext3 (i think) partition that stored my Xen VMs and wasn't part of the array prior to getting the 2nd SSD and converting it to a btrfs cache pool through the UI.  That was several beta versions ago though.

syslog.txt

Link to post

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.