bonienl Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 i used to have dynamix stats until a few weeks ago. The more button takes you to the screen for it. Obviously a bug since the button shouldn't be there if the plugin isn't installed. The more button will be removed when a proper uninstall is done of the System Info plugin. I presume that isn't the case here! Link to comment
sparklyballs Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 i used to have dynamix stats until a few weeks ago. The more button takes you to the screen for it. Obviously a bug since the button shouldn't be there if the plugin isn't installed. The more button will be removed when a proper uninstall is done of the System Info plugin. I presume that isn't the case here! indeed, i deleted the .cfg file and put all my settings back in via the webui, and the more button is no more... Link to comment
bonienl Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 i used to have dynamix stats until a few weeks ago. The more button takes you to the screen for it. Obviously a bug since the button shouldn't be there if the plugin isn't installed. The more button will be removed when a proper uninstall is done of the System Info plugin. I presume that isn't the case here! indeed, i deleted the .cfg file and put all my settings back in via the webui, and the more button is no more... no more is less Link to comment
mr-hexen Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 re: docker DNS issue. My server has a static setup. This issue first appeared for me shortly after setting up my first VM's. Part of this initial VM setup was setting up a bridge network "br0" in the unraid network settings. Dockers were running when i set this up. Link to comment
limetech Posted June 9, 2015 Author Share Posted June 9, 2015 re: docker DNS issue. My server has a static setup. This issue first appeared for me shortly after setting up my first VM's. Part of this initial VM setup was setting up a bridge network "br0" in the unraid network settings. Dockers were running when i set this up. What did you have to do to get your containers back online? If you did the Network type host/bridge toggle that would work, but wondering if that's what you did and whether you might have first tried stop/starting containers again. One thing we added in -rc5 was insisting that array is Stopped to change network settings. This also ensures containers and VM's are also stopped when network config changes. Link to comment
mr-hexen Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 I tried restarting the containers and that did not work. Doing the host/bridge thing did work, which is when I created the defect report Link to comment
clowrym Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Memory reporting is still askew in the System Information popup: Mine seems to be just the opposite....Says 64gb max, but I can't install anymore then 16bg.... Link to comment
jumperalex Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Mine is correct in all aspects Link to comment
pengrus Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Here's some before and afters...it doesn't matter what I set the slots to, 14, 18, 20, still the same number remain. Also, though I didn't get a shot of this, if I change the number of cache slots, they don't change either. And I'll get to cleaning that up! Works for me, tried IE, FF, Chrome. What browser are you using? I'm using firefox on arch linux and tried on opensuse as well. Just got home, opened it in another browser and now it works. So thanks, sorry about that!! Link to comment
montery Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 After reviewing the dmidecode file attached, I wonder if it's a parsing error? According to the dmidecode, I have 4 handles with Size: 4096, which equals 16384 MB. Maximum Capacity is 192 GB. The Unraid System Information is 100% correct, no problems there. But it's the System Status on the Dynamix Dashboard that is wrong. Maybe I should raise it up with the Dynamix developer? dmidecode.txt Link to comment
limetech Posted June 10, 2015 Author Share Posted June 10, 2015 After reviewing the dmidecode file attached, I wonder if it's a parsing error? According to the dmidecode, I have 4 handles with Size: 4096, which equals 16384 MB. Maximum Capacity is 192 GB. The Unraid System Information is 100% correct, no problems there. But it's the System Status on the Dynamix Dashboard that is wrong. Maybe I should raise it up with the Dynamix developer? Everyone's aware of the issue and a fix has been made, just not released yet. Link to comment
montery Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 After reviewing the dmidecode file attached, I wonder if it's a parsing error? According to the dmidecode, I have 4 handles with Size: 4096, which equals 16384 MB. Maximum Capacity is 192 GB. The Unraid System Information is 100% correct, no problems there. But it's the System Status on the Dynamix Dashboard that is wrong. Maybe I should raise it up with the Dynamix developer? Everyone's aware of the issue and a fix has been made, just not released yet. Cool. Thanks for the update Tom! Link to comment
JohnO Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Yet another simple, satisfying RC upgrade from RC4 to RC5 for my very simple system (No dockers, No VMs, running as a guest VM on VMware ESXi 5.5). Link to comment
garycase Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Yet another simple, satisfying RC upgrade from RC4 to RC5 for my very simple system (No dockers, No VMs, running as a guest VM on VMware ESXi 5.5). I know sometimes there are extra changes needed for systems running under ESXi. Did this update without any need for additional changes by simply pressing the "Update" button from within the Web GUI and letting UnRAID do its own upgrade? [A REALLY slick feature ... just want to confirm it works just as well in a VM] Link to comment
JohnO Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Did this update without any need for additional changes by simply pressing the "Update" button from within the Web GUI and letting UnRAID do its own upgrade? Assuming that was a question for me, the answer is "Yes." One click to update, then I took the array offline, rebooted the unRaid VM (from within the unRAID GUI), brought the array back online, and checked the logs. All good! John Link to comment
dtempleton Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 I see that the rc3 incorporated APCUPSd into the os. After update from b10a I still see the APCUPSd plugin listed as a plugin, not 'built in' the way dynamix is. I'm running Apcupsd-3.14.10-x86_64_3pb and it shows 'no update'. I have evidence that the APCUPSd plugging is still doing its job, so, it ain't broke... Am I supposed to delete this plugin to get it out of the way of the builtin? Again, it ain't broke... Similar question for Powerdown, cachedirs, preclear_disk, snap-x86_64, ntfs-3g, and Overbyrn's SSH and denyhosts plugins. Can't tell what's still doing its job and what's detritus from the older system. Thanks Dennis Link to comment
trurl Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 I see that the rc3 incorporated APCUPSd into the os. After update from b10a I still see the APCUPSd plugin listed as a plugin, not 'built in' the way dynamix is. I'm running Apcupsd-3.14.10-x86_64_3pb and it shows 'no update'. I have evidence that the APCUPSd plugging is still doing its job, so, it ain't broke... Am I supposed to delete this plugin to get it out of the way of the builtin? Again, it ain't broke... Similar question for Powerdown, cachedirs, preclear_disk, snap-x86_64, ntfs-3g, and Overbyrn's SSH and denyhosts plugins. Can't tell what's still doing its job and what's detritus from the older system. Thanks Dennis Yes, remove the apcupsd plugin. Those others are not built-in, but you could remove SNAP and its ntfs-3g and replace it with the Unassigned Devices plugin. SNAP is being deprecated. Link to comment
dtempleton Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 still no change with the docker dns issue.. Please try these commands and post output: cat /etc/resolv.conf cat /etc/hosts hostname Then pick one of your containers with no dns and type: docker exec <container-name> cat /etc/resolv.conf docker exec <container-name> cat /etc/hosts docker exec <container-name> cat /etc/hostname replacing <container-name> with the actual container name. I have a new docker (RDP-Calibre) that works fine on my local network but can't resolve the server via DNS. My other dockers do both just fine. Here is the output from the request above: root@Tower:~# cat /etc/resolv.conf # Generated entries: nameserver 192.168.1.1 root@Tower:~# cat /etc/hosts # Generated 127.0.0.1 Tower localhost root@Tower:~# hostname Tower root@Tower:~# docker exec RDP-Calibre cat /etc/resolv.conf # Generated entries: nameserver 192.168.1.1 root@Tower:~# docker exec RDP-Calibre cat /etc/hosts 172.17.0.5 654fe35bb0ef 127.0.0.1 localhost ::1 localhost ip6-localhost ip6-loopback fe00::0 ip6-localnet ff00::0 ip6-mcastprefix ff02::1 ip6-allnodes ff02::2 ip6-allrouters root@Tower:~# docker exec RDP-Calibre cat /etc/hostname 654fe35bb0ef So it appears that the Docker is not getting a resolved name the way the server itself is. Both this docker app and the ones that work are bridged and have TCP ports aliased in similar ways. I'm attaching the diagnostic log, though not sure if it has docker app info. Thanks D tower-diagnostics-20150610-1437.zip Link to comment
limetech Posted June 10, 2015 Author Share Posted June 10, 2015 dtempleton: In this state if you type: docker exec <container-name> ping google.com what happens? unknown host? Link to comment
dtempleton Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 dtempleton: In this state if you type: docker exec <container-name> ping google.com what happens? unknown host? root@Tower:~# docker exec RDP-Calibre ping google.com PING google.com (216.58.217.142) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from iad23s43-in-f142.1e100.net (216.58.217.142): icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=26.3 ms 64 bytes from iad23s43-in-f142.1e100.net (216.58.217.142): icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=25.6 ms 64 bytes from iad23s43-in-f142.1e100.net (216.58.217.142): icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=26.0 ms Link to comment
limetech Posted June 10, 2015 Author Share Posted June 10, 2015 dtempleton: In this state if you type: docker exec <container-name> ping google.com what happens? unknown host? root@Tower:~# docker exec RDP-Calibre ping google.com PING google.com (216.58.217.142) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from iad23s43-in-f142.1e100.net (216.58.217.142): icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=26.3 ms 64 bytes from iad23s43-in-f142.1e100.net (216.58.217.142): icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=25.6 ms 64 bytes from iad23s43-in-f142.1e100.net (216.58.217.142): icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=26.0 ms Not a DNS issue... Above you say: I have a new docker (RDP-Calibre) that works fine on my local network but can't resolve the server via DNS. Can't resolve which 'server'? Link to comment
jonp Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 dtempleton: In this state if you type: docker exec <container-name> ping google.com what happens? unknown host? root@Tower:~# docker exec RDP-Calibre ping google.com PING google.com (216.58.217.142) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from iad23s43-in-f142.1e100.net (216.58.217.142): icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=26.3 ms 64 bytes from iad23s43-in-f142.1e100.net (216.58.217.142): icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=25.6 ms 64 bytes from iad23s43-in-f142.1e100.net (216.58.217.142): icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=26.0 ms Not a DNS issue... Above you say: I have a new docker (RDP-Calibre) that works fine on my local network but can't resolve the server via DNS. Can't resolve which 'server'? Ok, I think I know what dtempleton is talking about. I think he's trying to communicate with his host from within his container using the DNS name (e.g. http://tower or http://tower.local). Not the same issue that we're trying to track down relating to docker containers being able to unresolve DNS outside the LAN. Link to comment
dtempleton Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Above you say: I have a new docker (RDP-Calibre) that works fine on my local network but can't resolve the server via DNS. Can't resolve which 'server'? I can reach the RPD-Calibre server on the local network (192.168.1.xxx) but not on mydns.freedns.org, while all the other web interfaces for docker apps or the unRAID array can be accessed either locally or through mydns, i.e. through the internet. It's just this one docker app. Several folks have noted similar issues with different apps. One person recommended switching from bridge mode to host mode and then back but that did not fix the problem for me. Thanks D Link to comment
dtempleton Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Ok, I think I know what dtempleton is talking about. I think he's trying to communicate with his host from within his container using the DNS name (e.g. http://tower or http://tower.local). Not the same issue that we're trying to track down relating to docker containers being able to unresolve DNS outside the LAN. That's right, other than I rarely use http://tower.local (which works) and instead use a dotted internal IP address, which works. I had assigned a 5 digit port to the app, and thought maybe I was in a prohibited range in the router. I just swapped the port # with a port # successfully used with an app that can be accessed through the internet, and it still doesn't work with Calibre. Therefore the problem does not reside in my router, since the same port can access one but not the other app. I'm sensing that this is not an unRAID issue, but a Docker or app issue. Link to comment
limetech Posted June 10, 2015 Author Share Posted June 10, 2015 I can reach the RPD-Calibre server on the local network (192.168.1.xxx) but not on mydns.freedns.org, while all the other web interfaces for docker apps or the unRAID array can be accessed either locally or through mydns, i.e. through the internet. It's just this one docker app. Several folks have noted similar issues with different apps. One person recommended switching from bridge mode to host mode and then back but that did not fix the problem for me. Thanks D This is not the same 'dns' issue we're chasing, which is why switch host/bridge/host doesn't do anything. I don't know anything about RDP-Calibre but are you forwarding all the ports correctly? That is, the pertinent container port mapped to host port which is getting through your router's firewall through it's port mapping? Link to comment
Recommended Posts