joelones Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 I'm not sure what causing you issues but am wondering if it is related to your host NIC somehow. Do you have more than one NIC? What shows up when you ifconfig on unRAID? I see br0, docker0 which are the bridges and eth0, lo. I am running unRAID virtualized with vmxnet3 driver. br0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 inet 192.168.1.XX netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.3.255 ether 00:XX txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet) RX packets 8815495 bytes 17648101390 (16.4 GiB) RX errors 0 dropped 3807 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 4018694 bytes 1016945854 (969.8 MiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 docker0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 inet 172.17.42.1 netmask 255.255.0.0 broadcast 0.0.0.0 ether 00:XX txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet) RX packets 1797921 bytes 149382321 (142.4 MiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 5047397 bytes 9503846239 (8.8 GiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 eth0: flags=4419<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,PROMISC,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 ether 00:XX txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet) RX packets 13117356 bytes 18057322428 (16.8 GiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 4024345 bytes 1017239706 (970.1 MiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 lo: flags=73<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING> mtu 65536 inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 255.0.0.0 loop txqueuelen 0 (Local Loopback) RX packets 4105 bytes 771247 (753.1 KiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 4105 bytes 771247 (753.1 KiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 veth2bf4d34: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 ether ba:21:72:cf:e7:73 txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet) RX packets 69200 bytes 27346032 (26.0 MiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 79714 bytes 12825081 (12.2 MiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 veth4dd9eaf: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 ether 92:a9:42:eb:f6:05 txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet) RX packets 72506 bytes 5331647 (5.0 MiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 105793 bytes 179253908 (170.9 MiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 veth5ac142d: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 ether 4e:3b:98:dc:05:fe txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet) RX packets 994 bytes 122848 (119.9 KiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 2849 bytes 1803506 (1.7 MiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 veth634cf97: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 ether 6a:f0:40:e8:dd:05 txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet) RX packets 52 bytes 11215 (10.9 KiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 1879 bytes 390422 (381.2 KiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 veth6b2f9dd: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 ether 6a:3b:c9:e8:f6:5b txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet) RX packets 8648 bytes 3161512 (3.0 MiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 10996 bytes 4612109 (4.3 MiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 veth82f9d0f: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 ether 8e:a9:bd:ef:dc:d0 txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet) RX packets 163410 bytes 32650586 (31.1 MiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 164820 bytes 86582331 (82.5 MiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 veth917ce77: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 ether e2:db:9e:49:81:29 txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet) RX packets 1391989 bytes 99458986 (94.8 MiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 4565776 bytes 8959663776 (8.3 GiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 Quote Link to comment
unevent Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 I'm not sure what causing you issues but am wondering if it is related to your host NIC somehow. Do you have more than one NIC? What shows up when you ifconfig on unRAID? I see br0, docker0 which are the bridges and eth0, lo. I am running unRAID virtualized with vmxnet3 driver. br0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 inet 192.168.1.XX netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.3.255 ether 00:XX txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet) RX packets 8815495 bytes 17648101390 (16.4 GiB) RX errors 0 dropped 3807 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 4018694 bytes 1016945854 (969.8 MiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 docker0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 inet 172.17.42.1 netmask 255.255.0.0 broadcast 0.0.0.0 ether 00:XX txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet) RX packets 1797921 bytes 149382321 (142.4 MiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 5047397 bytes 9503846239 (8.8 GiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 eth0: flags=4419<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,PROMISC,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 ether 00:XX txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet) RX packets 13117356 bytes 18057322428 (16.8 GiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 4024345 bytes 1017239706 (970.1 MiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 lo: flags=73<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING> mtu 65536 inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 255.0.0.0 loop txqueuelen 0 (Local Loopback) RX packets 4105 bytes 771247 (753.1 KiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 4105 bytes 771247 (753.1 KiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 veth2bf4d34: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 ether ba:21:72:cf:e7:73 txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet) RX packets 69200 bytes 27346032 (26.0 MiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 79714 bytes 12825081 (12.2 MiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 veth4dd9eaf: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 ether 92:a9:42:eb:f6:05 txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet) RX packets 72506 bytes 5331647 (5.0 MiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 105793 bytes 179253908 (170.9 MiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 veth5ac142d: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 ether 4e:3b:98:dc:05:fe txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet) RX packets 994 bytes 122848 (119.9 KiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 2849 bytes 1803506 (1.7 MiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 veth634cf97: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 ether 6a:f0:40:e8:dd:05 txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet) RX packets 52 bytes 11215 (10.9 KiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 1879 bytes 390422 (381.2 KiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 veth6b2f9dd: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 ether 6a:3b:c9:e8:f6:5b txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet) RX packets 8648 bytes 3161512 (3.0 MiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 10996 bytes 4612109 (4.3 MiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 veth82f9d0f: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 ether 8e:a9:bd:ef:dc:d0 txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet) RX packets 163410 bytes 32650586 (31.1 MiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 164820 bytes 86582331 (82.5 MiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 veth917ce77: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 ether e2:db:9e:49:81:29 txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet) RX packets 1391989 bytes 99458986 (94.8 MiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 4565776 bytes 8959663776 (8.3 GiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 Looks like possible subnetting/configuration issue. IP for br0 is x.x.1.x and broadcast for br0 is x.x.3.x. You need router (bridge) support to communicate across subnets and to support access to the internet for your isolated subnet. Doing this via Tapatalk so could not be seeing something, but looks like your normal subnet and your docker IP subnet are different so you need to enable/add support for that on your router. Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment
tinglis1 Posted September 2, 2016 Author Share Posted September 2, 2016 There has been a new version of pipework pushed to the latest tag. This will break the compatibility with unraid as we are not up to date on the docker versions. In the mean time add the tag of 1.1.5 to the docker template to get the last working version for 6.1. The repository should look like this: dreamcat4/pipework:1.1.5 unraid 6.2 will partially work with this version as discussed earlier. I am working on a fix to this at the moment. It is to do with docker api versions so I am learning that quickly to try and come up with a backward compatible solution. Quote Link to comment
tinglis1 Posted September 2, 2016 Author Share Posted September 2, 2016 I have found the fix for unRAID 6.2. I have updated the opening post to reflect the current install requirements. Choosing the correct version By default docker templates grab the 'latest' build this may cause you issues. For unRAID 6.0 and 6.1 you need to use dreamcat4/pipework:1.1.5 For unRAID 6.2 you need to use dreamcat4/pipework:1.1.6 An additional environmental variable is required for unRAID 6.2. If using the Community Application templates this will be already in place. -e DOCKER_API_VERSION=1.22 Feel free to try the 1.1.6 version on unraid 6.0 or 6.1 as I haven't tested it but I expect that it will fail. Quote Link to comment
gareth_iowc Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 is this working in 6.2.3? i'm not having much luck atm i keep seeing event_line=2016-11-22T23:09:04.461430503Z container start d7088008c27a037d09adade5e5556562a3403fb0c9c182553cc923ee8da82e56 (image=gfjardim/transmission, name=Transmission) Device "eth1" does not exist. i have entered this in the additional parameters -e 'pipework_cmd=br0 @CONTAINER_NAME@ udhcpc' any ideas? thanks Quote Link to comment
tinglis1 Posted November 22, 2016 Author Share Posted November 22, 2016 It still works with that version I think. I am currently using 6.3rc without issue. Can you try it with a static ip instead of dhcp. I have had issues with dhcp in the past. Also check your network settings to make sure br0 is active. Try 'ifconfig' to see if it is there. I will have a look in more detail at your setting when I'm near my unraid computer next. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment
tinglis1 Posted November 25, 2016 Author Share Posted November 25, 2016 @gareth_iowc How did you get on with those tests? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment
gareth_iowc Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 sorry for the late reply. yeah that worked great thanks Quote Link to comment
RichG Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Hi, I'm struggling to get this working - I've a few different things I want to use this for but have been testing with a Transmission docker. My unRaid is the current version and I'm using pipework-1.1.6. I believe I have set up both pipework and transmission dockers correctly. Pipework is set to 'host' and Transmission to 'none' and extra parameters -e 'pipework_cmd=br0 @transmission@ 192.168.1.3/[email protected]' Checking the transmission docker shows no network connection (only loopback): root@Tower:~# docker exec -it transmission ifconfig lo Link encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:65536 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1 RX bytes:0 (0.0 B) TX bytes:0 (0.0 B) Pipework log shows: event_line=2017-03-08T15:28:33.713249319Z container start 804a43d744b33c72c6aaf968d8c3552646278eec8b209d41587ec3e2a9ce3305 (build_version=Linuxserver.io version:- 54 Build-date:- March-04-2017-12:22:56-UTC, image=linuxserver/transmission, name=transmission) Device "eth1" does not exist. Looks like no ethernet interface is being substantiated in the docker. Any help here would be much appreciated. Thanks. Quote Link to comment
unevent Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Pipework looks correct, however the br0 being associated with eth1 is most likely the issue. Look at your network settings under Settings->Network Settings in the unRAID GUI and see what br0 is configured as or post a screenshot. Quote Link to comment
ken-ji Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Well if you are using 6.3+, you can try this: [6.3.0+] How to setup Dockers without sharing unRAID IP address tl;dr its a native way (no direct GUI support yet) for docker containers to use a public (LAN - in this case IP) instead of the internal IP bound to the docker0 bridge Quote Link to comment
RichG Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 8 hours ago, unevent said: Pipework looks correct, however the br0 being associated with eth1 is most likely the issue. Look at your network settings under Settings->Network Settings in the unRAID GUI and see what br0 is configured as or post a screenshot. Thanks. I was thinking it must be related to the way the bridge was set up but I don't see anything out of place: root@Tower:~# ifconfig br0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 inet 192.168.1.2 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 0.0.0.0 ether xxxxxxxxxx txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet) RX packets 4614 bytes 1160833 (1.1 MiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 2766 bytes 648307 (633.1 KiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 docker0: flags=4099<UP,BROADCAST,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 inet 172.17.0.1 netmask 255.255.0.0 broadcast 0.0.0.0 ether xxxxxxxxxx txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet) RX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 eth0: flags=4419<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,PROMISC,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 ether xxxxxxxxxx txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet) RX packets 4615 bytes 1235407 (1.1 MiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 2741 bytes 638227 (623.2 KiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 lo: flags=73<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING> mtu 65536 inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.255 loop txqueuelen 1 (Local Loopback) RX packets 404 bytes 38987 (38.0 KiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 404 bytes 38987 (38.0 KiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 root@Tower:~# Quote Link to comment
RichG Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 7 hours ago, ken-ji said: Well if you are using 6.3+, you can try this: [6.3.0+] How to setup Dockers without sharing unRAID IP address tl;dr its a native way (no direct GUI support yet) for docker containers to use a public (LAN - in this case IP) instead of the internal IP bound to the docker0 bridge Thanks ken-ji - that looks like a good alternative if I can't get pipework working. Quote Link to comment
RichG Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 (edited) Well - just had a forehead slapping moment! I removed the '@'s around the docker name in the extra parameters: -e 'pipework_cmd=br0 transmission 192.168.1.3/[email protected]' And it works. I took the instructions too literally. Edited March 9, 2017 by RichG Quote Link to comment
tinglis1 Posted March 9, 2017 Author Share Posted March 9, 2017 The code @CONTAINER_NAME@ automatically enters the container name.It should work if you use that instead of the container name. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment
RichG Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 1 minute ago, tinglis1 said: The code @CONTAINER_NAME@ automatically enters the container name. It should work if you use that instead of the container name. Thanks - that makes much more sense now. I should have realised. And thanks for the great tool. Will make dockers much more useful - I can ditch a couple of VMs now. Cheers. Quote Link to comment
theGrok Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Hello, is this working in 6.3.2? I cannot get it to work no matter what I do. I am trying to this with the plex server container: I set the network type to NONE then I click at the bottom add container variable. I name it pipework and in the value section I type this: -e 'pipework_cmd=br0 @CONTAINER_NAME@ 192.168.2.88/[email protected]' whee my router is 192.168.2.1 I am getting network unreachable error. Any help would be appreciated. Quote Link to comment
tinglis1 Posted March 10, 2017 Author Share Posted March 10, 2017 What do you mean by this step? as is doesn't sound right. Are you showing the advanced settings and putting the code in the extra parameters section? It sounds like your adding a variable instead. then I click at the bottom add container variable. I name it pipework and in the value section I type this: -e 'pipework_cmd=br0 @CONTAINER_NAME@ 192.168.2.88/[email protected]'Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment
unevent Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 2 hours ago, theGrok said: Hello, is this working in 6.3.2? I cannot get it to work no matter what I do. I am trying to this with the plex server container: I set the network type to NONE then I click at the bottom add container variable. I name it pipework and in the value section I type this: -e 'pipework_cmd=br0 @CONTAINER_NAME@ 192.168.2.88/[email protected]' whee my router is 192.168.2.1 I am getting network unreachable error. Any help would be appreciated. Remove the pipework variable you added to the plex docker. In the plex docker settings enable advanced view (slide toggle top-right) and in the 'Extra Parameters' box paste in -e 'pipework_cmd=br0 @CONTAINER_NAME@ 192.168.2.88/[email protected]' Leave "@CONTAINER_NAME@" exactly as it is, do not rename it to plex as it does it automatically. Apply and start. This is assuming you have Pipework docker installed and set to host and the plex docker set to none. 1 Quote Link to comment
theGrok Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 2 hours ago, unevent said: Remove the pipework variable you added to the plex docker. In the plex docker settings enable advanced view (slide toggle top-right) and in the 'Extra Parameters' box paste in -e 'pipework_cmd=br0 @CONTAINER_NAME@ 192.168.2.88/[email protected]' Leave "@CONTAINER_NAME@" exactly as it is, do not rename it to plex as it does it automatically. Apply and start. This is assuming you have Pipework docker installed and set to host and the plex docker set to none. Thank you so much for your response. I got this working in 6.3.2 thanks to your help! Turns out I already had some extra parameters in there for CPU pinning. Do you know how I would separate those to include both? Quote Link to comment
unevent Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 4 hours ago, theGrok said: Thank you so much for your response. I got this working in 6.3.2 thanks to your help! Turns out I already had some extra parameters in there for CPU pinning. Do you know how I would separate those to include both? I believe it only takes a space between commands as they are appended to the docker run command at start. Quote Link to comment
BlackDwarf Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 I'm having some interesting issues with docker containers assigned IP addresses using pipework. I've got my Plex and SABnzbd dockers being given their own IP's, but they fall over at least once per day (and only those containers). I'm not sure if it's the amount of API calls between SAB/Plex/Radarr/Sonarr, but the only two I have to restart on a regular basis are the pipework ones. Obviously an ideal situation would be for Lime to implement the available docker implementation rather than running something like pipework, but I wondered if anyone else was having similar issues? Quote Link to comment
unevent Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 13 hours ago, BlackDwarf said: I'm having some interesting issues with docker containers assigned IP addresses using pipework. I've got my Plex and SABnzbd dockers being given their own IP's, but they fall over at least once per day (and only those containers). I'm not sure if it's the amount of API calls between SAB/Plex/Radarr/Sonarr, but the only two I have to restart on a regular basis are the pipework ones. Obviously an ideal situation would be for Lime to implement the available docker implementation rather than running something like pipework, but I wondered if anyone else was having similar issues? Post a diagnostics, perhaps someone might pick up on something to point to a cause. Quote Link to comment
redeuxx Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 (edited) I am using 6.3.5 ... where do I find the extra parameters section for the container? Edited June 10, 2017 by redeuxx Quote Link to comment
saarg Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 Push the basic view button in the top right corner and it changes to advanced view. 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.