eek Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Thank you, I know what the problem is. OK, Ya think you could let me know what it is? Thanks, Bax The response to me implies its a bug which will probably be fixed in the next beta. Quote Link to comment
Joe L. Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Thank you, I know what the problem is. OK, Ya think you could let me know what it is? Thanks, Bax The response to me implies its a bug which will probably be fixed in the next beta. I read it the same way... you provided the clue he needed to find and fix the bug. Beta8 is due out shortly... so it should be fixed in it. This time, I'm guessing an off-by-one in emhttp when dealing with the last slot in the array. (but I could be wrong) Quote Link to comment
boof Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Beta8 is due out shortly... so it should be fixed in it. Where are you getting this info from? is there a roadmap? Quote Link to comment
prostuff1 Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Beta8 is due out shortly... so it should be fixed in it. Where are you getting this info from? is there a roadmap? He used is magic crystal ball to devine the answer But in all seriousness, JoeL being one of the more proficient Linux users around here probably talks to Tom and reports bugs more-so then the rest of us mere mortals. Quote Link to comment
Joe L. Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Beta8 is due out shortly... so it should be fixed in it. Where are you getting this info from? is there a roadmap? Unfortunately, no roadmap.... :'( But, in a private e-mail from Tom, late last Friday, he requested my assistance in testing a new "mover" script. I need to release –beta8 which includes some fixes for user shares & some ‘experimental’ performance tweaks. One of the main fixes in user shares is to fix handling of file & directory permissions and extended attributes (big bug in Active Directory). This makes it necessary to change the ‘mover’ script. I replied I would not be able to test until much later in the weekend, or early this week, and asked if it would be too long to wait. He responded he would probably release beta8 before that, unless something else showed up in his testing. I'm guessing something else did, and once it is resolved, we'll have 4.5beta8. Joe L. Quote Link to comment
Joe L. Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Beta8 is due out shortly... so it should be fixed in it. Where are you getting this info from? is there a roadmap? He used is magic crystal ball to devine the answer I do have a wizzard's costume I've worn on Halloween... But this year I'm not wearing it... But in all seriousness, JoeL being one of the more proficient Linux users around here probably talks to Tom and reports bugs more-so then the rest of us mere mortals. I don't have a phone number for Tom, but I do occasionally send a PM or e-mail to him. as you said, I do report a lot of "bugs" He usually responds within a day or so. Long ago, when I first purchased my server from him, and when he was still living in California, I did talk to him on the phone... he did not yet have a web-site. Have not "talked" on the phone with him since. Joe L. Quote Link to comment
boof Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Unfortunately, no roadmap.... :'( But, in a private e-mail from Tom, late last Friday, he requested my assistance in testing a new "mover" script. Thanks. Sorry I'm usually quite keen on scouring the forums looking for any snippets of news about future plans - I thought I might have missed an important post! Quote Link to comment
RobJ Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 i installed a new 1.5tb sammy a couple weeks ago, and moved the 1tb from parity down into drive 1 slot, and i've just realised that it's not spinning down. i had noticed previously that it was always spun up when checking the status page, but just assumed something must of accessed it and cause it to spin up. but it is definatly not spinning down at all. now it always spun down noprob when it was the parity drive, but now it's not? so not sure if it's the new setup, or this new beta7. i have no idea, anyone got any ideas? edit:. i also just just manualy spinning it down, and the status page took about a min to refresh, and it sounded as if all the drives spun up and back down, but disk1 is still going, it didn't spin down.. As Joe said, unRAID is telling it to spin down, so it is the drive's fault if it does not, don't know why it is ignoring it. Be aware that you have incurred the Gigabyte HPA curse! You connected that new 1.5TB parity drive to the first onboard SATA port, and it now has an HPA, the standard Gigabyte 2113 sector HPA. It is not a problem now, but will be if you try to add another 1.5TB data drive to your system. Please see the UnRAID Topical Index, HPA section, especially the first link there, which represents our current thinking about dealing with it. Welcome to the Gigabyte HPA club! Quote Link to comment
WizADSL Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 i installed a new 1.5tb sammy a couple weeks ago, and moved the 1tb from parity down into drive 1 slot, and i've just realised that it's not spinning down. i had noticed previously that it was always spun up when checking the status page, but just assumed something must of accessed it and cause it to spin up. but it is definatly not spinning down at all. now it always spun down noprob when it was the parity drive, but now it's not? so not sure if it's the new setup, or this new beta7. i have no idea, anyone got any ideas? edit:. i also just just manualy spinning it down, and the status page took about a min to refresh, and it sounded as if all the drives spun up and back down, but disk1 is still going, it didn't spin down.. As Joe said, unRAID is telling it to spin down, so it is the drive's fault if it does not, don't know why it is ignoring it. Be aware that you have incurred the Gigabyte HPA curse! You connected that new 1.5TB parity drive to the first onboard SATA port, and it now has an HPA, the standard Gigabyte 2113 sector HPA. It is not a problem now, but will be if you try to add another 1.5TB data drive to your system. Please see the UnRAID Topical Index, HPA section, especially the first link there, which represents our current thinking about dealing with it. Welcome to the Gigabyte HPA club! Regarding the HPA, has anyone taken a look at the program HDAT2 (http://www.hdat2.com/)? I've used this program to manipulate HD params and it does have the ability to address the HPA. You can just about get a hard drive to make coffee with this. Quote Link to comment
musicmann Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Regarding the HPA, has anyone taken a look at the program HDAT2 (http://www.hdat2.com/)? I've used this program to manipulate HD params and it does have the ability to address the HPA. You can just about get a hard drive to make coffee with this. I used both HDAT2 and Seatools from time-to-time to get rid of my Gigabyte-bequeathed HPA. At least twice, I couldn't get rid of it with either tool while it was on the Gigabyte MB. I moved it to another machine to get rid of it. Granted, I don't know if I tried ports other than the 1st port. I'd really love if someone could confirm that it only happens on the first port AND that it doesn't happen if the drive is already partitioned. I never tested that far when I was experiencing it, but I may be rebuilding early next year and would love to know. I'll probably play around with it on another machine prior to my rebuild. I can post my results (though it will be a few months before this happens). Quote Link to comment
purko Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Guys, there's a whole bunch of threads dedicated speciffically to HPA. Take it there. http://lime-technology.com/wiki/index.php?title=UnRAID_Topical_Index#HPA Quote Link to comment
ftp222 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I just upgraded to 4.5 beta7 and ran into an issue I did not have previously on 4.4.2. I run VMware on my server and have the VM's and other processes sitting on the cache drive. When stopping the array, the system now hangs at "Unmounting" the cache drive until I issue a "vmware stop" command through a telnet session. Is this the expected new behavior? I like the new Unmounting message, but I'm not sure it makes sense for the cache drive, does it? Quote Link to comment
Joe L. Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I just upgraded to 4.5 beta7 and ran into an issue I did not have previously on 4.4.2. I run VMware on my server and have the VM's and other processes sitting on the cache drive. When stopping the array, the system now hangs at "Unmounting" the cache drive until I issue a "vmware stop" command through a telnet session. Is this the expected new behavior? I like the new Unmounting message, but I'm not sure it makes sense for the cache drive, does it? It is the expected behavior. Since the cache drive must be un-mounted, it makes sense to not potentially corrupt a file being written to it (and if it is the current directory of a process, it cannot be yanked out from under it) unRAID will now wait until the drive is no longer "busy" and can be un-mounted cleanly. At some point, in version 5 of unRAID we hope to have "hooks" to events so we can script shut-down commands to add-ons before the array disks are un-mounted. Until-then, we all need to do it on our own. Quote Link to comment
dstroot Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Beta 8 was mentioned a while back ... Holding breath Quote Link to comment
WeeboTech Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Beta 8 was mentioned a while back ... Holding breath It's a new month.. We're expecting delivery Quote Link to comment
purko Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 When I see new posts in the Announcements board my heart skips a beat. 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.