[Plugin] unbalanced


Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, jbrodriguez said:

Hi, can you try running it from the command line, to make sure it works ?

 


/usr/local/emhttp/plugins/unbalance/unbalance -port 6237

 

 

segmentation fault

Linux 4.19.56-Unraid.
root@P101-S:~# /usr/local/emhttp/plugins/unbalance/unbalance -port 6237
Segmentation fault
root@P101-S:~# 

 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, jbrodriguez said:

That is impossible !!! 🤣

 

To be honest, I have no clue, I guess you already uninstalled/installed the plugin.

 

I also assume that everything else works on your server right ?

 

Out of ideas 🤷🏼‍♂️

hello , reinstalled the plugin, it worked now. i thinks the reason not working first time is download error.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
21 hours ago, jang430 said:

Hi.  When in the process of Scatter, to move out a share- it selects all other drives by default for the "To" section.  If a drive is not a member of a share, but it's ticked under the "To" section, will files also be transfered to that drive?

Hi, unbalance works at disk level, not share level

 

Having said that, it will use the disk with the most free space first, then work its way down the other disks.

Link to comment

I'm attempting to use the gather feature to move a share that's spread across 3 drives to one new drive that was recently added to the array. The planning process is not seeing any of the data on disk1 which is resulting in erroneous totals for the data within the share. The share has 5.17TB of data and planning is only seeing 3.12TB. Here is the log:

 

I: 2019/09/19 21:23:14 planner.go:159: Running gather planner ...

I: 2019/09/19 21:23:14 planner.go:525: planner:array(4 disks):blockSize(4096)

I: 2019/09/19 21:23:14 planner.go:527: disk(/mnt/disk1):fs(btrfs):size(4000786976768):free(1801627136000):blocksTotal(976754633):blocksFree(439850375)

I: 2019/09/19 21:23:14 planner.go:527: disk(/mnt/disk2):fs(btrfs):size(4000786976768):free(1995629887488):blocksTotal(976754633):blocksFree(487214328)

I: 2019/09/19 21:23:14 planner.go:527: disk(/mnt/disk3):fs(btrfs):size(4000786976768):free(1997172318208):blocksTotal(976754633):blocksFree(487590898)

I: 2019/09/19 21:23:14 planner.go:527: disk(/mnt/disk4):fs(btrfs):size(8001563168768):free(7999397560320):blocksTotal(1953506633):blocksFree(1952977920)

I: 2019/09/19 21:23:14 planner.go:356: scanning:disk(/mnt/disk1):folder(Icarus_Image)

W: 2019/09/19 21:24:54 planner.go:367: issues:not-available:(exit status 1)

W: 2019/09/19 21:24:54 planner.go:383: items:not-available:(exit status 1)

I: 2019/09/19 21:24:54 planner.go:356: scanning:disk(/mnt/disk2):folder(Icarus_Image)

I: 2019/09/19 21:27:10 planner.go:374: issues:owner(0):group(0):folder(0):file(0)

I: 2019/09/19 21:27:11 planner.go:385: items:count(3):size(2.00 TB)

I: 2019/09/19 21:27:11 planner.go:356: scanning:disk(/mnt/disk3):folder(Icarus_Image)

I: 2019/09/19 21:29:05 planner.go:374: issues:owner(0):group(0):folder(0):file(0)

I: 2019/09/19 21:29:06 planner.go:385: items:count(13):size(1.12 TB)

Link to comment

 

I did know about that and its very helpful. For my case, I will click on a parent, lets say there are 200 items. If I want to pick 30, it would be good to be able to do this easier if that makes sense. But it is a "nice to have". Something like the SHIFT / CTL options to select in Windows.

 

Just a suggestion, thanks again for this awesome tool.

Link to comment

Would it be possible to add support for a true scatter function?
All of my disks are currently the same size. I'd like to keep files distributed among the disks to spread out the bandwidth use.
Originally my files were distributed by unraid's High-Water option. I used unbalance to migrate data to 3 individual disks so I could switch to encrypted disks. Migrating data off those existing disks is where I realized the name "scatter" doesn't quite tell the story. Now I have 4 disks more or less permanently stuck at 100% usage making a much larger portion of my data reside on them. I can manually go through and select individual directories to spread the data out, but that's probably going to take several months.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, jbrodriguez said:

I guess what you're thinking about is a 'scatter/balance' functionality.

 

There are many opinions here on the forums stating the you should fill a disk and leave it alone (sort of an archival disk).

 

Not sure if that applies to your case, but it's worth considering.

While this is fine for most use cases; and probably even "acceptable" for mine; it reaches limitations rapidly when hitting the disk with high network bandwidth. I have 10gbe uplink to my network. A single sata hard disk can hardly saturate gigabit; let alone 10gbe. If I'm transferring a large image on my network (500gb+ disk images) and a user wants to stream an episode of a tv show form the same disk as I am hitting - it might work. But if that TV show is 4k.... we've got a problem. The disk I/O demand is just too high. Yes, even spreading the data out, we can run into this problem - but it will be substantially more rare. I can then also further mitigate these issues by ensuring my large disk images are on a single share, and that those shares don't touch the disks with tv shows and movies. But we still hit disk I/O bottlenecks when multiple users are slamming the same drive. Enter cache, maybe? Sure - if you can reliably predict which data users are going to grab and cram all of that into a (relatively) small cache device; unlikely.

In the above I highlight several (band-aid) fixes for the "problem" in the form of a lot of constant, manual server administration work. I paid for an unraid license because I don't want to fiddle with the server constantly. I have my Arch server, and I went down that road. I haven't had to do any manual administration on said arch server in over a year. This unraid box, I cannot say the same for - but that's growing pains. Once everything is set up the way I like and works properly, I won't need to fiddle. 

This is probably the single biggest downside to unraid. The throughput sucks. There are a lot of positives to a system like this, but the big detriment is that I/O performance is abysmal by comparison to a striped disk system.  I keep teetering between whether I should continue to fill this server, or jump ship to a different platform while I can still afford to empty the drives and make the swap or not. I'm less inclined to just because I've paid for a license here.
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

Unbalance doesn't seem to start after upgrading to 6.8.0-rc1. The service shows as stopped and won't start. Tried uninstalling and reinstalling the plugin, but the problem persisted.

 

Launching from command line works (/usr/local/emhttp/plugins/unbalance/unbalance -port 6237).

 

Quote

Oct 12 10:26:41 unRAID ool www[6604]: /usr/local/emhttp/plugins/unbalance/scripts/stop
Oct 12 10:27:06 unRAID ool www[9360]: /usr/local/emhttp/plugins/unbalance/scripts/start
Oct 12 10:27:06 unRAID sudo:     root : TTY=unknown ; PWD=/usr/local/emhttp ; USER=nobody ; COMMAND=/usr/bin/bash -c /usr/local/emhttp/plugins/unbalance/unbalance -port 6237
Oct 12 10:27:16 unRAID emhttpd: req (10): csrf_token=****************&title=System+Log&cmd=%2FwebGui%2Fscripts%2Ftail_log&arg1=syslog
Oct 12 10:27:16 unRAID emhttpd: cmd: /usr/local/emhttp/plugins/dynamix/scripts/tail_log syslog
Oct 12 10:28:14 unRAID login[19951]: ROOT LOGIN  on '/dev/pts/0'

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Having the same issue as well...  unbalance wont run unless started from a command line...

Also, I've been having this problem for a while now...  unbalance is set to use port 6237,

and yet when I try to open it using said port, it won't run... However, if I run it using

port 6238, it works fine...  Am I missing something here?  I've attached image files

and the log in the hopes this can be fixed...

 

unbalance.log

unbalance log.jpg

unbalance settings.jpg

unbalance settings 2.jpg

Edited by RGauld
clean up post...
Link to comment

Hi, thanks for the reports about unbalance not working on 6.8.x, fortunately there's the 'start from the command line' workaround.

 

I had to install my workstation from scratch yesterday and with work and all, I'm rebuilding my dev environment piece by piece, hopefully by next weekend I'll have looked into this issue.

 

Thanks for the heads up @Squid, I'll start by checking that isNumber.

 

RGauld, I think what's happening is that when you started it from the webui, it redirected you to the secure port (6238) behind the scenes, for the time being, you have to point it to the appropriate port manually

  • Like 2
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, nuhll said:

Ok, i found it.

 

Go to terminal and enter /usr/local/emhttp/plugins/unbalance/unbalance -port 6237 (if you close terminal, the session gets terminated)

 

and then go manual in you rbrowser to yourip:6238

 

Thanks!

Pro tip. Perform the command from screen so you don't need to keep the terminal open all the time. Going through the same procedure as well now.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
  • jbrodriguez changed the title to [Plugin] unbalanced

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.