trurl Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 1 hour ago, rcampbell said: I'm not sure where to begin looking to troubleshoot this but my suspicion is there may be some outdated file that reference the database of shares, conainers and VM's and perhaps this outdated file is pointing to a previous location that doesn't exist any more. As to why it may attempt to load this file every other reboot I'm not sure. This is not the way anything works, there is no database of these things. Next time the problem exhibits, don't reboot. Go to Tools - Diagnostics and post the complete diagnostics zip. Quote Link to comment
jbrodriguez Posted May 22, 2018 Author Share Posted May 22, 2018 On 5/20/2018 at 10:33 PM, chris_b_chicken said: I'm having an interesting issue - I've run unBalance a few times on my main server and it's worked great, but I'm setting up a new server for a friend and I can't get it to run - all I get is the attached screenshot when I try to pull up the UI - any thoughts? I'm trying to access this on my Mac, but I get the same result on Ubuntu as well (Firefox both times). Hi, not sure about this. Could you open Firefox's web console (tools/web developer/web console) and check for any error ? Quote Link to comment
Walter S Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 This is the same problem I'm having. I've tried MS Edge (browser) with the same results.. Quote Link to comment
jbrodriguez Posted May 25, 2018 Author Share Posted May 25, 2018 On 5/22/2018 at 6:27 PM, Walter S said: This is the same problem I'm having. I've tried MS Edge (browser) with the same results Could you check in Edge's dev console for any errors ? Quote Link to comment
dannen Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 On 5/22/2018 at 12:58 PM, jbrodriguez said: Hi, not sure about this. Could you open Firefox's web console (tools/web developer/web console) and check for any error ? Hi I just checked in Firefox and this is shown: "The character encoding of the plain text document was not declared. The document will render with garbled text in some browser configurations if the document contains characters from outside the US-ASCII range. The character encoding of the file needs to be declared in the transfer protocol or file needs to use a byte order mark as an encoding signature." Quote Link to comment
jbrodriguez Posted May 25, 2018 Author Share Posted May 25, 2018 Thanks dannen ! Not sure about this, I have a very standard html5 header in index.html <!doctype html> <html lang="en"> <head> <meta charset="utf-8"> ... I will do some research on the subject. Quote Link to comment
Codeh Posted May 26, 2018 Share Posted May 26, 2018 7 hours ago, jbrodriguez said: Thanks dannen ! Not sure about this, I have a very standard html5 header in index.html <!doctype html> <html lang="en"> <head> <meta charset="utf-8"> ... I will do some research on the subject. I fixed this by adding https:// to the request url. Quote Link to comment
dannen Posted May 26, 2018 Share Posted May 26, 2018 18 hours ago, Codeh said: I fixed this by adding https:// to the request url. Thanks, that did it! Quote Link to comment
chris_b_chicken Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 Sorry for my delayed response, but Codeh's fix also worked for me, just needed to change to https:// with a security exception. Thanks! Quote Link to comment
rmilyard Posted May 29, 2018 Share Posted May 29, 2018 So upgraded to 5.2.0 on both my servers. Now I can’t access the WebGUI. Get can’t load webpage. Tried chrome, edge and safari. Any ideas? Quote Link to comment
Caldorian Posted May 29, 2018 Share Posted May 29, 2018 I'm running into the same issue using the latest version of Chrome. Manually setting the URL in the browser to https://<ServerIP>:6237 fixed it for me. So it sounds like the plugin is trying to use SSL by default now, even if I'm accessing my unRAID server by unencrypted http. In a separate issue, I was moving a few hundred GB from one disk to 2 different ones in preparation to remove the disk from my server. Not sure what happened, but around the end of the move, my unraid server seemed to lock up. The unbalance GUI wasn't updating, my unRAID GUI wasn't updating, and I couldn't get in with Putty either. Ended up giving the server a hard reboot. No big deal. A parity check later (no issues found), I continued with the data move. However, it appears that things ended up dying at a point where it had completed a large data copy to the new disk(s) and was in the middle of removing the moved files on the old disk. Thus, it left me with many files that were duplicated on 2 different disks. Running the Scatter/Move option again in Unbalance seemed to have it recognize these were duplicate files, and it just deleted the files on the the old disk (I'm just making this assumption given that it was reporting processing speeds in the 3000+MB/s range). Not complaining that it seems to have worked out in the end. But I'm curious if this is expected behavior. Quote Link to comment
_Shorty Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 *puts hand up* Same thing here. Old bookmark wasn't working, manually change it to https and it works again, at least after going through Chrome's roadblocks trying to get me to not fall for the website not actually being secure. Quote Link to comment
jbrodriguez Posted May 30, 2018 Author Share Posted May 30, 2018 I believe ssl = auto is the default setting in 6.5.x. Internally it redirects from http to https, so even if you connect to unRAID's webgui via http, you'll be redirected to https. unBALANCE interprets ssl = auto (and the presence of an ssl certificate) as https, so it only listens on https. The open web ui link in the plugin settings reflects that. Now, if you have a bookmark or type directly the address for unBALANCE, over http, in these scenarios, you'll get an error. I guess I could redirect http-to-https. 12 hours ago, Caldorian said: Not complaining that it seems to have worked out in the end. But I'm curious if this is expected behavior Not sure exactly which steps you followed, but I you replayed the operation (from the history screen) or managed to 'recreate' the same set of commands for the operation from the scatter screen, then it's intended behaviour. The fast transfer speeds are due to rsync itself skipping content that was already copied. Quote Link to comment
666gene Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 Setting unBalance Page to HTTPS:// fixed my issue. Quote Link to comment
Caldorian Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 2 hours ago, jbrodriguez said: I believe ssl = auto is the default setting in 6.5.x. Internally it redirects from http to https, so even if you connect to unRAID's webgui via http, you'll be redirected to https. unBALANCE interprets ssl = auto (and the presence of an ssl certificate) as https, so it only listens on https. The open web ui link in the plugin settings reflects that. I guess I could redirect http-to-https. Running 6.5.2 on my system. Use SSL is set to auto, but when I access my server it's not redirected to an HTTPS connection. I guess as a result(?), the "Open Web UI" link in UnBALANCE is left as a regular http:// link. Quote Link to comment
jbrodriguez Posted May 30, 2018 Author Share Posted May 30, 2018 I need to recreate my test server as part of rebuilding my dev environment. I will check this out in more detail. Quote Link to comment
Cessquill Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 FWIW, the link takes me to the secure page just fine. Quote Link to comment
jj666 Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 In addition to the error with coming to the webpage, the plugin seems totally broken on 6.5.2 from calculating files sizes here. I have twenty drives in the array and where I was expecting to move some 60gb over three drives, it was attempting to move 475gb over 15 drives with optimised space showing as "EB" measurement which I have never seen before. Please let me know what if anything I should provide for debugging purposes or if anyone has tips to fix :). Cheers, -jj- Quote Link to comment
jbrodriguez Posted June 2, 2018 Author Share Posted June 2, 2018 Have never seen EB ? Could you send me /boot/logs/unbalance.log ? Quote Link to comment
jj666 Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 (edited) Today's log is attached. I do have the reserved space set at 512 Mb, so you can see it's misreading the free space and attempting to copy onto drives that it should not in some cases. Thanks a lot and let me know if you need anything else! Cheers, -jj- unbalance.log Edited June 2, 2018 by jj666 Quote Link to comment
BF90X Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 Hello, Is it possible for UnBalance to move multiple files at a time from one disk to other disks? When I run a move job, it queues up a list of files it will be moving but only moves one file at a time. It would awesome if I could setup multiple jobs to move files between multiple disks. Queue #1 - Move files from disk 14 to disk 15 Queue # 2- Move files from disk 16 to disk 2 and so on. Quote Link to comment
S80_UK Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 1 hour ago, BF90X said: Hello, Is it possible for UnBalance to move multiple files at a time from one disk to other disks? When I run a move job, it queues up a list of files it will be moving but only moves one file at a time. It would awesome if I could setup multiple jobs to move files between multiple disks. Queue #1 - Move files from disk 14 to disk 15 Queue # 2- Move files from disk 16 to disk 2 and so on. In a system with a parity drive any moves involve reading and writing to the parity drive. I don't see a benefit in queuing and running multiple moves in parallel. In such a case, individual moves would then take longer, and since the parity drive would be modifying blocks of data possibly in very different locations, the added seek times on the parity drive would increase the total time to move all of the files quite significantly. Quote Link to comment
BF90X Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 Just now, S80_UK said: In a system with a parity drive any moves involve reading and writing to the parity drive. I don't see a benefit in queuing and running multiple moves in parallel. In such a case, individual moves would then take longer, and since the parity drive would be modifying blocks of data possibly in very different locations, the added seek times on the parity drive would increase the total time to move all of the files quite significantly. Thanks for your response. Forgot to mention, What if you have taken the parity drives out of the mix. Trying to move files between the disks so I can encrypt them. I understand removing the parity drives increase the risk of lost of data but It would take me forever if I was using them. Another task I want to accomplish is that I want to re-structure how each share organizes the files between the disks so I was also wondering if UnBalance could move files simultaneously. Quote Link to comment
S80_UK Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 8 hours ago, BF90X said: Thanks for your response. Forgot to mention, What if you have taken the parity drives out of the mix. Trying to move files between the disks so I can encrypt them. I understand removing the parity drives increase the risk of lost of data but It would take me forever if I was using them. Another task I want to accomplish is that I want to re-structure how each share organizes the files between the disks so I was also wondering if UnBalance could move files simultaneously. Obviously if there was no parity drive then parallel operations would be faster provided there was no overlap inthe drives being used by each of the move operations. Risk could be reduced by using something like the File Integrity Plugin and checking everything afterwards. Another considerationis backups - I wouldn't even attempt this without a backup of all files being moved. Parity or File Integrity can help you identify whether there have been problems with the move, but neither can fix the data if a file was lost or became corrupted for some reason. 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.