Jump to content
jbrodriguez

[Plug-In] unBALANCE

1486 posts in this topic Last Reply

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, NLS said:

So best solution would be the author to make the change and Squid to transparently process it.

That's a lot of work to address something that isn't a functionality issue. Trust me, I understand OCD tendencies, but demanding that volunteers devote their time to fix something that is cosmetic only isn't realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, NLS said:

So best solution would be the author to make the change

Or just not hit the sort by version...

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, jonathanm said:

That's a lot of work to address something that isn't a functionality issue. Trust me, I understand OCD tendencies, but demanding that volunteers devote their time to fix something that is cosmetic only isn't realistic.

 

I don't see a "demand" here, I wonder where you see it.

BTW, it (normally, i.e. code-wise) is not "a lot of work".

That said, any work that the two involved devs don't care about is "much" - and I am fine with that. :D

 

1 hour ago, Squid said:

Or just not hit the sort by version...

 

Well, that is a solution. :D

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, NLS said:

I don't see a "demand" here, I wonder where you see it.

Quote

You need to remove "v" from your version, because you mess sorting...

Internet communication is tricky. I saw a demand in the statement, you NEED to do something.

 

Apparently you were simply asking what could be done about the visual anomaly, but it seemed to be presented as a demand that it be changed.

 

It's all good. 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, NLS said:

 

I don't see a "demand" here, I wonder where you see it.

BTW, it (normally, i.e. code-wise) is not "a lot of work".

That said, any work that the two involved devs don't care about is "much" - and I am fine with that. :D

 

 

Well, that is a solution. :D

It's an annoyance to me having the V there.   But at the end of the day what we're left with is

 

Removing the V will result in unraid and a check for updates never recognizing that an update is available.

 

Removing the V and reverting to a version number (would have to be 3.x+) would have unraid see updates being available but auto update not seeing any updates

 

Leaving everything as is.   Works for all situations and authors are highly recommended since this came to light to only use dates as versions.

 

Any updates to the plugin system to handle the leading V and then allowing a reversion to a normal version scheme may result in breaking other plugins and their updates and for the time involved and debugging for a one off edge case isnt worth the effort at all.

 

No real reason to ever sort by version, as after any plugin update check, the plugins with updates available are always shown first in the list.

 

All that being said, there is one and only one solution that will work but it's a pita for the author 

 

The currently plugin is issued a fake update   that update installs a replacement that has the new scheme and then finally uninstalled itself.   But, that also necessitates a completely new folder structure for the plugin within unraid so that the 2 can coexist temporarily together.   

 

All in all, switching version schemes is a very big deal for the devs involved

Share this post


Link to post

I don't really mind to fix it the way Squid proposes (as soon as I can spare some cycles), although I do need to wrap my head around what I actually need to do :)

 

On 2/11/2020 at 12:38 PM, Squid said:

The currently plugin is issued a fake update   that update installs a replacement that has the new scheme and then finally uninstalled itself.   But, that also necessitates a completely new folder structure for the plugin within unraid so that the 2 can coexist temporarily together. 

I'm trying to figure out if that requires a new github repo for the replacement.

 

Or perhaps I can just change the name of the tgz artifact to something different ?

 

And then on unraid, instead of `/boot/config/plugins/unbalance` and `/usr/local/emhttp/plugins/unbalance` I would need to change it to `/boot/config/plugins/unbalanced` and `/usr/local/emhttp/plugins/unbalanced` (for example) ?

 

What about the plugin name, would that need to change ?

Edited by jbrodriguez

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/3/2019 at 9:00 PM, gfjardim said:

I've added a code to UD to export mounted devices information at /var/state/unassigned.devices/unassigned.devices.json .

 

Will be available on the next UD update, I hope.

Hi @jbrodriguez, any chance of implementing this?

Share this post


Link to post

Hey @gfjardim, I'll tell you what, I'll take a hard look at the level of effort for this change this weekend, so I can have a better sense of what it involves.

 

I'll post back when I've done it.

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/12/2020 at 6:43 PM, jbrodriguez said:

I don't really mind to fix it the way Squid proposes (as soon as I can spare some cycles), although I do need to wrap my head around what I actually need to do :)

 

On 2/11/2020 at 12:38 PM, Squid said:

The currently plugin is issued a fake update   that update installs a replacement that has the new scheme and then finally uninstalled itself.   But, that also necessitates a completely new folder structure for the plugin within unraid so that the 2 can coexist temporarily together. 

I'm trying to figure out if that requires a new github repo for the replacement.

 

I wouldn't worry about it myself.  It is what it is.  Rather big PITA just to switch over a version scheme.

Share this post


Link to post

Weird behavior and I don't see a reference to it in the thread.  I'm doing a 1-1 disk move (RFS to XFS migration) to clear out RFS disks.  I'm not moving this to multiple disks.  I've noticed that my NIC is showing a steady outbound utilization.  Right now I'm going from a 2TB disk to a 2TB disk and it's steady at 1.8Mbps outbound.  When I was going from a 2TB disk to a 4TB disk it was almost 5Mbps outbound.

 

Obviously, all of the moves between disks are staying in the box.  Why would I be seeing this outbound traffic?  I am leaving the interface open while it's transferring, so maybe that has something to do with it, but then why would the utilization be different in two cases?  Thought I should ask here before I start digging into the util stats on my network switch.

Share this post


Link to post

UB just uses rsync to copy/move files, now while rsync "can" send files over a network connection, you would have to specify that in the command line. I don't see any reason why your NIC would have traffic because of an UB move. sniff the traffic and see what kind of traffic it is.

Share this post


Link to post

Yep, pretty much what jbat66 said.

 

The underlying rsync currently can only move data between /mnt/{diskX,cacheX} drives, it doesn't hit the network at all.

Share this post


Link to post

Wanted to add a comment regarding UD .... it's definitely not trivial, as the app's logic assume the disks are part of the array.

 

It's doable, but it'll take some time, I'll do it piecemeal.

Share this post


Link to post

Looks like it's the user interface to UB.  Wow!  That's a lot of bandwidth for live updates on the page.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

That makes sense.

 

Yes it can get chatty if you have a lot of folders, it's transferring the whole state of the operation to update the UI.

 

I've had a couple of ideas on how to improve that, but not enough time :)

 

Also, that was brought up before by another user and that's where the refresh time setting came from.

Edited by jbrodriguez

Share this post


Link to post

It's about time i thanked the developer personally for this plugin. It just seems to work for me and is my goto 'mover' of filestore around my two unRaid servers. I've just moved 5TB without so much as a glitch, so ... thanks v.much, I just love it!!

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, superloopy1 said:

It's about time i thanked the developer personally for this plugin. It just seems to work for me and is my goto 'mover' of filestore around my two unRaid servers. I've just moved 5TB without so much as a glitch, so ... thanks v.much, I just love it!!

Hey ! Thanks a lot for the kudos ! 👍🏼

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Okay I don't know what is wrong, first time using this and I want to move all data from disk 2 to disk 3 which is Luks:xfs and then later I will make disk 2 also encrypted and then set the shares to use both disks. I select what I want and I get the plan button, click it and only get the animation in top right no log window lowering, and the ui just becomes unresponsive after that unless you refresh and that just makes it start all over as if nothing has happened. If I click on Log at the top it does the same thing and none of the buttons up top are clickable anymore. 

 

I have tried doing this in Chrome, Chrome Incognito, Edge. All get the same thing and first complain that the sites not secure but I just tell it load it anyways as it just has no cert (is it supposed to?).

 

Any advice?

 

EDIT: attached log that shows it is writing to it but only on like load up of the web ui and refresh of the ui. 

unbalance.log

Edited by rvcjew

Share this post


Link to post

Hi, the PLAN button should show a ton of additional logging.

 

Can you check the dev tools in Chrome, to see if there's any error there ?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, jbrodriguez said:

Hi, the PLAN button should show a ton of additional logging.

 

Can you check the dev tools in Chrome, to see if there's any error there ?

This is what I get, I think it is all because of a cert issue? That is after clicking plan.

unbalance.PNG

Edited by rvcjew

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, the websocket that manages traffic between the server side of the app and the ui is having certificate issues.

 

Which Unraid version are you running ? I just tried on the latest Firefox and Unraid 6.8.3 and it's working fine.

 

Do you have self-signed certs ?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, jbrodriguez said:

Yes, the websocket that manages traffic between the server side of the app and the ui is having certificate issues.

 

Which Unraid version are you running ? I just tried on the latest Firefox and Unraid 6.8.3 and it's working fine.

 

Do you have self-signed certs ?

I just updated to 6.8.3 from 6.8.2 and downloaded firefox to test and get the same issue and it does say that it is trying to load a self cert that is only good for the name of what I named my NAS in the unraid info menu. I do not know how to check if there is a self cert setting or something somewhere. I also noticed that the cert it is making is I guess invalid as it seems to have the wrong date completely on it. My unraid does have the right UTC ect. Realized it shows 2030 as the end date so I guess the date is not the issue.

Thanks for the help so far.

unraid cert unbalance.PNG

nas cert.PNG

Edited by rvcjew

Share this post


Link to post

Not an expert on ssl certificates, but the error says you're accessing the server via an ip address while the certificate is built for a hostname (RVC-NAS.local).

 

I'd guess try that ?

Share this post


Link to post

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.