May 23, 201610 yr Will the final release of 6.2 allow for up to 45 data drives in order to work with the 45 Drives Storinator? Why would it? The Storinator isn't a Lime Tech product... 6.2 supports something like 30 devices in the array, can't remember how many devices in a cache pool, and an unlimited number of devices (at least on the PRO version) unassigned (mountable via UD), so the net result is that you can max out a 45 drive storinator.
May 23, 201610 yr Will the final release of 6.2 allow for up to 45 data drives in order to work with the 45 Drives Storinator? Why would it? The Storinator isn't a Lime Tech product... 6.2 supports something like 30 devices in the array, can't remember how many devices in a cache pool, and an unlimited number of devices (at least on the PRO version) unassigned (mountable via UD), so the net result is that you can max out a 45 drive storinator. array of 28 data drives + 2 parity drives and a cache pool of up to 24 drives (if you want to know exact numbers).
May 24, 201610 yr Will intel igd passthrough be released in unraid 6.2 or next version? I'm curious about that ?? SM-G930K ? Tapatalk?? ??
May 24, 201610 yr Will the final release of 6.2 allow for up to 45 data drives in order to work with the 45 Drives Storinator? Why would it? The Storinator isn't a Lime Tech product... 6.2 supports something like 30 devices in the array, can't remember how many devices in a cache pool, and an unlimited number of devices (at least on the PRO version) unassigned (mountable via UD), so the net result is that you can max out a 45 drive storinator. Correct, but my thoughts are 45 storage drives + 8 caching drives.
May 24, 201610 yr Also very curious about IGD passthrough / iGVT-g / KVMGT or what it is now officially called. Will this make the 6.2 release? Is it available in this beta already can anyone confirm? Desperate want to try running unRAID on a NUC i5 with a 512GB SSD and a 2TB HDD, all in the smallest fanless silent enclosure strapped to the back of my monitor. Call me crazy...
May 25, 201610 yr Very minor issue, but the log shows the following about spinning down drives: May 24 20:18:04 MediaServer kernel: mdcmd (147): spindown 0 May 24 20:18:04 MediaServer kernel: mdcmd (148): spindown 5 May 24 20:18:04 MediaServer kernel: mdcmd (149): spindown 29 May 24 20:50:22 MediaServer kernel: mdcmd (150): spindown 2 May 24 21:22:17 MediaServer kernel: mdcmd (151): spindown 5 May 24 21:29:15 MediaServer kernel: mdcmd (152): spindown 0 May 24 21:29:16 MediaServer kernel: mdcmd (153): spindown 3 May 24 21:29:16 MediaServer kernel: mdcmd (154): spindown 29 I don't have a drive number 29. I have six data drives, two parity disks, and a cache drive. Just a numbering issue I suspect on the second parity drive.
May 25, 201610 yr Very minor issue, but the log shows the following about spinning down drives: May 24 20:18:04 MediaServer kernel: mdcmd (147): spindown 0 May 24 20:18:04 MediaServer kernel: mdcmd (148): spindown 5 May 24 20:18:04 MediaServer kernel: mdcmd (149): spindown 29 May 24 20:50:22 MediaServer kernel: mdcmd (150): spindown 2 May 24 21:22:17 MediaServer kernel: mdcmd (151): spindown 5 May 24 21:29:15 MediaServer kernel: mdcmd (152): spindown 0 May 24 21:29:16 MediaServer kernel: mdcmd (153): spindown 3 May 24 21:29:16 MediaServer kernel: mdcmd (154): spindown 29 I don't have a drive number 29. I have six data drives, two parity disks, and a cache drive. Just a numbering issue I suspect on the second parity drive. The first parity disk is numbered as 0 (lowest available number in the array), while the second parity disk is numbered as 29 (highest available number in the array). Data disks are numbered from 1 to 28.
May 25, 201610 yr Very minor issue, but the log shows the following about spinning down drives: May 24 20:18:04 MediaServer kernel: mdcmd (147): spindown 0 May 24 20:18:04 MediaServer kernel: mdcmd (148): spindown 5 May 24 20:18:04 MediaServer kernel: mdcmd (149): spindown 29 May 24 20:50:22 MediaServer kernel: mdcmd (150): spindown 2 May 24 21:22:17 MediaServer kernel: mdcmd (151): spindown 5 May 24 21:29:15 MediaServer kernel: mdcmd (152): spindown 0 May 24 21:29:16 MediaServer kernel: mdcmd (153): spindown 3 May 24 21:29:16 MediaServer kernel: mdcmd (154): spindown 29 I don't have a drive number 29. I have six data drives, two parity disks, and a cache drive. Just a numbering issue I suspect on the second parity drive. The first parity disk is numbered as 0 (lowest available number in the array), while the second parity disk is numbered as 29 (highest available number in the array). Data disks are numbered from 1 to 28. Ok. That would explain it. Thanks.
May 25, 201610 yr Not sure if this bug has been discovered or not however I just noticed it. When I went into scheduler and chose 'custom' for schedule parity checks, and selected a day of the week, such as Sunday, it would not remember it and default to 'every day'. This caused two unscheduled parity checks on my server in the past two days.
May 25, 201610 yr Not sure if this bug has been discovered or not however I just noticed it. When I went into scheduler and chose 'custom' for schedule parity checks, and selected a day of the week, such as Sunday, it would not remember it and default to 'every day'. This caused two unscheduled parity checks on my server in the past two days. Yeah this is known, and fixed in upcoming release.
May 25, 201610 yr Yeah this is known, and fixed in upcoming release. Upcoming release??? I would put upcoming in the same category as soon....
May 25, 201610 yr Yeah this is known, and fixed in upcoming release. Upcoming release??? I would put upcoming in the same category as soon.... release != final. Not affiliated with limetech, but I'm pretty sure they just mean the next beta that's currently cooking. Final release is still wishful thinking.
May 26, 201610 yr release != final. Not affiliated with limetech, but I'm pretty sure they just mean the next beta that's currently cooking. Final release is still wishful thinking. Yeah, i figured it referred to a beta release. I get the "when it's ready" mentality, but given this loyal fanbase I would hope that the Lime folks would be a little more open as to what they're working on.
May 26, 201610 yr Don't take offence to it. Communications during beta stages are often sparse. I've always presumed it's because they're a small team and time is spent on the actual coding rather than telling the great unwashed what's happening. To be honest the forum uprisings and general disquiet I find amusing and part of the fun of the beta stages...
May 26, 201610 yr Don't take offence to it. Communications during beta stages are often sparse. I've always presumed it's because they're a small team and time isr spent on the actual coding rather than telling the great unwashed what's happening. To be honest the forum uprisings and general disquiet I find amusing and part of the fun of the beta stages... I don't take offense to it. Companies pick where they are on the openness spectrum: Apple (we'll tell you what you need to know when you need to know it and you WILL wait and like it) --- to the new Microsoft (here's everything we're working on please try it and tell us what you think). I just prefer more openness is all -- particularly when I'm doing it for part solution and part hobby as I'm sure many of us are.
May 26, 201610 yr forum uprisings *ears perk up... Is it time?!?! Lol notice my selective reading skills
May 26, 201610 yr forum uprisings *ears perk up... Is it time?!?! Lol notice my selective reading skills Somebody better get the bus ...
May 27, 201610 yr Reporting back, Dual Parity working just fine, VM's working fine Dockers all ok NVME cache pool all ok No crashes, system seems very stable (Im not doing anything fancy with my VM's, it's just for RDP)
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.