unRAID Server Release 6.2.0-rc4 Available


limetech

Recommended Posts

Just a small bit of feedback. It would be great to store the password for email connections in an encrypted form. Currently it's in plain text, and looks to be easily visible by plugin developers.

 

[ssmtp] => Array

        (

            [AuthPass] => *plaintext*

        )

 

Otherwise, all working well for me. Cache pooling is awesome, and the GUI is starting to polish up nicely. Good work you guys  ;D

Link to comment
  • Replies 185
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi

 

not sure if this should be posted under general v6 issues or RC.

 

I have slow and/or inconsistent speeds when copying to unraid.  I do have a cache drive (SSD) and it is being used (I can browse to the cache and see the files after I copy them).

 

For example - I just copied a movie from my PC to the unraid server at ~110mb/s.  Then I copied another movie (same PC, etc) and the speed started out at 110 then dropped down between 10-20mb/sec for the remainder of the copy (see attached screen shot).

 

I had this issue using RC2 and just updated to RC4 - same issue exists.

 

any idea how to troubleshoot?

 

thanks,

 

unraid_speed.PNG.c741a6791eb68cc7bb27057be6e882e2.PNG

unraid_log.PNG.17877339bcadacff9fb770543fe51a7d.PNG

Link to comment

Weird Problem. Had a test server working fine under RC4 (new install, nothing pre v6 on it), finally did a replace key of my old 4.2 server (since it wouldn't let me extend the trial more than 3 times, had only been working with it a day or two at a time.. but anyway) could do updates, add plugins, etc... did the replace key and wanted to add the file integrity Dynamax plugin and...

 

plugin: installing: https://raw.github.com/bergware/dynamix/master/unRAIDv6/dynamix.file.integrity.plg

plugin: downloading https://raw.github.com/bergware/dynamix/master/unRAIDv6/dynamix.file.integrity.plg

plugin: downloading: https://raw.github.com/bergware/dynamix/master/unRAIDv6/dynamix.file.integrity.plg ... failed (Network failure)

plugin: wget: https://raw.github.com/bergware/dynamix/master/unRAIDv6/dynamix.file.integrity.plg download failure (Network failure)

 

Raise eyebrow, ok so I tried other plugins.. all the same, network failure... went to look at the console and it has a "link down" for eth0 (just one NIC in the box).... but I can get to the box (else how could I try to install the plugin?)

 

Poke around in the network settings and... it has no DNS address.

 

Now this is the second RC4 box I have up and running, the other one is fine, DNS settings are on 'automatic' and it's picking them up from the router like it's supposed to, but this one nunyah. Well fine, let's set it to static DNS and.... the drop down won't change (yes I stopped the Array first).

 

Ok Both are set to static IP's stuff can get TO them but the new one can't get out. But then how can it do a license validation since it's running and RC?

 

Can't even pull up the check of Nerd Pack (for instance).. Old one great, new one.. just a blip and nothing.

 

Reset the router, powered down the router, powerd EVERYTHING off for 10 minutes... same thing....

 

Diagnostics attached... halp?

 

ADDENDUM: Just looked at the console again and getting 'Device "eth1" does not exist' well duh, only have one NIC in there

rko-diagnostics-20160821-0151.zip

Link to comment

As a path of least resistance perhaps system info would be a sane place to present the figures in a human readable way.

 

You mean something like this ?

 

Meh - I don't see the value in presenting this info because there's nothing you can do with it.  The rate "is what it is".

 

Sure, for the system you have. But it is very helpful for what-if situations.

 

The community wants to have a database of various setups and their performance so users on lower end systems know what to expect IF they go Dual-Parity. It also helps them if they're having lower performance than they'd like in knowing what a possible upgrade would give them.

 

Not disputing that, in fact we have something in the works.  My objection is there's no point putting it in the Info box.

 

Not sure I follow. You add a new feature that is CPU intensive. There is a value buried in the logs that lets users know if their systems is capable of supporting the additional CPU workload vs their disk count.

 

I see no reason why we would ask users to use SSH and grep to find this figure.

 

However it sounds like you have decided this is the way so at the very least the procedure to check or dimension the CPU for the feature should be documented. This forum post is not documentation.

Link to comment

Weird Problem. Had a test server working fine under RC4 (new install, nothing pre v6 on it), finally did a replace key of my old 4.2 server (since it wouldn't let me extend the trial more than 3 times, had only been working with it a day or two at a time.. but anyway) could do updates, add plugins, etc... did the replace key and wanted to add the file integrity Dynamax plugin and...

 

plugin: installing: https://raw.github.com/bergware/dynamix/master/unRAIDv6/dynamix.file.integrity.plg

plugin: downloading https://raw.github.com/bergware/dynamix/master/unRAIDv6/dynamix.file.integrity.plg

plugin: downloading: https://raw.github.com/bergware/dynamix/master/unRAIDv6/dynamix.file.integrity.plg ... failed (Network failure)

plugin: wget: https://raw.github.com/bergware/dynamix/master/unRAIDv6/dynamix.file.integrity.plg download failure (Network failure)

 

Raise eyebrow, ok so I tried other plugins.. all the same, network failure... went to look at the console and it has a "link down" for eth0 (just one NIC in the box).... but I can get to the box (else how could I try to install the plugin?)

 

Poke around in the network settings and... it has no DNS address.

 

Now this is the second RC4 box I have up and running, the other one is fine, DNS settings are on 'automatic' and it's picking them up from the router like it's supposed to, but this one nunyah. Well fine, let's set it to static DNS and.... the drop down won't change (yes I stopped the Array first).

 

Ok Both are set to static IP's stuff can get TO them but the new one can't get out. But then how can it do a license validation since it's running and RC?

 

Can't even pull up the check of Nerd Pack (for instance).. Old one great, new one.. just a blip and nothing.

 

Reset the router, powered down the router, powerd EVERYTHING off for 10 minutes... same thing....

 

Diagnostics attached... halp?

 

ADDENDUM: Just looked at the console again and getting 'Device "eth1" does not exist' well duh, only have one NIC in there

 

There is a regression error in the GUI with static DHCP and automatic DNS settings.

 

To change the DNS settings, toggle the DHCP setting from static to automatic and back again.

 

Link to comment

As a path of least resistance perhaps system info would be a sane place to present the figures in a human readable way.

 

You mean something like this ?

 

Meh - I don't see the value in presenting this info because there's nothing you can do with it.  The rate "is what it is".

 

Sure, for the system you have. But it is very helpful for what-if situations.

 

The community wants to have a database of various setups and their performance so users on lower end systems know what to expect IF they go Dual-Parity. It also helps them if they're having lower performance than they'd like in knowing what a possible upgrade would give them.

 

Not disputing that, in fact we have something in the works.  My objection is there's no point putting it in the Info box.

 

Not sure I follow. You add a new feature that is CPU intensive. There is a value buried in the logs that lets users know if their systems is capable of supporting the additional CPU workload vs their disk count.

 

I see no reason why we would ask users to use SSH and grep to find this figure.

 

However it sounds like you have decided this is the way so at the very least the procedure to check or dimension the CPU for the feature should be documented. This forum post is not documentation.

 

If you are looking for the testing that the OS does to determine which algorithms it is going to use to generate/test parity, you can find it with the GUI.

 

Go to >>  'Tools'  >>  'System Log'.  Now use the browser text search tool that is built into your browser (Contl-F for firefox).  You want to search for    raid6:  and about 22 lines above the first occurrence of  raid6:  you will find the value for single parity called xor: measuring software checksum speed  .   

Link to comment

Sure, for the system you have. But it is very helpful for what-if situations.

 

The community wants to have a database of various setups and their performance so users on lower end systems know what to expect IF they go Dual-Parity. It also helps them if they're having lower performance than they'd like in knowing what a possible upgrade would give them.

 

Not disputing that, in fact we have something in the works.  My objection is there's no point putting it in the Info box.

 

Not sure I follow. You add a new feature that is CPU intensive. There is a value buried in the logs that lets users know if their systems is capable of supporting the additional CPU workload vs their disk count.

 

I see no reason why we would ask users to use SSH and grep to find this figure.

 

However it sounds like you have decided this is the way so at the very least the procedure to check or dimension the CPU for the feature should be documented. This forum post is not documentation.

 

I think what Limetech is saying is that it's not a question of this being a useful feature for users (it is), it's just a matter of where to present it (within the WebUI).

Link to comment

Sure, for the system you have. But it is very helpful for what-if situations.

 

The community wants to have a database of various setups and their performance so users on lower end systems know what to expect IF they go Dual-Parity. It also helps them if they're having lower performance than they'd like in knowing what a possible upgrade would give them.

 

Not disputing that, in fact we have something in the works.  My objection is there's no point putting it in the Info box.

 

Not sure I follow. You add a new feature that is CPU intensive. There is a value buried in the logs that lets users know if their systems is capable of supporting the additional CPU workload vs their disk count.

 

I see no reason why we would ask users to use SSH and grep to find this figure.

 

However it sounds like you have decided this is the way so at the very least the procedure to check or dimension the CPU for the feature should be documented. This forum post is not documentation.

 

I think what Limetech is saying is that it's not a question of this being a useful feature for users (it is), it's just a matter of where to present it (within the WebUI).

 

I hope you are right and I am wrong :) I dont feel passionately enough about this to make any stronger case than I have already so I will leave it out there for consideration.

 

One ting I will say though is that my suggestion is for post RC. We should be adding nothing at this stage to get this thing live.

Link to comment

Sure, for the system you have. But it is very helpful for what-if situations.

 

The community wants to have a database of various setups and their performance so users on lower end systems know what to expect IF they go Dual-Parity. It also helps them if they're having lower performance than they'd like in knowing what a possible upgrade would give them.

 

Not disputing that, in fact we have something in the works.  My objection is there's no point putting it in the Info box.

 

Not sure I follow. You add a new feature that is CPU intensive. There is a value buried in the logs that lets users know if their systems is capable of supporting the additional CPU workload vs their disk count.

 

I see no reason why we would ask users to use SSH and grep to find this figure.

 

However it sounds like you have decided this is the way so at the very least the procedure to check or dimension the CPU for the feature should be documented. This forum post is not documentation.

 

I think what Limetech is saying is that it's not a question of this being a useful feature for users (it is), it's just a matter of where to present it (within the WebUI).

 

What I hope what LimeTech is saying is that they are looking into developing a single benchmark number that the casual user can look at and quickly determine how their system will perform if they decide to use dual parity. 

Link to comment

Does anyone have an idea what might be causing my issue? Can I go back to RC3?

 

Hi there,

 

I just upgraded from RC3 to RC4 and although everything upgraded without issue, I am now unable to launch my Windows 10 VM with VGA passthrough which worked fine before the upgrade. I did a plugin upgrade.

 

Attached are my diagnostic file, error message, and VM config.

 

Please let me know what I can do to get this working again.

 

Thanks

Link to comment

Does anyone have an idea what might be causing my issue? Can I go back to RC3?

 

Hi there,

 

I just upgraded from RC3 to RC4 and although everything upgraded without issue, I am now unable to launch my Windows 10 VM with VGA passthrough which worked fine before the upgrade. I did a plugin upgrade.

 

Attached are my diagnostic file, error message, and VM config.

 

Please let me know what I can do to get this working again.

 

Thanks

 

It's still a mystery how you were able to get your on-board audio to passthrough to a VM in 6.2-rc3.  I bet if you change your assigned Sound Card to None (or the GPU HDMI) you'll be able to start your VM.

 

The few Skylake device listings I saw now group the on-board audio with the memory controller and smbus making it just about impossible to passthrough to a VM.  I don't even think enabling ACS override setting (Advanced setting on the VM Settings page) would help break apart the IOMMU group the audio device sits in because it's setup as a separate 'function' on the ISA bus device instead of it being a separate device altogether.  Not sure what Intel was thinking...

Link to comment

A bit of picky issue.  I am running dual parity on my Test Bed server (spec's below).  You will notice that it has a 3TB Parity drive, and the Parity 2 and data drives are all 1TB.

 

Now for the picky issue.  When the parity check has finished up with the 1TB section, It (apparently) continues to do the second parity calculations even though the only real thing that the parity check can be doing is reading the Parity drive which is necessary in my opinion.  The parity check would finish much quicker if the second parity operation were terminated when it reaches the end of the Parity 2 drive.  (I call the issue "picky" because most people will probably have both the Parity  and Parity 2 the same size.  But you did allow them not to be...)    ::) 

Link to comment

Not disputing that, in fact we have something in the works.  My objection is there's no point putting it in the Info box.

 

Are going to use the RAID6 score? I have some older hardware and did some testing with older CPUs and it's difficult to estimate the performance based on that score (multiplying it by the number of cores makes a little more sense), Passmark value seem more accurate when comparing CPUs from the same platform, but again useless comparing Intel to AMD.

 

These were my results, if nothing else it allows some users with older hardware to estimate parity check performance with dual parity, provided they have no other bottlenecks.

 

Screenshot_2016_08_21_21_38_52.png

 

All speeds are both the average and max speeds as I used SSDs, AMD and Intel platforms hardware used was the same between all tests, only the CPU changed.

 

IMO a dual core AMD or Intel CPU has enough performance for a mid sized array, considering these CPUs cost 20$ on ebay, even if you have to buy one to enjoy dual parity it's a pretty good deal. Single core CPUs should be avoided, especially the AMD Sempron, so slow I didn't bother to complete all the tests, even the webGUI response is bad with the one I used, I would recommend V6 users with a Sempron to upgrade to dual core even if they're not considering dual parity.

 

Link to comment

The RAID6 algorithm information is displayed by the latest System Profiler plugin.

 

Strange figures though for my particular processor, which seems much faster at calculating RAID6 syndromes than a simple XOR. Perhaps that's what Tom means - the figures are misleading.

 

System_Profiler.png.cfbc63c0d2388473df253313c5eae415.png

Link to comment

Ok. I've made a boo boo.

 

I updated main server to RC2. Have since upgraded through to RC4. I've just moved home and had to relocate servers to new address.

 

I've had to say bye bye to fibre and go back to ADSL2. As much of a bummer that is, it doesn't compare to this one ....

 

Can anyone guess???

 

Yep. My ADSL2 service connection has been delayed until Tuesday. Meaning the Server can't "call home" and therefore by all accounts I won't be able to start it.

 

Am I really " ... attached to another object by an inclined plane, wrapped helically around an axis?"

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I understand this was my fault. I also understand that the limitation of the RC requiring Internet access on boot was well documented.

 

However, as I sit in my new home waiting for my internet to be connected - unable to access my data - I am finding myself getting more annoyed with this "feature".

 

Firstly, I have to ask why was it included in the RC? A RC is a pre release version which has the potential to be a final product. Meaning surely it is almost ready to release. I would imagine all features to be included are in there already and we have already tested them thoroughly through the many beta cycles over a long period of time and we have had no known showstoppers.

 

Secondly, I know this is supposed to stop me from running a version which could result in a loss of data but as I sit here having another wine I'm finding that less and less palatable. You announce it is unstable software anyway and shouldn't be used in production so why should you worry this much about our data. This is our responsibility.

 

Maybe (if you still want to persist with this "feature" - allow us an opt in / opt out in future). If it truley is all about the users and preventing us from running at risk then allow us the ability to accept that risk if we want. It is in fact our risk to own and deal with anyway !!!???!!

 

Finally, I do think (if you won't implement something like I suggest) then it's time you removed this little gem from the feature set. All it is doing for me is preventing me from accessing my array. Thankfully my backup strategy allows me access to my data in that I have a duplicate redundant server but that's not the point.

 

#Annoyed

 

I have had some further thought on this. I did some quick research on the topic and have found limited information.

 

So therefore, a direct question:

 

@Limetech @eschultz @jonp

 

Can you please describe the data that is captured and transmitted in your call-home (and any other communication between my servers - both ways - and LT servers), explain exactly why each peice of that data is required and if any part or all of it is stored?

 

Based on your answer to the above question I may have follow-ups.

Link to comment

I did a manual update to rc4 from rc3 and now i'm getting endless loop when I try to boot. Any ideas how to fix it?

 

Menu.c32:Not a COM32R image

 

Take the unRAID boot flash to another desktop and run the appropriate 'makebootable'.  Probably best to first delete any syslinux files from the root of the flash, like ldlinux*, menu.c32, etc.

Link to comment

Not disputing that, in fact we have something in the works.  My objection is there's no point putting it in the Info box.

 

 

These were my results, if nothing else it allows some users with older hardware to estimate parity check performance with dual parity, provided they have no other bottlenecks.

<<< snip >>

All speeds are both the average and max speeds as I used SSDs, AMD and Intel platforms hardware used was the same between all tests, only the CPU changed.

 

IMO a dual core AMD or Intel CPU has enough performance for a mid sized array, considering these CPUs cost 20$ on ebay, even if you have to buy one to enjoy dual parity it's a pretty good deal. Single core CPUs should be avoided, especially the AMD Sempron, so slow I didn't bother to complete all the tests, even the webGUI response is bad with the one I used, I would recommend V6 users with a Sempron to upgrade to dual core even if they're not considering dual parity.

 

Very nice with a lot of useful information.  I do have one question.  Do any of these CPU's support the AVX2 instruction set?

 

Second question.  Might it be possible to run a test on the Celeron D430 using real hard drives.  I would suggest a 4 drive drive setup and perhaps 1TB drives (to keep the test time short and the drives reasonably 'modern').  That would give us a data point for a setup (which your tests show is moderately useable while still being significantly CPU limited) that reflects the real world usage of most unRAID servers. 

 

My reason for the request is to see if there are any other factors that might be impacting parity check speeds besides the CPU and bus speed.  (Like, say, drive latency...)

 

IF you don't have the gear, I completely understand .  I also know that it will take at least a couple of days of your time to do the test. 

Link to comment

I did a manual update to rc4 from rc3 and now i'm getting endless loop when I try to boot. Any ideas how to fix it?

 

Menu.c32:Not a COM32R image

 

Take the unRAID boot flash to another desktop and run the appropriate 'makebootable'.  Probably best to first delete any syslinux files from the root of the flash, like ldlinux*, menu.c32, etc.

 

And run Chkdsk on that flash drive!

Link to comment

I did a manual update to rc4 from rc3 and now i'm getting endless loop when I try to boot. Any ideas how to fix it?

 

Menu.c32:Not a COM32R image

 

Take the unRAID boot flash to another desktop and run the appropriate 'makebootable'.  Probably best to first delete any syslinux files from the root of the flash, like ldlinux*, menu.c32, etc.

 

 

 

And run Chkdsk on that flash drive!

 

Thanks guys. It's working now, my array is started but now all my dockers are missing and my win10 vm isn't working either.  hmmm.

 

Edit...scratch that.  The vm is working just the dockers are all missing.

I deleted the docker image and i'm rebuilding all my dockers via docker templates.

Another thing I noticed with rc4 is that it changed my ip to dhcp and enabled bonding automatically.  I never had any of that set. I had a static ip address entered....

Link to comment

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.