unRAID OS version 6.5.0 Stable Release - Update Notes


ljm42

88 posts in this topic Last Reply

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, bakes82 said:

Settings -> VM -> Default ISO storage path:   Mine was empty and caused it to fail from what I can tell, I haven't rebooted in the past day to see.

 

Thanks for this! I've added it to the post.

Link to post
  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I took a stab at writing a How-To based on the feedback in the release thread. If this looks helpful, maybe it could be added to the top post?   Edit: this warrants it's own topic, thank you

Problem: Cache disk shows as having an incompatible partition after upgrading to 6.4.   Reason: The cache disk was formatted by UD with an incompatible format.  Until 6.4, unRAID would accep

I also upgraded from 6.3.5 without removing any plugins.  Preclear, Unassigned Devices, S3 Sleep (disabled and not in use prior to upgrade) etc. were installed and caused me no upgrade issues.  They c

Posted Images

Great work, thnx for sharing. It is just a lot of work which might lead to some problems if not done properly, in the old days -when I used CentOS/Fedora- all I did was yum update all or something like that...I don't recall the exact command, but it took care of everything...

Link to post

I'd recommend adding something about those with LetsEncrypt using port 80 and 443 now conflicting with the new Unraid SSL cert system. Most people are posting over in the nextcloud and LE dockers so perhaps they would see it here first and prep accordingly. Note that port 444 (or 445?) is already reserved for something else so a different port (I used 442) must be used.

Link to post
7 minutes ago, kreene1987 said:

I'd recommend adding something about those with LetsEncrypt using port 80 and 443 now conflicting with the new Unraid SSL cert system. Most people are posting over in the nextcloud and LE dockers so perhaps they would see it here first and prep accordingly. Note that port 444 (or 445?) is already reserved for something else so a different port (I used 442) must be used.

The recommendation is already in the first post of this thread!  (The recommended ports are 8080  and 8443)  

  • Like 1
Link to post
58 minutes ago, spencers said:

Thanks for the tips. Upgraded from 6.3.5 to 6.4.1 flawlessly.

 

Hoping the CPU usage bars get fixed to work with Safari.

Don't count on it.  As far as I know, it's a Safari issue.

Link to post
11 minutes ago, dlandon said:

Don't count on it.  As far as I know, it's a Safari issue.

 

It is going to require us to use something other than 'Basic' http auth.  This is in the works but will be a while.

Link to post

Thank you for new updates for our UNRAID OS V6.4.1 STABLE.. but really honestly when the v6.4 release and RC1 RC2, my VM struggling to boot up, specially for my VM the default BIOS is SEABIOS, but for those my VM the BIOS is OVMF is working fine i boot up my VM for no issue, only this new version has complicate for the SEABIOS.. please LIMETECH, take a look the compatibility for this newer UNRAID into SEABIOS and OVMF..

Link to post
4 hours ago, bonienl said:

I have two VMs, one using SEABIOS and the other one using OVMF. They both work correctly.

 

As a test you can create a new VM and compare the results.

 

 

I really really i don't know why this my Host Machine having issue for the new version, before v6.3 stable my host no problem when i booting my VM the bios is SEABIOS but now when release it i facing the issue for SEABIOS but for making a new Guest VM the bios is OVMF no problem i can boot my VM and seeing the TIANOCORE Logo.. im really sad for what happen in my VM no display for booting..

Link to post
4 minutes ago, etsi said:

Any idea after reboot what is  199    UDMA CRC error count  raw value = 1?

 

See First Post in this Thread:

 

On 1/16/2018 at 11:38 PM, ljm42 said:

Solutions to Common Problems

  • Starting wth 6.4.1, unRAID now monitors SMART attribute 199 (UDMA CRC errors) for you.  If you get an alert about this right after upgrading, you can just acknowledge it, as the error probably happened in the past.  If you get an alert down the road, it is likely due to a loose SATA cable. Reseat both ends, or replace if needed. (see this)

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
10 minutes ago, michael123 said:

Is it a recommended update, or just for these who had specific issues with 6.4.0?

 

Reading about Intel 'fixes' (e.g. from Linus) I would like to hold off anything related to this histeria

 

Did you read the announcement post?

 

Quote

all users are encouraged to update

 

Importantly, in this release we recompiled the kernel with newly released compiler which protects against Spectre variant 2.  You can see the state of mitigation using this command:

 

grep . /sys/devices/system/cpu/vulnerabilities/*

 

Link to post
41 minutes ago, michael123 said:

Is it a recommended update, or just for these who had specific issues with 6.4.0?

 

Reading about Intel 'fixes' (e.g. from Linus) I would like to hold off anything related to this histeria

 

It's pretty valid "hysteria" as far as I can tell...

Admittedly a home server running unRAID may not be the most obvious of targets, but I think the concern has been pretty justified.

Link to post
5 minutes ago, CHBMB said:

 

It's pretty valid "hysteria" as far as I can tell...

Admittedly a home server running unRAID may not be the most obvious of targets, but I think the concern has been pretty justified.

 

Perhaps for home servers sure, but for the cloud providers there is not enough hysteria imho.  One of the Spectre variants remains unmitigated and, afaik, this is the one that lets a VM snoop on memory contents of other VM's on same machine.  The worst part: you cannot tell you've been snooped on.  Of course I guess if you're using cloud computing you go in with this assumption anyway.

Link to post
1 hour ago, limetech said:

 

Perhaps for home servers sure, but for the cloud providers there is not enough hysteria imho.  One of the Spectre variants remains unmitigated and, afaik, this is the one that lets a VM snoop on memory contents of other VM's on same machine.  The worst part: you cannot tell you've been snooped on.  Of course I guess if you're using cloud computing you go in with this assumption anyway.

Yes, for shared servers - i.e. the traditional cloud infrastructure - the vulnerabilities are scary as hell. And hardly anyone seems to care after the first three days of scary news.

 

For unRAID users, it all depends on what the machine is used for. The machine can only be attacked by running untrusted code, which means most unRAID uses are safe because people running the more common Docker like Plex etc have already decided to see these specific applications as trusted.


But in the general case, people still needs to realize that Docker containers and VM will not represent a total protection so any unRAID machine that runs a workstation-class VM has to realize that there are remaining dangers. But there will always be dangers when running untrusted code so users will always be required to make intelligent decisions.

Link to post
24 minutes ago, Jcloud said:

Hmm, odd this was not the case for me, going from 6.4.1-rc to 6.4.1-stable. Edge case?

 

I'm not 100% sure it is needed, but to be safe the OP says "You MAY need to switch from Next to Stable to see the update." Glad you were able to figure it out.

Link to post
46 minutes ago, Jcloud said:

Hmm, odd this was not the case for me, going from 6.4.1-rc to 6.4.1-stable. Edge case?

I believe the logic was changed, or this only happened when running the 6.4.0-rc series, when the previous stable was 6.3.5 and the new stable was 6.4.0.

Pretty specific series of circumstances needed, which were only common for a period of time until the new series of stable and rc were released.

Link to post

The separation of "stable" and "next" was introduced with unRAID 6.4.0 while in the RC phase. unRAID 6.4.1-rc1 had a small revision in the URL for the stable/next referencing.

Depending on where you are coming from (aka which version of unRAID you are running) there are different procedures.

 

Link to post
  • trurl unpinned and locked this topic
  • trurl pinned this topic
  • trurl unpinned this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.