Unraid OS version 6.6.1 available


limetech

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, limetech said:

You want it now?  I'll see about getting another release out...

  Hardcore, you guys really are awesome, to consider rolling out another release so soon to please your customers - on a Friday. ;) 

6.6.0-rc4 to 6.6.1-stable nice and boring.  4K versus 1080p versus 1024x768, and everything else, that's got to be tricky with scaling.

 

Thank you Devs for your hard work and expertise, I can't wait to see what's next. :D

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, trurl said:

What does this even mean? I'm guessing you are referring to something else you have posted somewhere but I don't know what.

I assumed it was asking about in-place encryption of drives.  It is definitely not possible at the moment and I am not sure if it has even been suggested as a likely future enhancement.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
22 hours ago, bonienl said:

No, all sizes are relative to the default font size set in the browser. This is normally 16px (medium).

This translates to the following root font sizes:

 

very small = 8px

small = 9px

normal = 10px

large = 11px

very large = 12px

 

The styling sheets in the GUI make use of the 'rem' unit, which scales a font based on the root font size.

E.g.

root font size = normal = 10px

default text = 1.3rem = 13px

header text = 1.4rem = 14px

besides the new font sizes I would love to be able to change / invert the background and text just below the banner in the dark theme! I've already made a black banner ;)

1499730714_Screenshot2018-09-29at17_19_32.thumb.png.e2b1439632fd5dd00605ca29a86dc09e.png

 

Link to comment

Just updated from 6.5.3 to 6.6.1. basic dockers (in sig) no VM's ... all is well. I ran the update assistant before hand which let me know the ancient dynamix plug-in was on my flash so I commented that out (though I don't think it was actually be used since I had all the CA based dynamix plug-ins installed and they stayed after reboot and after upgrade) and made sure all my plugins were up-to-date (CA was out of date).

 

All works well and I mostly like the new UI. Running at 90% scale on a 1920x1200 is pretty close to what I like. In all cases I always prefer "compact" spacing so as not to waste space and get more info. If that means using contrasting colors / borders etc to delineate UI element groups that's my preference over lots of blank space.

 

Well done!

Edited by jumperalex
Link to comment

hello

 

Anyone facing VM initialization issues after upgrade from 6.5.3 to 6.6.0 / 6.6.1  ?

 

My vm's are not starting up. 

in the boot log of vm's i get errors like this one:

Begin: Running /scripts/local-block ... mdadm: CREATE group disk not found

Also i saw in another vm, an error like: Guest has not initialized the display (yet)

(screenshots attached)

 

This is caused by 6.6.0/6.6.1 since i can revert to 6.5.3 and the issue gets solved.

No GPU passthrough.

 

I could not find any similar error in the forum.

 

Thanks,

-d

vmfail661.PNG

vmfail661-2.PNG

Link to comment
On 9/27/2018 at 11:23 PM, limetech said:

 

  • webgui: Docker: cap cpu+memory load at 100%
  •  

Just trying to understand this - are the stats now a % of total system CPU load and available memory, or are they still a % of the allocated cores?

 

Throwing in a quick feature request - it'd be much more helpful if the CPU and memory load column was sortable.  I have a lot of dockers and I have to keep scrolling up and down to view the percentages to look for high numbers

Edited by DZMM
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, DZMM said:

Just trying to understand this - are the stats now a % of total system CPU load and available memory, or are they still a % of the allocated cores?

CPU load as reported by Docker is divided by the number of available cores in the system, basically undoing the multiplication done by Docker and making the scale go from 0% to 100%

Docker reports memory load as a percentage of the total memory.

 

Ps. Docker containers are always listed in order of autostart. Can not be made sortable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, bonienl said:

CPU load as reported by Docker is divided by the number of available cores in the system, basically undoing the multiplication done by Docker and making the scale go from 0% to 100%

Docker reports memory load as a percentage of the total memory.

 

Ps. Docker containers are always listed in order of autostart. Can not be made sortable.

Thanks.  I preferred the other way which was a percent of the allocated cores as the numbers are very low for me as I isolate the majority of my dockers to 3 of my 14 cores, so most of my dockers are never going to exceed 20% whereas the few that have access to all cores e.g. plex could hit 100% - I'm now on the lookout for dockers say exceeding one core 7% on a scale showing 0-100....

 

I'd rather have a consistent view that shows which dockers are taking up a high percentage of their allocated resources i.e. the old view.  I think the confusion in 6.6.0 with the old view was there wasn't any explanation of the numbers or no tooltips/help in the GUI to explain

Link to comment

I am still having issue with NFS on my User shares corrupting the user/ directory

 

updating very early this morning and started watching some shows on my Plex server (same server with NFS enabled so a fedora VM running my reversea proxy with Sonaar, Sabnzb etc.  running on my other unRAID server can connect to manage the downloads and moving of files.

the most i get out of this is about 2 hours after that plex crashes Sab on the other server cant see any mounts at all and i have to reboot.

 

I have since downgraded back again to 6.5.3 on the server that hosts plex and other content but left the one with the Fedora VM on 6.6.1 and has no issues at this time


 

drwxrwxrwx  5 root   root  140 Sep 30 01:59 RecycleBin/

drwxrwxrwx  1 nobody users  50 Sep 30 02:09 cache/

drwxrwxrwx  9 nobody users 139 Sep 30 02:09 disk1/

drwxrwxrwx  3 nobody users  19 Sep 30 02:09 disk10/

drwxrwxrwx  5 nobody users  67 Sep 30 02:09 disk2/

drwxrwxrwx  4 nobody users  46 Sep 30 02:09 disk3/

drwxrwxrwx  6 nobody users  66 Sep 30 02:09 disk4/

drwxrwxrwx  7 nobody users 102 Sep 30 02:09 disk5/

drwxrwxrwx  6 nobody users  84 Sep 30 02:09 disk6/

drwxrwxrwx  7 nobody users 102 Sep 30 02:09 disk7/

drwxrwxrwx 10 nobody users 161 Sep 30 02:09 disk8/

drwxrwxrwx  5 nobody users  68 Sep 30 02:09 disk9/

drwxrwxrwx  2 nobody users  40 Sep 30 01:59 disks/

d?????????  ? ?      ?       ?            ? user/

drwxrwxrwx  1 nobody users 139 Sep 30 02:09 user0/

 

 

 

***edit....I had a thought could that fact that unraid 1 (with fedora VM) that uses NFS mounts to Server 2 be conflicting with a samba mount to the same user share on Server 1 to Server 2 using Unassigned devices?

im updating server 2 back to 6.6.1 to test that theory

Edited by Can0nfan
Link to comment
On 9/29/2018 at 2:41 PM, trurl said:

What does this even mean? I'm guessing you are referring to something else you have posted somewhere but I don't know what.

 

On 9/29/2018 at 3:24 PM, itimpi said:

I assumed it was asking about in-place encryption of drives.  It is definitely not possible at the moment and I am not sure if it has even been suggested as a likely future enhancement.

 

Limetech said itself that they plan on adding in-place encryption of devices in 6.4.0 release notes :)

 

"ALL PREVIOUS DATA ON THAT DEVICE WILL BE DESTROYED. Hence it is not possible, in this release, to encrypt in-place. We plan to add a utility in a future release to accomplish this however." 

 

https://forums.unraid.net/topic/65494-unraid-os-version-640-stable-release-available/

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Can0nfan said:

I am still having issue with NFS on my User shares corrupting the user/ directory

 

updating very early this morning and started watching some shows on my Plex server (same server with NFS enabled so a fedora VM running my reversea proxy with Sonaar, Sabnzb etc.  running on my other unRAID server can connect to manage the downloads and moving of files.

the most i get out of this is about 2 hours after that plex crashes Sab on the other server cant see any mounts at all and i have to reboot.

 

I have since downgraded back again to 6.5.3 on the server that hosts plex and other content but left the one with the Fedora VM on 6.6.1 and has no issues at this time


 

drwxrwxrwx  5 root   root  140 Sep 30 01:59 RecycleBin/

drwxrwxrwx  1 nobody users  50 Sep 30 02:09 cache/

drwxrwxrwx  9 nobody users 139 Sep 30 02:09 disk1/

drwxrwxrwx  3 nobody users  19 Sep 30 02:09 disk10/

drwxrwxrwx  5 nobody users  67 Sep 30 02:09 disk2/

drwxrwxrwx  4 nobody users  46 Sep 30 02:09 disk3/

drwxrwxrwx  6 nobody users  66 Sep 30 02:09 disk4/

drwxrwxrwx  7 nobody users 102 Sep 30 02:09 disk5/

drwxrwxrwx  6 nobody users  84 Sep 30 02:09 disk6/

drwxrwxrwx  7 nobody users 102 Sep 30 02:09 disk7/

drwxrwxrwx 10 nobody users 161 Sep 30 02:09 disk8/

drwxrwxrwx  5 nobody users  68 Sep 30 02:09 disk9/

drwxrwxrwx  2 nobody users  40 Sep 30 01:59 disks/

d?????????  ? ?      ?       ?            ? user/

drwxrwxrwx  1 nobody users 139 Sep 30 02:09 user0/

 

 

 

***edit....I had a thought could that fact that unraid 1 (with fedora VM) that uses NFS mounts to Server 2 be conflicting with a samba mount to the same user share on Server 1 to Server 2 using Unassigned devices?

im updating server 2 back to 6.6.1 to test that theory

I think I finally figured out the issue here @limetech on my server 'unRAIDPro' that this user/ permissions issue was happening on.

my setup that i had this issue on was
unRAIDPlus VM with NFS mounts to unRAIDPro's /mnt/user/Media

unRAIDPlus unassigned devices SMB mount to unRAIDPro /mnt/user/Media

 

I unmounted the SMB from unassigned devices and mounted as NFS and I have a solid 6 hours of uptime (previous record was 2hrs 45min before the user folder permissions issue)

 

never had an issue access same share via SMB and NFS prior to 6.6 so looks like a new bug I will submit it as a bug report

Link to comment
  • limetech unfeatured and unpinned this topic

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.