Jump to content
limetech

Unraid OS version 6.7 available

320 posts in this topic Last Reply

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, squirrellydw said:

upgrade went smooth, thanks for the great work.  Any idea when secure remote connections will happen?  Would love to log into my server when away.

I installed the openvpn-as docker container which allows me to do exactly this.     It would be nice if it was baked in but the docker solution is an easy alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, ElectricBadger said:

I like the new dashboard, but is it possible for users to reorder the boxes?

 

I'd like to have Parity appear above Shares and Users, as the utilization counters are useful to have on the screen without scrolling (even with Shares and Users collapsed, it doesn't quite fit on a 27" display — Edit: this is with the window sized for two columns. Making the window a bit wider gives a better layout, but it takes up rather a lot of the screen!)

 

Similarly, I'd want to put Motherboard below Processor and Memory in the server view on the left, since it doesn't tend to change much, and you know when you've changed it :)

 

Not suggesting making these changes for everybody, as everybody has different needs — but I can't see any way of reordering them myself.

how did you get the 3 column layout im not seeing it or maybe im blind lol

Share this post


Link to post

I've temporarily disabled VT-d until I get a new card. I had a couple of issues on the 6.7 upgrade.

 

1. The Global Share Settings icon is missing. Or, does it simply not have an icon?

 

2. I had no Internet access. I had to add a default route.

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, nbenis106 said:

how did you get the 3 column layout im not seeing it or maybe im blind lol

I believe it's automatic if you have a wide enough display.

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, rpj2 said:

1. The Global Share Settings icon is missing. Or, does it simply not have an icon?

Def has an icon, maybe clear your browser cache.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, RevelRob said:

Also, if there are problems with this card (or if I *should* eventually replace it), what card would be recommended for SSDs?

ASMedia ASM1061 or ASM1062 based SATA cards work well with Linux and with SSDs.

Share this post


Link to post

Upgraded from 6.6.7 without any major issues and only one minor one. The upgrade took all my services offline but then never rebooted. I was able to ssh in and manually reboot and everything came back up fine (so far.)

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, nbenis106 said:

how did you get the 3 column layout im not seeing it or maybe im blind lol

Make the window wider.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, that is quite the changelog!  Awesome!  Will begin testing immediately...

Share this post


Link to post

updated the hp ml30 g9. seems functional but I don't recall having the following warnings in 6.6.7 (but they could have been there):

 

May 14 10:33:07 Tower kernel: ACPI: Early table checksum verification disabled
May 14 10:33:07 Tower kernel: Warning: node 0 [mem 0x00000000-0x7bffffff] overlaps with itself [mem 0x00100000-0x4a614fff]

 

May 14 10:33:07 Tower kernel: pci 0000:03:00.0: BAR 6: failed to assign [mem size 0x00100000 pref]
May 14 10:33:07 Tower kernel: pci 0000:09:00.0: BAR 6: failed to assign [mem size 0x00100000 pref]

 

 

the two devices with failed memory are 

 

IOMMU group 1:	[8086:1901] 00:01.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation Xeon E3-1200 v5/E3-1500 v5/6th Gen Core Processor PCIe Controller (x16) (rev 07)
[1000:0072] 03:00.0 Serial Attached SCSI controller: Broadcom / LSI SAS2008 PCI-Express Fusion-MPT SAS-2 [Falcon] (rev 03)

IOMMU group 11:	[15b3:6750] 09:00.0 Ethernet controller: Mellanox Technologies MT26448 [ConnectX EN 10GigE, PCIe 2.0 5GT/s] (rev b0)

 

 

But both appear to be functioning. Anything to worry about?

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Dazog said:

It's only a minor kernel bump from our current version 4.19.41 to the fixed version of 4.19.43

I wouldn't be suprised if @limetech release a v6.7.1 at some point.

Still need the paired Intel microcode though....

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, CHBMB said:

It's only a minor kernel bump from our current version 4.19.41 to the fixed version of 4.19.43

I wouldn't be suprised if @limetech release a v6.7.1 at some point.

Still need the paired Intel microcode though....

Yea, no word from AMD yet if it affects them...

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Dazog said:

Yea, no word from AMD yet if it affects them...

I have seen reports that AMD (and ARM) processors are not affected.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, CHBMB said:

It's only a minor kernel bump from our current version 4.19.41 to the fixed version of 4.19.43

I wouldn't be suprised if @limetech release a v6.7.1 at some point.

Still need the paired Intel microcode though....

Yes we're watching this and waiting for the microcode release.

 

Interesting comment from Greg K-H:

Quote

Note, this release, and the other stable releases that are all being released right now at the same time, just went out all contain patches that have only seen the "public eye" for about 5 minutes. So be forwarned, they might break things, they might not build, but hopefully they fix things. Odds are we will be fixing a number of small things in this area for the next few weeks as things shake out on real hardware and workloads. So don't think you are done updating your kernel, you never are done with that :)

 

Doesn't exactly give you the "warm and fuzzies" right?  Then again, could be worse: think of the headaches over at Intel 🤣

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm also having the upgrade issue I think is related to the Marvel controller. Disabling Intel VT-D did not work.

 

This is what I have :

00:11.4 SATA controller: Intel Corporation C610/X99 series chipset sSATA Controller [AHCI mode] (rev 05)
00:1f.2 SATA controller: Intel Corporation C610/X99 series chipset 6-Port SATA Controller [AHCI mode] (rev 05)
81:00.0 SATA controller: Marvell Technology Group Ltd. 88SE9230 PCIe SATA 6Gb/s Controller (rev 11)

 

Also attached diagnostics. I can't seem to make this work. I can't really afford to replace the controller either yet =/

 

Anyone have any other ideas?

asc-unraid01-diagnostics-20190514-2332.zip

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, shinta148 said:

I'm also having the upgrade issue I think is related to the Marvel controller. Disabling Intel VT-D did not work.

 

This is what I have :

00:11.4 SATA controller: Intel Corporation C610/X99 series chipset sSATA Controller [AHCI mode] (rev 05)
00:1f.2 SATA controller: Intel Corporation C610/X99 series chipset 6-Port SATA Controller [AHCI mode] (rev 05)
81:00.0 SATA controller: Marvell Technology Group Ltd. 88SE9230 PCIe SATA 6Gb/s Controller (rev 11)

 

Also attached diagnostics. I can't seem to make this work. I can't really afford to replace the controller either yet =/

 

Anyone have any other ideas?

asc-unraid01-diagnostics-20190514-2332.zip 95.87 kB · 0 downloads

You can try this:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

@limetech

 

sorry for the cross post, but I came here looking to see if the CVE was already addressed.

Edited by zoggy

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, zoggy said:

@limetech

 

sorry for the cross post, but I came here looking to see if the CVE was already addressed.

If you read a few post above yours, you would have known.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, saarg said:

If you read a few post above yours, you would have known.

the logical place is to go look at the security forum section about this issue which had nothing hence why I posted there and noted.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, limetech said:

Doesn't exactly give you the "warm and fuzzies" right?

Another statement to add to the "warm and fuzzies" ... Supposedly up to 10% performance penalty for MDS

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, bonienl said:

Another statement to add to the "warm and fuzzies" ... Supposedly up to 10% performance penalty for MDS

I'm reading that complete mitigation against the MDS flaw requires hyperthreading to be disabled, which will hit the performance of their higher end processors even harder, though Intel is playing it down.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, John_M said:

I'm reading that complete mitigation against the MDS flaw requires hyperthreading to be disabled, which will hit the performance of their higher end processors even harder, though Intel is playing it down.

I think it’s a huge deal. For every generation affected by this (except for the 9th gen), this turns your i7 into an i5. That’s about $100 difference that has now been wasted. I was really looking to use the i7-8700 for my build at the end of the year but I’m almost 100% sure to be switching to Ryzen now.

 

Intel is really screwing over a lot of companies with this dropping of hyperthreading. I read somewhere yesterday that some systems could see a drop as much as 40% in performance. That’s selling a bad bill of goods. They better prepare to get sued to oblivion for this.

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.