unRAID Server Release 4.7 "final" Available


limetech

Recommended Posts

damm, this means I have to run the preclear again once I remove HPA ..... right .... okie, my 2TB (without HPA) preclear is almost complete. The other 1TB (HPA) is still running. The question can I stop it in between, without any risks and how. If I have to re run preclear its does not make sence to let it complete .....right .......

 

Thanks for the assistance here

Regards

Sammy

Link to comment
  • Replies 414
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

lol.... that almost complete was no way near actually complate .... the last step itself has taken 10 hrs. Its 18 Hrs in total and its still going ...... its excruciatingly slow man .......it still 50% left of the last step ...... I hope this is worth ..... :)

Link to comment

I have a question, since this preclearing takes too long a time, once my 2TB preclearing is done can I start preclearing my other 1TB drive and at the same time, add my 2TB drive to my array via disk management tool and then continue working on it, (like creating shares, copying data etc etc)  while all this the preclearing continues to work at the background for my 1TB drive.

 

Regards

Sammy

Link to comment

Sure. Actually you could have been preclearing both the 1TB and 2TB drives at the same time.

 

Just so you are aware, when you add a drive, it will need to be pre-cleared. Either by Joe L.'s preclear script (best approach) or unRaid will do it if it doesn't find the "preclear signature" on the drive.

 

The MAIN difference is that with Joe L.'s preclear script, you can be running that in the background while you have the Array up and running. Otherwise, if you let unRaid do it, the Array will be "offline" the entire time of the drive being cleared.

 

Link to comment
The MAIN difference is that with Joe L.'s preclear script, you can be running that in the background while you have the Array up and running. Otherwise, if you let unRaid do it, the Array will be "offline" the entire time of the drive being cleared.

 

 

The other, very significant difference, is that Joe's preclear script spends a lot of its time doing read checks on the drive such that you can have a high degree of confidence in the health of the drive.  The unRAID clearing simply does the writes with little, or no, checking.

Link to comment

Sure. Actually you could have been preclearing both the 1TB and 2TB drives at the same time.

 

Just so you are aware, when you add a drive, it will need to be pre-cleared. Either by Joe L.'s preclear script (best approach) or unRaid will do it if it doesn't find the "preclear signature" on the drive.

 

The MAIN difference is that with Joe L.'s preclear script, you can be running that in the background while you have the Array up and running. Otherwise, if you let unRaid do it, the Array will be "offline" the entire time of the drive being cleared.

 

 

Thank you grawwolf for clearing the doubt here. Actually I did start the preclearing for both of my 1TB and 2TB drive. But the 1TB drive had that HPA thingi on it, which I came to know needs to be removed first. I had no idea how to stop the preclearing (neither did anyone responded on my that query "few post above"), so I let both the preclearing continue (but I was only able to monitor the non HPA one from browser, may be because of that HPA itself). The 1TB got completed a couple of hours ago and the 2TB one shuld be complete in the next couple of hours. I will have to restart the 1TB preclearing again after HPA removal and hence the query if I can continue working on the other completed dive (its been a loooooonnngg wait .. :) ) Seems I can, thanks for the confirmation again.

 

This is my first venture in to a NON windows OS, infact my first venture in to my own NAS. So I am excited to set it up. There are loads of things I want to do with my NAS and so lots of obvious questions would be there, I hope to get respectable resopnse from the fellow gurus here. Good to be a part of unRAID family ... :)

 

Regards

Sammy

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...

I realize there's probably a snowball's chance in Hades this wish will be granted, but I've been a happy customer of 4.x, and have no desire for additional functionality beyond 3TB drive support.  For the past few months I've been watching the 5.x releases, and none seem as stable as good ol' 4.x. 

 

If it's not an unreasonable amount of effort, I'd love to have 3TB support rolled into 4.x; at that point I'd have all I require of unRAID.

 

Link to comment

If it's not an unreasonable amount of effort, I'd love to have 3TB support rolled into 4.x;

 

It is an unreasonable amount of effort. Support the > 2.1 TB drives requires a newer Linux kernel and tools, which is essentially what the unRAID 5.x series is.

 

It is not an unreasonable request though, seeing how the unRAID 5.x series has been in beta for 14 months already, and the end is anyone's bet.  What's unreasonable is that the stable release has been practically abandoned, without any new stable version to replace it.

 

 

Link to comment

purko, you make a good point, hopefully we can move to 4.7.1 stable shortly. I am content to have a stable release that supports advanced format drives for the time being without any quirks.

 

If it's not an unreasonable amount of effort, I'd love to have 3TB support rolled into 4.x;

 

It is an unreasonable amount of effort. Support the > 2.1 TB drives requires a newer Linux kernel and tools, which is essentially what the unRAID 5.x series is.

 

It is not an unreasonable request though, seeing how the unRAID 5.x series has been in beta for 14 months already, and the end is anyone's bet.  What's unreasonable is that the stable release has been practically abandoned, without any new stable version to replace it.

 

 

Link to comment
What's unreasonable is that the stable release has been practically abandoned, without any new stable version to replace it.

 

If it's a 'stable' release, I wonder why it needs a new 'stable' release to replace it???  Isn't it normal for the old major release to become static once development starts on the next major release?

Link to comment

Isn't it normal for the old major release to become static once development starts on the next major release?

Well, not THAT static!  They should at least be fixing known bugs.  And what's wrong with asking for 3TB support when 4TB disks are already here?  Keep in mind, we can't use beta software on production servers.  Not to mention, the kernel in 4.7 is nine stable kernels old; lots of new hardware has been added since.

 

 

Link to comment

Isn't it normal for the old major release to become static once development starts on the next major release?

Well, not THAT static!  They should at least be fixing known bugs.

 

Okay, I accept that, and Tom did suggest that he would be releasing a 4.7.1 with no other changes than this bug fix.  However, as I understand it, that fault has been present for a long, long, time and has never been implicated when problems have been reported in the past.

 

And what's wrong with asking for 3TB support when 4TB disks are already here?

 

The addition of >2.2TB support is one of the major enhancements in 5.0 and, as I understand it, the underlying changes to add this support, are the most significant reason for delays in the release.  To add >2.2TB support to 4.7 would, effectively, be a re-invention of 5.0.  I'm pretty sure that it ain't gonna happen!

Link to comment

The addition of >2.2TB support is one of the major enhancements in 5.0 and, as I understand it, the underlying changes to add this support, are the most significant reason for delays in the release.  To add >2.2TB support to 4.7 would, effectively, be a re-invention of 5.0.  I'm pretty sure that it ain't gonna happen!

Exactly, the only parts missing would be the new GUI and setting services to run as "nobody"

Those parts (the new GUI and running services as "nobody" are very stable)...

it is the newer Linux kernel and disk controller drivers that have been buggy.

Link to comment

The addition of >2.2TB support is one of the major enhancements in 5.0 and, as I understand it, the underlying changes to add this support, are the most significant reason for delays in the release.  To add >2.2TB support to 4.7 would, effectively, be a re-invention of 5.0.

 

Sorry, but I'm not buying that the goal of 5.0 was to bring 3TB support.  If you've followed the announcements from the beginning, their idea was just to make a fancier web-interface, without much changes to the core.  The 3TB hack was put together in beta-7.  Anyway, I didn't mean to go into discussions about how hard/easy it may be.  I am simply saying that I want 3TB support in unRaid.  (And before other people start telling me that unRaid already has 3TB support: It doesn't.)

 

 

Link to comment

my 2c.

4.7 should be finalized with a bug free 4.7.1

Although I have no evidence I've encountered the bug. I'm sure I may have as I usually do use the array even though I am rebuilding a drive. Since there isn't a tool to md5 sum check and verify every file. It would not be inconceivable that this bug has altered data without detection.

 

A higher effort should be put into finishing up whatever is needed for 5.0.

14 months in beta is kinda long and we need to finish that up.

Link to comment

Sorry, but I'm not buying that the goal of 5.0 was to bring 3TB support.  If you've followed the announcements from the beginning, their idea was just to make a fancier web-interface, without much changes to the core.  The 3TB hack was put together in beta-7.

 

I didn't claim otherwise.  Yes, there was a demand for >2.2TB support and Tom added it ahead of the planned timescale.  To call it a 'hack' would seem, to me, to be discourteous to Tom and dismissive of all the efforts he puts in to unRAID.

 

Anyway, I didn't mean to go into discussions about how hard/easy it may be.  I am simply saying that I want 3TB support in unRaid.  (And before other people start telling me that unRaid already has 3TB support: It doesn't.)

 

Sure, for those who are obliged to observe semantics, there is no 'stable' release with >2.2TB support.  However, it is naive to believe that the support would arrive any sooner if it were to be 'hacked' into a v4.x release.

 

v5 is the release with the later linux kernel, which is necessary for the >2.2TB support.  Remembering that unRAID is a spare time/part time project for Tom, we must all be prepared to wait until that release can be declared 'free of all known bugs' before the tag 'stable' can be applied.  If the delay is unacceptable to you, then you may have to look for alternative solutions to your needs.

Link to comment

Sorry, but I'm not buying that the goal of 5.0 was to bring 3TB support.  If you've followed the announcements from the beginning, their idea was just to make a fancier web-interface, without much changes to the core.  The 3TB hack was put together in beta-7.

 

I didn't claim otherwise.  Yes, there was a demand for >2.2TB support and Tom added it ahead of the planned timescale.  To call it a 'hack' would seem, to me, to be discourteous to Tom and dismissive of all the efforts he puts in to unRAID.

 

Why do you take 'hack' to mean a negative thing?  From what I hear, that particular 'hack' is working very well.  Sadly, it's not in the official release.

 

Remembering that unRAID is a spare time/part time project for Tom, we must all be prepared to wait until that release can be declared 'free of all known bugs' before the tag 'stable' can be applied.  If the delay is unacceptable to you, then you may have to look for alternative solutions to your needs.

 

What does "spare time/part time project" even mean, when Limetech is a legitimate company that charges money for their software?  And are you speaking of behalf of Limetech when you're telling me to go *** myself elsewhere?

 

See, I am not "discourteous to Tom", or "dismissive of all the efforts he puts in to unRAID".  You could giult me with such arguments if I was taking the fruits of his labor for free.  But since I pay for unRaid, I am equally greatful to Tom as I am grateful to the people who made my TV, or to those who made my toaster.  Nothing disrespectful here.

 

 

Link to comment

Sorry, but I'm not buying that the goal of 5.0 was to bring 3TB support.  If you've followed the announcements from the beginning, their idea was just to make a fancier web-interface, without much changes to the core.  The 3TB hack was put together in beta-7.

 

I didn't claim otherwise.  Yes, there was a demand for >2.2TB support and Tom added it ahead of the planned timescale.  To call it a 'hack' would seem, to me, to be discourteous to Tom and dismissive of all the efforts he puts in to unRAID.

 

Why do you take 'hack' to mean a negative thing?

 

From this definition of 'hack'.

 

Remembering that unRAID is a spare time/part time project for Tom, we must all be prepared to wait until that release can be declared 'free of all known bugs' before the tag 'stable' can be applied.  If the delay is unacceptable to you, then you may have to look for alternative solutions to your needs.

 

What does "spare time/part time project" even mean, when Limetech is a legitimate company that charges money for their software?

 

As I have stated before in these forums, I have a very strong suspicion that Tom does not earn a living wage from unRAID sales and that he has, therefore, to concentrate on other projects in order to survive.  If I am wrong on this score, then I sincerely apologise to all involved, but I am basing my suspicion on personal experience of a 'home' project that was then brought to market.

 

 

And are you speaking of behalf of Limetech when you're telling me to go *** myself elsewhere?

 

I'm not sure what '***' means but I thought that I was (politely) suggesting that if one product does not entirely meet your needs, then it may be appropriate to review what other products are available.  Of course I am not speaking on behalf of Limetech - I have no connection with the company other than that of being a customer ... just like you (I presume).

Link to comment

I have a very strong suspicion that Tom does not earn a living wage from unRAID sales

You have no way of knowing any of this, as Limetch is not publicly traded.

For all appearances, it is a for-profit company, and is still in business.

(If you still want to make guesses though, here's a hint.)

But all this is irrelevant, really.

 

 

Link to comment

Why do you take 'hack' to mean a negative thing?  From what I hear, that particular 'hack' is working very well.  Sadly, it's not in the official release.

 

Hack has a sort of negative connotation to it.

As if the >2.2TB support is an afterthought and the code was chopped up to support it.

Was it a planned change, yes. It was on the roadmap and I think after some threads ideas were presented that made the reality of this change available earlier in the 5.x release.

 

Link to comment

It was on the roadmap and I think after some threads ideas were presented that made the reality of this change available earlier in the 5.x release.

But Weebobo, that's my point: There's no 5.x release.  There's no ETA for it.  I remember back when -- it was about four months into the 5.x-betas -- when I made a comment something like, at that rate it may well take another four months before the thing gets to stable release...  people ganged up on me and called me negative and pessimistic. :)  It's kind of funny now, how overly optimistic that turned out to be.  Dare I make a simillar comment today? At this rate, and still without any ETA, I won't be surprised if it takes another two years for 5.x to get to stable release.  There.  Put me on the stake and fire it up.

 

------

(December 09, 2009, 01:03:49 PM: "I've already started work on the 5.0 release")

 

 

Link to comment

I know Tom's got important things going on in his life. Good, but important. Cut him a lil slack for now.

 

From past experience we've seen releases in Oct and/or at the end of the year in Dec.

I would not be surprised it that becomes a release timeframe for 5.x.

Nothing has been published, so don't hold me to it. It's just been a pattern I've noticed.

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.