unRAID Server Release 4.7 "final" Available


limetech

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 414
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

They look harmless.  The ACPI warnings only matter if your system is not booting or running fine, and if not, you would look for a BIOS update or wait for a future Linux kernel in unRAID.  The "DMA disabled" messages are not errors, just informational, and are because you have not enabled DMA for your IDE drives in the BIOS settings.  If you aren't using IDE drives, then you don't care.

Link to comment

Just a quick question regarding ReiserFS on the new 4K aligned drives.  In the past I had to recover the contents of a single Unraid disk due to a multi-drive failure that marked a good drive as bad.  Anyway I used a Windows-based ReiserFS driver to access and copy the contents.  Is this going to be a problem with an Advanced Format drive?  I know it probably depends on the driver. But I know the program was a bit obscure and hard to find and seemed like it hadn't been updated in a while, I just don't want to format new drives in a way that makes recovery more difficult...

Link to comment

Just a quick question regarding ReiserFS on the new 4K aligned drives.  In the past I had to recover the contents of a single Unraid disk due to a multi-drive failure that marked a good drive as bad.  Anyway I used a Windows-based ReiserFS driver to access and copy the contents.  Is this going to be a problem with an Advanced Format drive?  I know it probably depends on the driver. But I know the program was a bit obscure and hard to find and seemed like it hadn't been updated in a while, I just don't want to format new drives in a way that makes recovery more difficult...

It should not change anything.  Windows should work with the partition starting on sector 64 just fine.
Link to comment

Joe and Rob, thanks for taking time to look at my log messages.    :)

 

Now I can move forward and try set up the file system for SageTV, then start copying recordings over from the old WHS system while I work on building a new SageTV 7 box.  I'd really like to run SageTV 7 on the same unRAID box, but don't think it will work **sigh**.

Link to comment

Greetings,

I upgraded to 4.7 today and had 2 disks show up being the wrong size. I searched the syslog and discovered that both have HPA detected on them. I am using a Gigabyte board but HPA has been off since before installing unraid. I was about to run the hdparm command that Joe L. recommended, but then wondered if there is any greater danger when 2 disks are affected. Just thought I'd check before going ahead.

Cheers

Link to comment

Greetings,

I upgraded to 4.7 today and had 2 disks show up being the wrong size. I searched the syslog and discovered that both have HPA detected on them. I am using a Gigabyte board but HPA has been off since before installing unraid. I was about to run the hdparm command that Joe L. recommended, but then wondered if there is any greater danger when 2 disks are affected. Just thought I'd check before going ahead.

Cheers

The specific "number" you use to set the size will depend on your disk.  But since there was a example just a few posts ago, use it as your guide.  You want to set the native number of sectors. You want a leading "p" to request it be permanent.

 

You will probably have to force the array back online, as you will, in effect, have two different drives.

 

Or, you might want to downgrade to 4.6 and remove the HPA there, then upgrade to 4.7.

 

To force the array back online, you'll need to use the "trust my parity" procedure as described in the wiki.  You must let the parity check complete.  Expect it to find errors near the end of the drive. It will correct them.

 

Joe L.

 

Link to comment

Thanks for the prompt reply, Joe. After looking at the syslog, it turns out the size is identical to the previous example - both disks are SAMSUNG HD103UJ (current 1953523055, native 1953525168). I'll do as you suggest, downgrade to 4.6 and get rid of HPA there, upgrade to 4.7 and then use the "trust my parity" procedure. I guess this is it here - http://lime-technology.com/wiki/index.php?title=Make_unRAID_Trust_the_Parity_Drive,_Avoid_Rebuilding_Parity_Unnecessarily

Cheers

Link to comment

What do you mean when you say reconstruct the drive? Is that the hdparm command? After downgrading to 4.6, I used telnet to run the hdparm command on each drive separately. I received the same results as peter_sm. I then upgraded to 4.7 and rebooted, and followed the instructions for "trust the parity". The server is currently running a parity check - about 8 hours to go.

Thanks so much for your help with this!

Cheers

Link to comment

Here's a torrent of this release with the Lime Technology server as a web seed. Even if no one is seeding the torrent, your client should still download the file directly from Lime Technology's server.

http://burnbit.com/download/162518/unRAID_Server_4_7_AiO_zip

 

Here are the tracker details:

http://burnbit.com/torrent/162518/unRAID_Server_4_7_AiO_zip

 

Just for safety, if you download through the links above, or any other source, torrent or not, please make sure that the MD5 of the downloaded zip file matches the following:

 

  DA9CCB8969AB71C87654DB4218786CD0  unRAID Server 4.7 AiO.zip

Link to comment

Here's a torrent of this release with the Lime Technology server as a web seed. Even if no one is seeding the torrent, your client should still download the file directly from Lime Technology's server.

http://burnbit.com/download/162518/unRAID_Server_4_7_AiO_zip

 

Here are the tracker details:

http://burnbit.com/torrent/162518/unRAID_Server_4_7_AiO_zip

 

Just for safety, if you download through the links above, or any other source, torrent or not, please make sure that the MD5 of the downloaded zip file matches the following:

 

  DA9CCB8969AB71C87654DB4218786CD0  unRAID Server 4.7 AiO.zip

 

For sure, not checking is a great way to get a back door inserted into your network.  If Tom is going to allow torrenting via burnbit (or any other tracker) he needs to post the MD5 hash of the file and inform users to check the hash once the download is finished!

 

And if Tom doesn't want to allow torrenting via this "service" here are the instructions to request a DMCA takedown.

Link to comment

Hi,

 

I saw the discussion about leaving the jumper on WD EAR drive while upgrading from 4.5/4.6 to 4.7. What if I never used the jumper with those drives? Is there any side effect that I should be aware of? As I didn't use the jumper, I assume it was formatted as a standard drive (starting at position 63). Will it change something? Is there any risk for the data?

 

I've read a few thread on these new advanced drive (4K) and being fully aligned and compatible with this should help read/write performance because we are dealing with larger block, is that correct? If so, assuming nothing is wrong with letting the WD EAR with no jumper as they are and just upgrading from 4.6 to 4.7, should I see any performance impact at all (positive or negative) or it will just be the same?

 

Thank you.

 

ehfortin

Link to comment

Hi,

 

I saw the discussion about leaving the jumper on WD EAR drive while upgrading from 4.5/4.6 to 4.7. What if I never used the jumper with those drives? Is there any side effect that I should be aware of? As I didn't use the jumper, I assume it was formatted as a standard drive (starting at position 63). Will it change something?

Nothing will change. Your drive will work as it does today.
Is there any risk for the data?
No.

I've read a few thread on these new advanced drive (4K) and being fully aligned and compatible with this should help read/write performance because we are dealing with larger block, is that correct?

Not exactly...The larger 4k sector size helps the drive pack more bits on a given platter since it can use better error checking internally to validate the data it is reading.  It probably has nothing directly to do with performance however rotational speed and bit density on the disk will dictate the overall read/write performance.  (In other words, the higher bit density results in improved performance) 

 

The proper 4k alignment will help since the disk will not have to read the first part of a requested set of sectors from one physical sector and the remainder from the following physical sector. For that reason it is faster if the physical alignment is the same as the logical alignment.  The internal buffer memory in the disk makes this less of an issue with larger files since the disk will typically read the entire track and buffer the remaining in anticipation you'll be reading sectors in sequence.  Therefore, for use when storing movies, music, there is less impact to performance then when storing small files. (under 4k in size)

If so, assuming nothing is wrong with letting the WD EAR with no jumper as they are and just upgrading from 4.6 to 4.7, should I see any performance impact at all (positive or negative) or it will just be the same?
Performance will be exactly the same.

Thank you.

 

ehfortin

You are welcome.

 

Joe L.

Link to comment

For sure, not checking is a great way to get a back door inserted into your network.  If Tom is going to allow torrenting via burnbit (or any other tracker) he needs to post the MD5 hash of the file and inform users to check the hash once the download is finished!

 

For each download, there is a box called 'Details'.  If you click on that you can see the MD5 of the zip file.

Link to comment

After removing the HPA from both drives, a parity check showed 2 errors. I then ran a second parity check, which just completed showing no errors. I have not yet changed the Default partition format to MBR: 4k-aligned - once I do that, is there any need to run another parity check?

Thanks again for your help, Joe.

Cheers

Link to comment

After removing the HPA from both drives, a parity check showed 2 errors. I then ran a second parity check, which just completed showing no errors.

good
I have not yet changed the Default partition format to MBR: 4k-aligned - once I do that, is there any need to run another parity check?
No.

Thanks again for your help, Joe.

Cheers

You are welcome.  Unless you have a BIOS that disables the HPA creation "feature" by default you are sitting on a ticking time-bomb.  Glad you are ok for now.

 

Joe L.

Link to comment
Unless you have a BIOS that disables the HPA creation "feature" by default you are sitting on a ticking time-bomb.

I have the latest bios installed for the board - GA-P35-DS3P (updated prior to installing unraid). In later bios releases Gigabyte must have wised up to the problems that HPA was creating and by default it was turned off. The affected drives were installed in other systems prior to being included in the unraid array, so no doubt HPA was added to the drives at an earlier point.

Cheers

Link to comment

Great!! I have 2TB WDEARS(with a jumper on) as a parity and 2 Samsung F4s(with the data full) in the array and one more F4 that is not in the array yet but had been pre-cleard. Any idea how I can improve their performances? Should I just re-format 2 data drives one by one and re-build from parity to take 4K aligned advantage? Thanks & you guys rock! The best community board I've ever seen!  ;D

Link to comment

I just bought a WD EARS 2TB drive, this is my first 2TB drive and as such was planning to use it as my parity drive.  Since 4.7 is final  I have a quick question, since it is an advanced format drive is there any problem using this as my parity drive since it will be the only one in my system?

I am also out of sata ports so my plan is to give up/unassign my cache drive, install the new drive and attach it to the cache drive sata port, run the new preclear script with the –A option, then remove the old parity drive  (1 TB WD Black) and replace it with the  new WDEARS 2TB, rebuild parity, parity check???,  then use the old parity drive to replace my  1 TB WD EARS (should I preclear it first?), then rebuild the data for this drive, then remove the jumper from my 1 TB WD EARS and preclear it with the –A option and replace my smallest drive (300GB).  Then when I am all done I will hook the cache drive back up and have a 300GB drive as a spare until I purchase the supermicro AV8.

Am I on the right track?

 

Link to comment

markjkim:

Should I just re-format 2 data drives one by one and re-build from parity to take 4K aligned advantage?

 

That is certainly possible, but be forewarned that there is a risk of data loss if one of your other drives were to die during the re-build process.  I would recommend running a full parity check BEFORE attempting anything else.  I would also use Joe's Preclear script with the new -A option to align the drive, instead of letting unRAID do it for you.  It should work either way, but I guess I just trust preclear more since it tests the drive in other ways as well.

 

goinsnoopin:

I just bought a WD EARS 2TB drive, this is my first 2TB drive and as such was planning to use it as my parity drive.  Since 4.7 is final  I have a quick question, since it is an advanced format drive is there any problem using this as my parity drive since it will be the only one in my system?

 

No problem with that, it will work fine.

 

I am also out of sata ports so my plan is to give up/unassign my cache drive, install the new drive and attach it to the cache drive sata port, run the new preclear script with the –A option, then remove the old parity drive  (1 TB WD Black) and replace it with the  new WDEARS 2TB, rebuild parity, parity check???

 

This is all fine.

 

...then use the old parity drive to replace my  1 TB WD EARS (should I preclear it first?)

 

Not strictly required to preclear it, but it is always a good idea.  If you are running it with a jumper currently, then leave the jumper on and preclear it normally.  If you are running it without a jumper, then preclear it with the -A option to align it.

 

...then rebuild the data for this drive, then remove the jumper from my 1 TB WD EARS and preclear it with the –A option and replace my smallest drive (300GB).

 

Again, there's no reason to remove a jumper from a drive that is already in use.  You will gain NO performance benefit.  The only thing you'll gain for your trouble is an extra jumper.  I recommend leaving the jumper on and skipping this step.

 

Then when I am all done I will hook the cache drive back up and have a 300GB drive as a spare until I purchase the supermicro AV8.

 

I assume you mean the Supermicro AOC-SASLP-MV8.

Link to comment

Rajahal,

 

Thanks for the response.  The reason I am tempted to remove the jumper on my 1 TB drive is that it is the only other advanced format drive in my box.  My thought is that as I continue to replace drives they will in all likely hood be advanced format drives, and who knows what the future will hold for performance or some other benefit.

 

Dan

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.