Release Information


Recommended Posts

This is the remnants of the old "unRAID Server Release 5.0-rc3 Available" Topic in the Announcement board, where most of it has been split up into a number of Defect reports and Enhancement requests.  I think I did fairly decent job at breaking up the massive thread, but if you want me to move something around, go ahead post your request in this thread.  You can also just create a new topic yourself according to above instructions.

 

Also, if you notice some of your messages say "Last Edit: ... by limetech", it's just because I changed the message icon, I never alter anyone's post.

 


 

Download | Release Notes

 

Minor kernel update (still 3.0.x though).

 

Spinup bugs fixed.

 

Getting very close to final.

Link to comment
  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Thanks, fingers crossed. No hurry if it needs more work thought. 5.0 should be nothing less than the success  4.7 was.

 

Agreed.

 

I'd be fine if it took two more months, as long as progress is being made to make it perfect.  :)  (Without delaying it to add new features of course)

 

That being said, I wouldn't mind if it got perfect quickly :)

Link to comment

So far so good on my LSI system; Startup/Access/SpinUp/SpinDown/ReAccess working fine.

 

For those running on their own full Slackware distro, the changes involve moving to the latest Linux kernel (3.0.31), the /etc/unraid-version file, changes to /usr/local/sbin/emhttp, /usr/local/sbin/shfs, and /usr/src/linux-*/drivers/md/md.c, and inclusion of Realtek firmware (/lib/firmware/rtl_nic) and the related kernel config change for that.

Link to comment

ok, upgraded from RC2.

 

Weird thing i saw when doing parity check (disks continuously spinning up/down) appears to be good (may've been a once off...not sure)

 

but parity check appears to be slower.

Before i would get up to 85MB/sec...currently the highest i've seen it is at ~55MB/sec

 

but apart from that, running good. Array started straight away.

Link to comment

Some status on NFS would be great - especially from those who have been continually testing it each release.

 

I'd be disappointed if 5 went stable with a primary filesharing mechanism in a broken state.

 

Boof, can you explain briefly what actually happens with NFS? I know it is broken, but in what way? Cheers

Link to comment

Some status on NFS would be great - especially from those who have been continually testing it each release.

 

I'd be disappointed if 5 went stable with a primary filesharing mechanism in a broken state.

 

Boof, can you explain briefly what actually happens with NFS? I know it is broken, but in what way? Cheers

 

I'm not best placed to say really which is why I'm interested in others views.

 

I know personally (on beta12a which is what I'm running due to the m1015 chipset issues, I've not updated to an RC yet) if I use NFS, after a while the client will drop the mounts with stale file handles or just end up with I/O errors.

 

I switched to using samba (with the performance penalty and permissions annoyances involved) quite quickly to get round it but I know other people have reported similar issues in these forums when using NFS.

 

I didn't spend any more time trying to figure out if it was a client issue (though I tested from different ones with the same result) or if there was further info I could get out of unraid.

 

However I know others here did and also continued testing with each beta / rc iteration to see if things were any better.

 

Hence I'd be interested to know if they're still seeing those problems / if limetech is able to reproduce them etc.

 

Going back to NFS for me would be great as it would avoid having to bodge permissions in the samba mount and improve throughput massively.

 

As far as I'm concerned right now NFS (on beta12a) is broken. As I can replicate from multiple clients I don't think it's a client issue and I take similar reports on the forums as validation of that fact. It would be nice to know if those problems are fixed - or if anyone is using NFS in the recent release with no problems which would invalidate my assumption about it being a client issue so I can look to address that myself.

Link to comment

It's suppose to be a release candidate. Where features are frozen and final issues flushed out.

Adding new features would pretty much push this back to beta status since it would have to be tested all over again.

 

Agreed - I wish people would stop with the new feature requests.

 

Getting rid of those posts, plus the posts complaining about them - would make it easier for everyone to concentrate on real issues in this thread without the extra noise.

Link to comment

It's suppose to be a release candidate. Where features are frozen and final issues flushed out.

Adding new features would pretty much push this back to beta status since it would have to be tested all over again.

 

Agreed - I wish people would stop with the new feature requests.

 

Getting rid of those posts, plus the posts complaining about them - would make it easier for everyone to concentrate on real issues in this thread without the extra noise.

 

Yep I just read through a bunch of posts that I shouldn't have needed to. Take it into a new thread. Great to see the RC is going well... getting an itchy trigger finger but I don't have a test VM setup to use with it (nor the drives/controllers hah).

Link to comment

I would even go as far as to say that maybe some features should be disabled in the 5.0 release...

 

From my personal view one of the main reasons for the 5.0 release is >2Tb support. This part has been working since beta1. Problems were with hardware (fixed with the older kernel), AFP en NFS.

 

I don't use AFP/NFS/LSI but would like >2Tb support, so I've been told for more than a year that I should stick with 4.7.....

 

Why not release a 5.0 with >2Tb support, without AFP/NFS support, and tell all those people who want AFP/NFS to stick with 4.7. NFS/AFP can be added in later releases.

 

It would make sense, as there is no workaround for >2Tb support, but there are workarounds for no NFS/AFP (just use Samba).

 

Just my 2ct...

Link to comment

To the people wanting parity speed information... I had parity speed issues after 12a and it wasn't fixed until RC1 (pretty sure due to the kernel downgrade). RC3 is still performing the same as RC1 and RC2 in terms of parity sync speed for me. All is well on my end.

Link to comment

Works great on my ESXi, LSI system.  Full parity check (initially wouldn't shutdown so forced shutdown with subsequent parity check) ran fine overnight.

 

1 Parity, 8 data and 1 cache drives split over two M1015's flashed to IT mode.

 

Web interface said parity check was running pretty consistently 105-115 Mb/Sec.

Link to comment

OK...I am having an issue that I have never experienced with previous builds...

 

I just upgraded from b14...stopped array, replaced bzroot and bzimage and rebooted.  Waited about 5 minutes and tried to acces the GUI and was not able to reach it.  Tried to access the Flash share...not reachable.  System continues to be pingable.

 

I was able to telnet in and I issued a "reboot" command (I wasn't sure if the first reboot actually happened).  This time I pinged the box and saw it go offline.  After a few minutes it came back online.  I am still unable to access the GUI or the Flash share!

 

HELP!!!!  :(

 

Since I am able to telnet in what should I look for?

 

unRAID login: root
Password:
Linux 3.0.31-unRAID.
root@unRAID:~#

 

TIA!

 

John

Link to comment

OK...I am having an issue that I have never experienced with previous builds...

 

I just upgraded from b14...stopped array, replaced bzroot and bzimage and rebooted.  Waited about 5 minutes and tried to acces the GUI and was not able to reach it.  Tried to access the Flash share...not reachable.  System continues to be pingable.

 

I was able to telnet in and I issued a "reboot" command (I wasn't sure if the first reboot actually happened).  This time I pinged the box and saw it go offline.  After a few minutes it came back online.  I am still unable to access the GUI or the Flash share!

 

HELP!!!!  :(

 

Since I am able to telnet in what should I look for?

 

unRAID login: root
Password:
Linux 3.0.31-unRAID.
root@unRAID:~#

 

TIA!

 

John

 

By any chance using simple features plugin ?

i had similar issue .... upgraded to latest simple features and issue was resolved ...

 

 

Link to comment

Just had a couple of issues with RC3 that did not happen with either RC2-Test or RC1, (or b14 for that matter)

 

Was copying approximately 100gig from disk 13 to disk 14 through Windows, and after approximately 10-15 minutes, the copying failed and windows said something to the effect of "Error accessing disk 14"

 

I figured it might be a network issue (was using a Intel Pro/1000 Nic), so reverted to a SysKonnect card.  Same issue.

 

I have reverted back to RC2-Test and the issue dissappeared.

 

Nothing jumped out at me in the log, but at work and unable to attach it

Link to comment

OK...I am having an issue that I have never experienced with previous builds...

 

I just upgraded from b14...stopped array, replaced bzroot and bzimage and rebooted.  Waited about 5 minutes and tried to acces the GUI and was not able to reach it.  Tried to access the Flash share...not reachable.  System continues to be pingable.

 

I was able to telnet in and I issued a "reboot" command (I wasn't sure if the first reboot actually happened).  This time I pinged the box and saw it go offline.  After a few minutes it came back online.  I am still unable to access the GUI or the Flash share!

 

HELP!!!!  :(

 

Since I am able to telnet in what should I look for?

 

unRAID login: root
Password:
Linux 3.0.31-unRAID.
root@unRAID:~#

 

TIA!

 

John

 

By any chance using simple features plugin ?

i had similar issue .... upgraded to latest simple features and issue was resolved ...

 

I am indeed.  :S

 

Can someone tell me how to edit the GO script via telnet?

 

John

Link to comment

To reiterate what has been said - can people posting problems in here only do so with no plugins running? They're muddying the waters tremendously.

 

johnodon - make sure you have simple features removed / uninstalled / not running. Then see if you have a problem. If you don't the the problem is with simplefeatures and you can ask in that forum thread. And if I understand correctly you've now seen the same problem with your old b14 and RC installs. So it's probably not a problem with this RC.

 

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.