OS6 now works on x86 Legacy WARNING: NO NTGR SUPPORT!

[ATCIS]

Iridabike wrote:
That's reduced it to around 100 hours -Thanks. Still seems a long time though.

So has your RAID Array re-sync finished yet? It looks like your NAS is configured in a similar fashion to the one I have been stress testing with OS6. When I expanded my array from 5 drives to 6, the process took approximately 32 hours.

Please report back when yours finishes. I'd be curious to hear how long yours took.

P.S.: What type of drives are you using?

[Iridabike]

No its still syncing with another 70+ hours to go. The drives are WD 2TB reds. I went from raid 5 to 6. I have a 6700 processor with 4GB of ram - cant believe the sync can take so long.
My next step is to add another to expand my storage. Probably do this when I go away....

[ATCIS]

Okay folks here's a new one:

About and hour ago I rebooted a ReadyNAS Ultra 4 with four 1TB drives. I did this about 30 minutes after deleting a share from the GUI that had about 80% of the data volume's files in it. I rebooted because the pie charts and graphs in the GUI were not reflecting any change of available free space. After the reboot, the GUI did reflect quite a bit more free space in the data volume, but now every 10 minutes I'm getting sent an E-Mail that says:

System volume 'root' usage is 91 %. This condition should not occur in normal conditions. Please contact technical support.

System volume 'root' usage is 100 %. This condition should not occur in normal conditions. Please contact technical support.

System volume 'root' usage is 99 %. This condition should not occur in normal conditions. Please contact technical support.

System volume 'root' usage is 99 %. This condition should not occur in normal conditions. Please contact technical support.

Etc., etc., etc. over and over.

From the command line I ran:

df

which resulted in

Filesystem      1K-blocks      Used  Available Use% Mounted on
rootfs            4192192   3505532      48140  99% /
tmpfs               10240         4      10236   1% /dev
/dev/md0          4192192   3505532      48140  99% /
tmpfs             2021468         0    2021468   0% /dev/shm
tmpfs             2021468      4544    2016924   1% /run
tmpfs             2021468         0    2021468   0% /sys/fs/cgroup
tmpfs             2021468         0    2021468   0% /media
/dev/md127     2915731968 866720844 1933903372  31% /data
/dev/md127     2915731968 866720844 1933903372  31% /home
/dev/md127     2915731968 866720844 1933903372  31% /apps

Help! I have no clue how to troubleshoot this one.
Thanks in advance!

[mdgm-ntgr]

Your 4GB OS partition is full.

You can use the du command to find out what's filling it up.

You could start by doing e.g.

# du -csh /var/log

[ATCIS]

mdgm wrote:
du -csh /var/log

Results in:

121M	/var/log
121M	total

Pardon my ignorance, but that means nothing to me. . . :oops:

[mdgm-ntgr]

That means 121MB of the 4GB is in use in /var/log, so the problem is somewhere else. There's probably a folder somewhere with roughly 3GB in use that is on the OS partition (not on your data volume(s)).

[ATCIS]

mdgm wrote:
That means 121MB of the 4GB is in use in /var/log, so the problem is somewhere else. There's probably a folder somewhere with roughly 3GB in use that is on the OS partition (not on your data volume(s)).

Is there some sort of filter, option, or pipe that I can use in conjunction with "du" that would give me a summary list of the directory tree from largest to smallest (or vice versa) so I can figure out what directory to start looking in?

EDIT: Never mind. I think I figured that one out on my own. I used:

du -h --max-depth=1 /

Which resulted in:

7.1M	/bin
0	/boot
4.0K	/dev
6.4M	/etc
72K	/home
21M	/lib
4.0K	/lib64
0	/media
0	/mnt
5.0M	/opt
0	/proc
24K	/root
4.5M	/run
8.2M	/sbin
0	/selinux
0	/srv
0	/sys
52K	/tmp
444M	/usr
2.8G	/var
18M	/frontview
2.8T	/data
928K	/apps
2.8T	/

It looks like there is something going on in /var. . .

[super_poussin]

find {/path/to/directory} -type f -size +{file-size-in-kb}k -exec ls -lh {} \; | awk '{ print $8 ": " $5 }' 

[super_poussin]

or

find . -type f -print0 | xargs -0 du -s | sort -n | tail -10 | cut -f2 | xargs -I{} du -sh {}

[mdgm-ntgr]

Yes it is in /var, just not in /var/log

Let us know what filled it up.

[ATCIS]

mdgm wrote:
Yes it is in /var, just not in /var/log Let us know what filled it up.

So this particular ReadyNAS is running as a Network Video Recorder (Not NETGEAR's prohibitively expensive one). All the actual video gets deposited into /data/NVR/Video/*.* so not problem there. However, the NVR Database (MongoDB) resides in '/var/lib/nvr/db/' and '/var/lib/nvr/db/journal'.

So my dilemma now is what do I do? Can I somehow move the database somewhere else where there is more room? Can the rootfs be enlarged to say 8GB's from 4GB's. I mean this database is only going to get bigger over time, and now that I'm at 99%, there is no more room for it to grow.

Anyone got any ideas?

[super_poussin]

perhaps a symlink ?

you move the database somewhere with space in /data/xxxx then to a symling to the original place

[mdgm-ntgr]

Or does the NVR software have a configuration file allowing you to specify the location to store the DB so you could specify a path e.g. /data/NVR/database

[ATCIS]

super-poussin wrote:
perhaps a symlink ? you move the database somewhere with space in /data/xxxx then to a symling to the original place

Yeah I was kind'a thinking the same thing. Okay now I have to learn how to do that in Linux. A Google'ing I go, a Google'ing I go, high ho the dairy'o a Google'ing I go!
:google:

Oh and by the way, many thanks to super-poussin for these:

find {/path/to/directory} -type f -size +{file-size-in-kb}k -exec ls -lh {} \; | awk '{ print $8 ": " $5 }' 

find . -type f -print0 | xargs -0 du -s | sort -n | tail -10 | cut -f2 | xargs -I{} du -sh {}

I didn't use them this time but I'm sure I will in the future. . .

[super_poussin]

mkdir -p /data/nvr/lib/nvr/db/
mv /var/lib/nvr/db/* /data/nvr/lib/nvr/db/
rm -r /var/lib/nvr
ln -s /data/nvr/lib/nvr /var/lib/

ps : make a ls -al /var/lib to check ownaer and rights you have on nvr directory to apply them again

[ATCIS]

Thanks again to all of you that replied with helpful suggestions. :worship: The command 'df' now shows:

root@ReadyNAS-U4:/# df
Filesystem      1K-blocks      Used  Available Use% Mounted on
rootfs            4192192    957856    2577672  28% /
tmpfs               10240         4      10236   1% /dev
/dev/md0          4192192    957856    2577672  28% /
tmpfs             2021468         0    2021468   0% /dev/shm
tmpfs             2021468      4540    2016928   1% /run
tmpfs             2021468         0    2021468   0% /sys/fs/cgroup
tmpfs             2021468         0    2021468   0% /media
/dev/md127     2915731968 869288756 1931342132  32% /data
/dev/md127     2915731968 869288756 1931342132  32% /home
/dev/md127     2915731968 869288756 1931342132  32% /apps

So I went from a 'rootfs' at 99% down to 28%. So that I might get a better idea as to what is normal, I'd like to hear some feedback to as to what some of you other folks running OS6 have for 'rootfs' percent of utilization.
Cheers!

[mdgm-ntgr]

28% is fine. I have a system that isn't doing much at the moment which has an OS partition which is 15% full.

[spirit11]

I am having ReadyNAS 2100 and i have 4 HDD. 2 - 2TB in bay1 and bay2. 2-1TB in bay3 and bay4.

From the UI, i can see only two 2TB HDD from system -> Volumes.

Please look at my "cat /proc/mdstat"

Personalities : [raid0] [raid1] [raid10] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4]
md126 : active raid5 sda3[0] sdd3[3] sdc3[2] sdb3[1]
      2915731968 blocks super 1.2 level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/4] [UUUU]

md127 : active raid1 sda4[0] sdb4[1]
      976622784 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU]

md1 : active raid6 sda2[0] sdd2[3] sdc2[2] sdb2[1]
      1047936 blocks super 1.2 level 6, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/4] [UUUU]

md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdd1[3] sdc1[2] sdb1[1]
      4192192 blocks super 1.2 [4/4] [UUUU]

unused devices: <none>

and "df -h"

Filesystem      Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
rootfs          4.0G  786M  2.6G  23% /
tmpfs            10M  4.0K   10M   1% /dev
/dev/md0        4.0G  786M  2.6G  23% /
tmpfs           494M     0  494M   0% /dev/shm
tmpfs           494M  5.9M  488M   2% /run
tmpfs           494M     0  494M   0% /sys/fs/cgroup
tmpfs           494M     0  494M   0% /media
/dev/md126      3.7T  829G  2.7T  24% /data
/dev/md126      3.7T  829G  2.7T  24% /home
/dev/md126      3.7T  829G  2.7T  24% /apps

Please help me how i can recover the 2 - 1TB disk in the UI.

[noxius]

Hey,

can anybody tell me how to downgrade from 6.0.8 to "old" 4 firmware, since my system is not running how it should.... (web interface is crashing very often and saying is offline... or plex is crashing after 3 min and is not reachable.....I did already twice reset but nothing helped...) I couldn´t find any deb file nor the version with usb is working since i cant run the exe file (says always I´m missing some files)....

any ideas?

thanks

[mdgm-ntgr]

PM'd you a link. Note downgrading requires a factory reset.

[wli]

I have a ultra 4, will os6 improve performance? Thanks.

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 2

[ATCIS]

wli wrote:
I have a ultra 4, will os6 improve performance? Thanks.

What kind of performance? If you are asking about network performance, mine has been nearly identical. NFS file transfer speeds are slightly better but SMB slightly slower (by about 10% or so; barely noticeable). . .

[wli]

ATCIS wrote:
wli wrote: I have a ultra 4, will os6 improve performance? Thanks. What kind of performance? If you are asking about network performance, mine has been nearly identical. NFS file transfer speeds are slightly better but SMB slightly slower (by about 10% or so; barely noticeable). . .

How about iSCSI? Thanks.

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 2

[ATCIS]

wli wrote:
How about iSCSI? Thanks.

I have not personally tested iSCSI, but you might want to read this post: viewtopic.php?f=51&t=70133&p=399889&hilit=iSCSI#p399889

This guy apparently is having all kinds of issues with iSCSI. . .

[mangrove]

Have they changed from using LIO to something else for iSCSI?