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

[Jurgen76]

mdgm wrote:
I was talking about your 4 GB OS partition not your data volume.

Free space on my OS partition:

nas-EA-D7-BE:~# df -h /dev/md0
Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/md0              4.0G  460M  3.4G  12% /

I have change the header (with this llink: http://netgear.nas-central.org/wiki/Convert_RAIDiator_to_ReadyNASOS)

nas-EA-D7-BE:~# ls
newhead                      ReadyNASOS-6.0.4-x86_64.zip
ReadyNASOS-6.0.4-x86_64.img  ReadyNASOS-V6 0 4-ReleaseNote.html

[mdgm-ntgr]

Oh. I didn't know you had SSH access. If you give me access to that, I can try to figure out what's wrong.

[Jurgen76]

mdgm wrote:
Oh. I didn't know you had SSH access. If you give me access to that, I can try to figure out what's wrong.

Check your MP 😄 I do a Factory Reset

[arnomc]

amacbr wrote:
I succesfully installed 6.1.4 on my Pro 2. It works fine, but it propose me an update to 6.1.5. Can I update directly? In case I want to update to 6.1.6 could I update with original .bin or do I need to modify header again?

I strongly suggest to update to 6.1.5 or 6.1.6 (if you can wait few days) before putting back your data because the 6.1.5 needs a complete erase of your partition data (and reformat ) in order to benefit from a fix on BTRFS file system. If you can wait a bit more, included in 6.1.6, there is a fix concerning USB ports.

[Jurgen76]

Congrats to mdgm who solved my case, now my NAS is under OS6.1.6, but I have another issue I have really slow write speed like 26 kio/son FTP, SMB or HTTP protocols, any idea?
Solved: Changed the duplex & speed on ethernet port of Laptop and activate the Jumbo Frames

[walshlink]

Jumbo frames can cause problems and should not be implemented unless there is a specific reason to do so.

[ATCIS]

walshlink wrote:
Jumbo frames can cause problems and should not be implemented unless there is a specific reason to do so.

Would you please elaborate on that statement?

I've been utilizing Jumbo Frames on two of my ReadyNAS Pro 6's since day one, and can't say I've noticed any significant issues. . .

[StephenB]

I'm not sure I'd put it quite the same way as walshlink.

But jumbo frames can certainly cause problems - you need to ensure that all your equipment works with them, and that you pick an appropriate and common MTU. When that is taken care of, it is also quite possible that some your equipment will actually run faster with normal ethernet.

If everything is working, and performance is better with Jumbo frames, then it makes sense to leave them on.

But if you are seeing issues, or if the performance in fact isn't better, then the simplest answer is to turn them off.

[ATCIS]

StephenB wrote:
If everything is working, and performance is better with Jumbo frames, then it makes sense to leave them on. But if you are seeing issues, or if the performance in fact isn't better, then the simplest answer is to turn them off.

With THAT, I concur!
Thank you for your input. . .

[walshlink]

ATCIS, do you have jumbo frames enabled on both your PC and switch? Are your PC, switch, and RNP all using the exact same MTU size?

If you are using your jumbo frame-enabled PC to connect to both your storage device and the Internet, you Internet speeds will suffer as your ISP will fragment the packets down to 1500.

[StephenB]

walshlink wrote:
...If you are using your jumbo frame-enabled PC to connect to both your storage device and the Internet, you Internet speeds will suffer as your ISP will fragment the packets down to 1500.

I agree that this can happen. Though MSS negotiation is supposed to prevent it on the uplink for TCP, and websites, etc on the internet shouldn't be sending jumbo frames on the downlink no matter what. In any event, I agree it is a good idea to test internet speeds after configuring JF, as well as speeds to WiFi or fast ethernet devices on your home network. If you use a VPN, then make sure you check that too.

Personally I don't use JF. My pro-6 performs well enough w/o them, and I'd rather use my network than play with its settings. Though JF certainly can be problematic, there are users who find they work fine on their networks.

Where it gets tricky is when you get folks who don't get the limitations, and refuse to try turning them off when they report performance and connection problems.

[Papagaiou]

Bonjour Poussin,

Apres une reinstallation du NAS, j'ai installe directement ton addon CUPS. J'ai note que je n'avais pas access a l'administration cups IP:631 meme apres reboot. En fait il a fallut executer la commande : cupsctl --remote-admin

Peut-etre que tu peux integrer cette commande dans l'addon?

Merci de tes contributions a la communaute.

[ATCIS]

walshlink wrote:
ATCIS, do you have jumbo frames enabled on both your PC and switch? Are your PC, switch, and RNP all using the exact same MTU size?

I have Jumbo Frames enabled on all devices that support Jumbo Frames (PC's, Switches, NAS Devices, etc.). I have the MTU set at 9000 bytes throughout. . .

walshlink wrote:
If you are using your jumbo frame-enabled PC to connect to both your storage device and the Internet, you Internet speeds will suffer as your ISP will fragment the packets down to 1500.

I can't say that I've noticed any degradation in Internet throughput. I consistently get 36 Mbps down and 24 Mbps up. :woot:

[arnomc]

I start experimenting with JF while my ultra2 was under 4.2.x and I didn't notice any change in performance (nearly no difference at all, just 2MB faster or slower depending on read/write or huge/big files. I didn't kept the precise results of my copy tests (I made 3 times each test in order to obtain reliable numbers). But my conclusion at that time was that the differences were too small compare to the variability of the results and/or not worth the risk to have issues with JumboFrames enabled.
Then I switch to OS6 and I notice speed improvements. I don't know if it's due to a better use of the 2GB DDR for caching, or if it was due to OS6/BTRFS file system. But it has improved for sure.
I was very fond of JF.. trying to improve transfer speed for big/huge files but after reading again and again, making my own tests and noticing some strange behavior etc.. I realized that very often it's not worth the risk to obtain issues or hiccups in this 'quest'.
So I didn't bother to do the sped comparison again. One day maybe ... if I have time to loose 😄

PS : For those who don't speak french, here is the translation of papagaiou's post :
"Hi Poussin,
Once I reinstalled my NAS, I directly installed your add-on CUPS. I noticed that, even after a reboot, I didn't have access to CUPS's administration IP:631. I had to execute the following command : cupsctl --remote-admin
Maybe you could add this command inside the add-on ?
Thanks for your contributions to this community."

[ATCIS]

arnomc wrote:
Then I switch to OS6 and I notice speed improvements. I don't know if it's due to a better use of the 2GB DDR for caching, or if it was due to OS6/BTRFS file system. But it has improved for sure.

For what it's worth, my average speed improvements with Jumbo Frames enabled (totally unscientific testing methods) vary between 15 and 25%. One thing I have noticed that makes a significant difference with regard to whether Jumbo Frame yield any benefit whatsoever is how it is implemented in the SWITCH firmware. I've done some testing with older 3Com gigabit switches and newer NETGEAR switches. The older 3Com switches apparently did not have the correct Jumbo Frame implementation, as transfer speeds were either the same or worse (slower) than with "normal" frames enabled.

If I had to guess, folks that notice a negative impact on file transfer speeds when Jumbo Frames are enabled, are not using a compatible (or current) Jumbo Frame implementation in their switch/es firmware.

Just my 2 cents. . .

[super_poussin]

arnomc wrote:

I start experimenting with JF while my ultra2 was under 4.2.x and I didn't notice any change in performance (nearly no difference at all, just 2MB faster or slower depending on read/write or huge/big files. I didn't kept the precise results of my copy tests (I made 3 times each test in order to obtain reliable numbers). But my conclusion at that time was that the differences were too small compare to the variability of the results and/or not worth the risk to have issues with JumboFrames enabled. Then I switch to OS6 and I notice speed improvements. I don't know if it's due to a better use of the 2GB DDR for caching, or if it was due to OS6/BTRFS file system. But it has improved for sure. I was very fond of JF.. trying to improve transfer speed for big/huge files but after reading again and again, making my own tests and noticing some strange behavior etc.. I realized that very often it's not worth the risk to obtain issues or hiccups in this 'quest'. So I didn't bother to do the sped comparison again. One day maybe ... if I have time to loose 😄 PS : For those who don't speak french, here is the translation of papagaiou's post : "Hi Poussin, Once I reinstalled my NAS, I directly installed your add-on CUPS. I noticed that, even after a reboot, I didn't have access to CUPS's administration IP:631. I had to execute the following command : cupsctl --remote-admin Maybe you could add this command inside the add-on ? Thanks for your contributions to this community."

no need to do cupsctl --remote-admin on my 516 after a reboot , can you check the administation panel of cups to see if remote admin is ticked ?

[Papagaiou]

Hi Poussin,
Actually I could not access the Cups web admin before doing this command. That is why I am reporting it to you. But it could well be due to my system.
Anyway it works.

PS: is Antivirus Plus available for 6.1.6, I do not see it now.

Cheers

[workbench82]

Hi all,

Couple of questions: I have had both Ultra 2 and Pro 2 models. What if I update to OS6, will the differences between these models remain?
I mean all the corporate/business specialities integrated to Pro -models?

Also a question for Poussin: Have you already managed to check if vpnserver addon works on 4.2.x? (This is from subject "L2TP/IPSec VPN running on x86 ReadyNAS e.g. Ultra ?")

Thank you in advance for your help 🙂
Br, Arto

[mdgm-ntgr]

workbench82 wrote:
Couple of questions: I have had both Ultra 2 and Pro 2 models. What if I update to OS6, will the differences between these models remain? I mean all the corporate/business specialities integrated to Pro -models?

On OS6 all features supported by the hardware are available. This also applies to legacy ReadyNAS running OS6. So business features are available for all models in OS6.

[demetris]

Seeing 6.1.6 progress i noticed netgear has taken R&D more seriously now.
Well done @ll people involved.
I just wish they got the grips and fix legacy hardware issues even now "unofficially" lol
We are using OS6 anyway .......

[Papagaiou]

well said demetris.

OS6 releases are getting better even on legacy. They should support officially the legacy as it works well and owner of Atom based system won't upgrade soon to new systems as there are little gain in hardware spec with new NAS.

Keep up good work Netgear guys.

[AMRivlin]

L_Mic wrote:
mwlodarc wrote: great solution with fancontrol. And with 6.0.5 firmware readycloud work on legacy ULTRA 4 rgds Also activating the Dropbox functionality in OS 6.05 did not work. The Dropbox webpage says "The request to link the app is invalid"

Under 6.1.5 mine still says this. Was there ever a fix for the Dropbox linking?

[Papagaiou]

Hello,

Today I notice that my NAS is not fully booted up. The blue light is blinking and it seems there are some disk activities. However, I cannot access the web interface. it keeps saying "device is offline please wait"

I forced several reboot, disconnected Usb drive but still the issue is there.

I am running 6.1.6 RC10 under old Ultra 2

Thanks for advice on next steps.

[Papagaiou]

Now it is weird. The NAS is accessible by SSH. I do not see disk full issue. Still I cannot accesss via web interface. Also after some time the NAS shutdown by itself. I also noticed that recently hes has difficulties to wake up when the shutdown is programmed.
Shall I try an os reinstall via SSH. How to?

Edit: I did OS reinstall from the button. But this issue is still there. It lloks like Frontview cannot connect. However the rest of apache web works: Wordpress, CUPS...

How to debug?

Thank you

[mdgm-ntgr]

Take a look at the relevant log in /var/log