cyankain

Transition Members
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About cyankain

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Just to add, my newer build is based on the 104b bootloader, and with a i5-8400 (Hex) : https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/126687/intel-core-i5-8400-processor-9m-cache-up-to-4-00-ghz.html I am able to successfully leverage 6/12 cores/threads out of virtual machine manager. It's also worth noting that I HAD to switch to the 104b bootloader, as with the 102b bootloader (using DS3517), I couldn't get server 2016 and 2019 VMs to not kernel panic on boot when using 102b. I wasn't able to verify 103B, as I couldn't get it to recognize either my Intel Nics. Leveraging the better kernel is probably priority here, so 4.4.x from the 104b bootloader was the way to go. 102b and 103b both leverage 3.10.x, so not really worth trying when you think about it. hope this helps
  2. I was able to confirm your results. I built 6.2 in a VMWare machine on a host that had two 8 core / hyperthreaded procs. (32 allocatable cores to virtual machines, as it was 32 total threads) I was able to get VMM running in that DSM VM, create a machine, and i was able to allocate more than 8 cores to the VM. My assumption is that that will translate the same if DSM was running bare metal, and a 6 or 8 core proc isn't a waste. Appreciate the response, and help!
  3. Hey there, That being said, is your Xeon a quad? I follow that it goes by threads as compared to cores, but my i5 is non-hyper threaded. I'm assuming, your Xeon is a quad, non-hyper threaded, as well. When you were on your pentium dual-core, were you using the 3615/3617, or the other one (never used the smaller one, forget the model) ? Were either your xeon or Pentium hyper threaded? I'm curious to know if anyone has a hex or octo where VMM will go PAST the limit of 2x4=8, (VMM basic will 2x allocatable cores per thread) and look like 2x6 = 12. Thanks,
  4. Hey all, Looking for clarification on CPU thread / core count in VMM. I cant find anything specific in the forum search. I understand the processor ID/core count in DSM is cosmetic, however, curious if anyone is running a 6 core processor, and seeing the allocatable cores in VMM higher than 8. I have an i5-4440, which is a quad, non-hyper threaded, running the standard VMM which will double the cores to 8. (pro would quad it to 16 i think). Looking at a new build, but I'm assuming there's no point to getting a hex or octo core, as the VMM is going to go off the Identified CPU of the DSM 3517(Xeon D-1527), as compared to something with a higher core count from the Linux Base of the OS. Is anyone running VMM, with a processor higher than 4 cores, where in the non-pro version of VMM they're seeing an allocatable count of cores higher than 8? Any core count difference with a hyper threaded proc? Thanks, System details: Intel i5 4440 3.1Ghz, non-hyper threaded. DSM 6.1.7 Update 2 Loader 1.02b
  5. Hey man, I would agree, i was thinking although i only have 2 onboard sata, the chipset called for potentially four. My mobo (ASRock H81M-ITX) is an ITX board, so there's only one PCI-E slot....no switching it around others. I guess with what I'm left with is the classic "well it worked the way i wanted it until i upgraded it", but i can live with the two blank slots. The only thing I'm still on, is that in 5.2, it ordered the SAS card first (slots 1-8), THEN the sata ports( slots 9-10). In 6.1, that's reversed, and no changes were made to the motherboard, bios, or SAS card. Anything in your knowledge in the synoinfo.conf where the order could be changed? (i was just in there adding SHR support back as well) Thanks again,
  6. Ok, So disabled my Esata port via Bios on the mobo, and got my drive back. What confuses me is how this drive was recognized as esata in the "info pane". My initial though was this slot was being pushed to essentially a slot "13" which wasn't visible. killing off the actual esata port would support that theory, as it's freed up, but what confuses me is how this drive was recognized as esata in the "info pane" originally. Still, i can't for the life of me figure out how two ports on the board, and 8 on the SAS card = slots 3+4 being "dead" to DSM. Would definitely rather see a clean 1-10, instead of 1-2, and 5-12. Appreciate any insight from anyone, and awesome job in these forums.
  7. This was how they were mapped in 5.2, (ignore the errors, different issue that day ) (one two drives failed, so there may be a difference on them) Note drives 9 and 10 are now drives 1 and 2.
  8. Hey all, Just updated from 5.2 to 6.1.3, (using 1.02b bootloader, DS3617xs ) and all is well with the exception of one drive's port now being mapped as an esata drive. I have two SATA 6.0 ports on my mobo ( ASRock H81M-ITX ) and an IT-mode LSI 9211-8i, giving me 10 total ports. There is one actual esata port on the board, but i don't think it's a factor, nor am i using it. Slot 8 of the LSI card is being seen as an esata or external drive that shows in the "info" tab in the GUI. (At least it was slot 8 in 5.2) I've attempted the following tries in the SataPortMap in the grub.cfg: 1, 28, 48, 84, 82. None of these have made any changes, (not even the order of the drives) that's noticeable. Ive also swapped the drive out in that slot, and the new drive was seen as esata as well. Also, previously, the drive order, under 5.2, i saw the LSI slots listed numerically first, then the onboard sata, and now those are reversed as well. where i have the two sata first. I have 12 slots listed in storage manager, 1 and 2, are the sata drives, and starting on "6" it goes to "12" where my LSI drives are. I would think i would simply have 1-10 like i did in DSM 5.2, but i guess there were some changes. Anyone have any thoughts on what i could be missing here? Any parameters i haven't met? Thanks,
  9. Hi all, Been searching through the pages for anything on a solution to when the resource monitor doesn't show network activity. Only cosmetic, obviously, because I'm connecting with no issues, but would be nice to see my bandwidth. All other activity in the monitor is responsive, no problem. Just network sits at 0 up / 0 down. I'm running 5.2-5592 on a ASRock H81M-ITX with an onboard Qualcomm Atheros AR8171, which is in the supported list for NICs. If it matters, I'm running an i5 Haswell with an LSI 9211-8i sitting in a Norco ITX-s8. For testing, i had created another bootloader running 5.2-5967 but didn't get any activity on there either. Anyone know of any pages in the forum that are eluding me on this? When searching for "resource monitor" and "network", it's flooded with 6.0 pages documenting the issue where it gives different errors, which aren't applying to this at all. Appreciate the help, and fantastic job on this project, as always.