Use .NET core builds for Radarr #4464

ta264 · 2021-03-01T19:08:53Z

Motivation: Radarr will soon be dropping mono compatible builds so we need to swap to .NET core builds
Linked issues: Fixes #4398, #4300, Fixes #4444

Checklist

Build rule all-supported completed successfully
Package upgrade completed successfully
New installation of package completed successfully

The previous attempt at a .NET core build for jackett failed because libstdc++.so.6 was too old. This version provides libstdc++.so.6.0.22 from Debian stretch in the package lib directory. Tested by @Wuszek on a DS218.

wkobiela · 2021-03-01T20:05:49Z

Just tested upgrading from previous Radarr to new, NETcore one using aarch64 spk from this test run build https://github.com/SynoCommunity/spksrc/actions/runs/611623265 and it work pefectly fine.

Health status reports no issues, finally.
screenshot

@azz22 @houndtt @weedaj @JeremieBergeron @publicarray maybe You are willing to test?

JeremieBergeron · 2021-03-02T00:04:29Z

Hi,
I test it and I do not see any problem.

mreid-tt · 2021-03-02T01:45:35Z

So I tested this in my VM which was an upgrade from the existing version. It's mostly a clean-install so not much configurations present. While the upgrade completed and says it was running, I could not connect. I then manually stopped and started the app and it seemed to work well. I attempted to restart the app from within the interface but the app only stopped but failed to start again. Manually starting it in the Package Center was successful. Based on these anomalies and the many errors in the log I don't think I'll be using this in my production NAS even though it gives a good health status.

Some logs below:
https://pastebin.com/dTy1G9m2

My setup:
The host NAS is a DS916+ with 8 GB RAM. The details of the VM are as follows:

Model name:            VirtualDSM
CPU:                   INTEL Pentium N3710
CPU clock rate:        1.6 GHz
CPU cores:             2
Total physical memory: 2048 MB
DSM version:           DSM 6.2.3-25426 Update 3

Status screen:

bakerboy448 · 2021-03-02T01:55:32Z

@houndtt something didn’t work right. Do you have the installer log? You grabbed the test files from the GitHub action for this PR right?

Based on your logs it is still launching mono and the wrong, out of date version, [v3.0.1.4259] and spewing kestrel errors everywhere where. So I don’t think those provided logs correlate at all to this build.

This test build is for 3.0.2.

ta264 · 2021-03-02T02:07:20Z

I attempted to restart the app from within the interface but the app only stopped but failed to start again.

This is a known bug in 3.0.2 - the restart button in Radarr's UI is broken under net core. Is fixed in 3.1.

mreid-tt · 2021-03-02T02:19:31Z

@houndtt something didn’t work right. Do you have the installer log? You grabbed the test files from the GitHub action for this PR right?

Here's the installer log: https://pastebin.com/1gNn0iMi and last app run log: https://pastebin.com/3HQJWbnV
Yes, I grabbed the package build from the URL above which linked to these packages.

Based on your logs it is still launching mono and the wrong, out of date version, [v3.0.1.4259] and spewing kestrel errors everywhere where. So I don’t think those provided logs correlate at all to this build.

This test build is for 3.0.2.

The build is 3.0.2 as shown in the screen shot above. I took a log snippet from just after the upgrade. Here's the latest section: https://pastebin.com/nQ9CeWWc

Looking at the tail of the log, it seems to have started running the correct version. I don't know if this was after the reboot I did or not but it seems to be no longer throwing out strange log entries. Not sure why the upgrade created them in the first place though.

bakerboy448 · 2021-03-02T02:37:37Z

@houndtt based on those logs; Kestrel errors are only on 3.0.1 and not in 3.0.2; 3.0.2 appears fine?

publicarray · 2021-03-02T08:53:02Z

@ta264 generally we compile the libs per architecture rather than download them. This avoids having different digests per architecture and ensures they are compatible. But considering that it is hard to compile gcc and by extension libstdc++ in this environment I'm leaning towards allowing this as an exception. Thoughts @th0ma7 @hgy59?

publicarray · 2021-03-02T08:54:56Z

I put the status to do-not-merge until the above discussion is resolved.

mreid-tt · 2021-03-02T08:56:34Z

@houndtt based on those logs; Kestrel errors are only on 3.0.1 and not in 3.0.2; 3.0.2 appears fine?

Yes, but the problem I am asserting is that the upgrade appears to have caused an in-between state which resulted in the pages and pages of Kestrel errors. From the timeline in the logs I see the following:

2021-3-1 21:12:16.6 - Successful startup of 3.0.1.4259 reported in logs
Mon Mar  1 21:18:45 AST 2021 - Update started - starting pre-update tasks
Mon Mar  1 21:18:51 AST 2021 - Update complete - starting post-update tasks
2021-3-1 21:19:05.0 - First Kestrel error in log
2021-3-1 21:21:45.1 - Last Kestrel error (after pages and pages of logs across 12 log files)
2021-3-1 21:22:23.0 - First instance of version 3.0.2.4552 reported in logs
2021-3-1 21:22:29.0 - Successful startup of 3.0.2.4552 reported in logs
2021-3-1 21:24:13.6 - Manual restart of Radarr requested
Mon Mar  1 21:25:14 AST 2021 - Manual start of Radarr triggered (likely from Package Center)

Based on the above sequence, it appears that the upgrade completed via the Package Center caused the app to go into this in-between state which resulted in the loads of Kestrel errors. During this time I suspect is when I could not connect to the application even though it showed it was running in the Package Center. After this, I believe I manually stopped it in the Package Center and started it again. This is where I believe the logs stabilised. Following this is where I believe I requested a restart from within the app which was not successful based on the bug reported above by @ta264.

I will try to re-create this upgrade scenario later today in the VM to see if I can re-create the above interpretation of events.

ta264 · 2021-03-02T09:01:44Z

@ta264 generally we compile the libs per architecture rather than download them. This avoids having different digests per architecture and ensures they are compatible. But considering that it is hard to compile gcc and by extension libstdc++ in this environment I'm leaning towards allowing this as an exception. Thoughts @th0ma7 @hgy59?

I agree it's a bit of a hack but I think it's probably better than nothing. The mono builds in Radarr will be switched off in the not too distant future (in case you haven't realised, I'm a Radarr dev) - we're planning to release 3.1 but then I think the next release will be 4.0 which won't support mono. We'd love to not leave the non-docker-compatible synology users behind, but we're not willing to maintain mono builds to make that happen I'm afraid.

Happy to try to assist to make the hack more palatable. I guess the other option is to wait for DSM7, and any users that can't / won't upgrade will be stuck on a legacy Radarr build.

ta264 · 2021-03-02T09:06:14Z

Based on the above sequence, it appears that the upgrade completed via the Package Center caused the app to go into this in-between state which resulted in the loads of Kestrel errors. During this time I suspect is when I could not connect to the application even though it showed it was running in the Package Center. After this, I believe I manually stopped it in the Package Center and started it again. This is where I believe the logs stabilised. Following this is where I believe I requested a restart from within the app which was not successful based on the bug reported above by @ta264.

I will try to re-create this upgrade scenario later today in the VM to see if I can re-create the above interpretation of events.

@houndtt In the light of morning, I'm guessing that somehow the change to net core meant that the service program didn't manage to shut down the old Radarr version before beginning the upgrade. I can take a look into this in more detail. @publicarray If you have any hints as to how the existing service gets stopped that would be handy.

publicarray · 2021-03-02T09:13:32Z

Thanks @ta264 for working on this. I appreciate your help.
I've also attempted to compile gcc but failed: publicarray@5038ab9 I've made more progress locally but still not much better. Since this the first package that I'm aware of that downloads a lib from Debian I need to wait for feedback from the others I've CCed.

Happy to try to assist to make the hack more palatable.

Thanks, the framework can compile dotnet apps. I suggest you look at #4207 and use include ../../mk/spksrc.cross-dotnet.mk instead of include ../../mk/spksrc.cross-cc.mk. It should simplify the makefile. Please let me know if you need help.

ta264 · 2021-03-02T09:17:03Z

Thanks, the framework can compile dotnet apps. I suggest you look at #4207 and use include ../../mk/spksrc.cross-dotnet.mk instead of include ../../mk/spksrc.cross-cc.mk. It should simplify the makefile. Please let me know if you need help.

Thanks, but we don't support third party compilations of the Radarr binaries. If you want to package Radarr and have users able to access our upsteam support you'll need to use the downloaded Radarr binaries. These are what will be grabbed on the first upgrade via the built in mechanism anyway. You're already downloading the mono binaries so this isn't a new exception.

Downloading the libstdc++ is a hack (I don't disagree on that at all!) but compiling gcc is a tricky thing!

ta264 · 2021-03-02T09:29:23Z

@houndtt Can I confirm what version of the synology package you were on before? I guess you were using the updated v3 package since I think you did the work for that, but would be good to confirm. One case we do perhaps need to guard against is a user going from v0.2 to v3, where the name of the PID file changes, but I'm guessing that isn't the case for you.

I'm a little surprised I don't see something corresponding to

echo "Stopping ${DNAME} ..."

In the update logs, but this is the first time I've looked at synology packages in any detail. If there is a problem stopping radarr before the upgrade I think I'm going to need some assistance from the experts to fix it.

publicarray · 2021-03-02T09:39:36Z

Thanks, but we don't support third party compilations of the Radarr binaries, If you want to package Radarr and have users able to access our upsteam support you'll need to use the downloaded Radarr binaries

@ta264 Sorry but I disagree on your upsteam support idea. We have always provided support to users that use our packages here. IMHO The main difference compiling would be that we only need to download the source code once and not a different binary per architecture (4x). Speeding up releases. It also simplifies the code. I looked at how raddar does its releases and the makefiles should be able to compile almost identical binaries (difference being the hash): https://github.com/SynoCommunity/spksrc/blob/master/mk/spksrc.cross-dotnet-env.mk.
In the future we could also add a .NET runtime package, reducing on disk file size if you install multiple .NET packages and allow us to update the runtime independently (not sure if this will happen but the possibility is there). Lastly any package repository that I've come across would like to compile the binaries themselves so this is not new.

You're already downloading the mono binaries so this isn't a new exception.

I see where you're coming from but .NET is different, the framework is embedded into the binary. Previously we compiled mono per arch and the mono binaries worked across arches.

ta264 · 2021-03-02T09:51:09Z

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree.

Compiling the backend is only one aspect - there's also the frontend which requires yarn. I would council that this is a futile effort, because the first upgrade from the built in updater will remove your compiled binaries and replace them with ones from our CI, which are the full standalone build.

We have actively decided against shipping framework dependent builds precisely so that we are in control of which framework Radarr is running on, which will avoid many of the issues we faced with mono. We have no plans to ever produce framework independent builds.

You may be providing some support but I can assure you a lot of Synology package users come by our discord asking for help. To be blunt, a synocommunity compiled Radarr will be on you to support.

publicarray · 2021-03-02T10:05:35Z

We have actively decided against shipping framework dependent builds precisely so that we are in control of which framework Radarr is running on, which will avoid many of the issues we faced with mono

That's a good point, If you require full standalone builds than that is fine.

However, personally I still prefer if the package was build. Regarding yarn, I've made a Jellyfin package that uses nodejs and npm: #3932 It's not merged yet but that should address the front-end issue.

ta264 · 2021-03-02T10:10:45Z

I've made a Jellyfin package that uses nodejs and npm: #3932 It's not merged yet but that should address the front-end issue.

You'd need to add yarn addionally, nodejs and npm isn't sufficient for Radarr / Sonarr.

However, personally I still prefer if the package was build.

Of course that choice is up to you. I've suggested a way that we as Radarr devs would be happy to help support. If you wish to go in a different direction then I wish you well and I'll let you get on with it.

publicarray · 2021-03-02T10:13:46Z

Thanks @ta264, Sorry to be clear it's not only up to me. The other @SynoCommunity/developers will write what they think first.

publicarray · 2021-03-02T10:28:55Z

Here is a wild proposal: Maybe we do what AUR does and postfix binary package as -bin and git packages as -git? Then they are out of our (SynoCommunity) control and all support links must point to the package maintainer. Would this be acceptable @ta264 @SynoCommunity/developers?

Edit: The package must be auto updating. I think this solves some issues where package maintainers which to be in full control. This does come at a risk if an update turns out to be malicious. But this doesn't change how current auto updatable packages work anyway. By adding the postfix this should be a clearer signal to users which packages auto update.
I also think #4161 would also benefit from this.

ta264 · 2021-03-02T11:36:36Z

I think that would be ideal from our point of view. If I understand it you're proposing relabelling the existing radarr as radarr-bin, and then we can carry on along the lines proposed in this PR. We would be happy (I assume, thought must check with my fellow Radarr devs) to be the main point of contact for support for this package. We may need some assistance in terms of ironing out any bugs in the service control scripts etc, but hopefully that should be fairly straightforward. And once the mono dependency is gone, hopefully synology specific bugs are rarer and users get the big speed bump .NET core brings.

As an aside, my view is that it's inconsistent to require that spks in this repository are compiled from source but to allow self-updating packages. If you want to insist on compiling from source, you should also disable the built in updaters (which are downloading binaries). But I'm not sure that you want to commit to having to update your packages for every release of Radarr?

A big plus side from our POV of having a self-updating package is we have reasonable number of users on the nightly branch (i.e. an update for every commit to the upstream Radarr repository). This means that issues are normally picked up pretty quickly and fixed. If you disable self-update for Radarr, you are locking synology users into only using the builds we think are stable, but we won't have had chance to see any synology specific issues, so I think you dramatically increase the chance of us pushing out a "stable" build that doesn't work properly on synology, with no easy way of testing fixes. As mentioned, if you are willing to allow a self-updating package, I don't think insisting that spks are built from source is a principle worth falling out over.

We're pretty reasonable guys, we'd love to find a solution to keep the optimal experience for Synology users. My views in this thread are born out of the practicalities of contributing to a complex app like radarr rather than just a desire to be in control or any particular principle. I believe self-updating packages are a win for your users, and sticking to the binaries we provides makes it much easier for us to identify where issues are arising.

th0ma7 · 2021-03-02T12:06:42Z

If I understand it you're proposing relabelling the existing radarr as radarr-bin

Personally I think this is a reasonable approach. I guess a radarr-nightly-bin could also be useful or a method to choose between the two streams at install time where post-install at first update it would fetch nightly when applicable (see src/wizard .ini + checkbox example in PR #4144 that could be useful)

Note that I am a big fan of always rebuilding from scratch. But in this case, creating a decent libstdc++ dependency is not a short term goal (although now added to my personal TODO list... but I expect months before tires can hit the road). One could argue to support only DSM-7 with the newer compiler and that may work but even there, today, we don't have such solution available just yet.

As an aside, my view is that it's inconsistent to require that spks in this repository are compiled from source but to allow self-updating packages. If you want to insist on compiling from source, you should also disable the built in updaters (which are downloading binaries). But I'm not sure that you want to commit to having to update your packages for every release of Radarr?

This is where the -bin package are probably easier to get self-updated. Otherwise would this mean having a stdc++ package available as well as dependency?

We're pretty reasonable guys, we'd love to find a solution to keep the optimal experience for Synology users. My views in this thread are born out of the practicalities of contributing to a complex app like radarr rather than just a desire to be in control or any particular principle. I believe self-updating packages are a win for your users, and sticking to the binaries we provides makes it much easier for us to identify where issues are arising.

I believe that having inter-project collaborations is more than welcomed :)

mreid-tt · 2021-03-02T12:26:34Z

@houndtt Can I confirm what version of the synology package you were on before? I guess you were using the updated v3 package since I think you did the work for that, but would be good to confirm. One case we do perhaps need to guard against is a user going from v0.2 to v3, where the name of the PID file changes, but I'm guessing that isn't the case for you.

I'm a little surprised I don't see something corresponding to
echo "Stopping ${DNAME} ..."
In the update logs, but this is the first time I've looked at synology packages in any detail. If there is a problem stopping radarr before the upgrade I think I'm going to need some assistance from the experts to fix it.

@ta264, you are correct. I was already using a v3 package prior to executing the update. Unfortunately, when I tried to replicate the issue two different ways this morning I was unable to do so.

In my original setup I was running the last build I did which was merged running v3.0.1.4259 (https://github.com/SynoCommunity/spksrc/actions/runs/420620824). When I did a clean install with this same version and then an upgrade from the Package Center the logs look nice and clean: https://pastebin.com/kFWXAAZ6

Furthermore, if I install from the current SynoCommunity published version which was the previous one I built running v3.0.0.4204 (https://github.com/SynoCommunity/spksrc/actions/runs/411699059) this too was clean: https://pastebin.com/8BLEa3Bc

I cannot explain why the original upgrade I did failed in the way it did since I can't replicate it on the same setup unfortunately.

ta264 · 2021-03-02T13:39:48Z

This is where the -bin package are probably easier to get self-updated. Otherwise would this mean having a stdc++ package available as well as dependency?

Yes, if you want to compile from source and support Radarr past 3.1 (once we drop mono) you'll need to have a stdc++ package, or wait for DSM7 where the library synology ship is new enough. I would also point out that you're not compiling the dotnet sdk itself, so I'm not quite sure why that's OK as a binary, but libstdc++ or Radarr are not.

My only concern with renaming radarr to radarr-bin is whether the package would auto migrate for users? From a user's point of view, being told they have to swap from one package (which just downloaded binaries) to another package (which also just downloads binaries) is rather clunky.

ta264 · 2021-03-02T13:40:51Z

I cannot explain why the original upgrade I did failed in the way it did since I can't replicate it on the same setup unfortunately.

Thanks a lot for testing! If you do manage to reproduce anything let me know.

publicarray · 2021-03-02T23:00:17Z

My only concern with renaming radarr to radarr-bin

@ta264 thanks I should have caught that error too.

I just want to point out that SynoCommunity is more than a distribution platform. Since you have a good technical reason (tie a release to a specific .NET) I think the package is Ok as is. My reason for updating the support links is because we can no longer "control" the code that is run. IMHO not providing support because it's not compiled through your CI is against what I thought OpenSource stands for. On the other hand I understand the difficulty with providing support when the dependencies/.NET don't match. But I think we could have kept the same versions in sync (maybe deviate a little from .NET patch version).

To be clear if support requests land here we can still provide support, but we I don't think we can be the main support channel. (not sure if we ever where if support is mostly on discord now 🤷)

not compiling the dotnet sdk itself

There was talk to do it but it requires a complex toolchain setup. I think @hgy59 was working on doing it. If we do get it the aim is to add x86 32bit support too.

ta264 · 2021-03-10T23:57:23Z

Thanks!

publicarray · 2021-03-11T00:45:34Z

The package is published but will take around 48 hours for our CDN to distribute it to the package center.

mreid-tt · 2021-03-13T00:41:38Z

Okay, the published version appeared on my NAS and I was able to upgrade successfully. The upgrade process took quite some time to complete but seemed to do so without major error. Below are the logs:

radarr_install.log

Fri Mar 12 20:18:37 -04 2021
===> Step preupgrade. USER=radarr GROUP=sc-download SHARE_PATH=
Invoke service_preupgrade
mkdir: cannot create directory '/volume1/@appstore/radarr/var/.config': File exists
Fri Mar 12 20:21:09 -04 2021
===> Step preuninst. USER=radarr GROUP=sc-download SHARE_PATH=
Fri Mar 12 20:21:15 -04 2021
===> Step postuninst. USER=radarr GROUP=sc-download SHARE_PATH=
Fri Mar 12 20:21:16 -04 2021
===> Step preinst. USER=radarr GROUP=sc-download SHARE_PATH=
Fri Mar 12 20:21:20 -04 2021
===> Step postinst. USER=radarr GROUP=sc-download SHARE_PATH=
Installing service configuration /var/packages/radarr/conf/radarr.sc
Invoke service_postinst
Granting 'sc-radarr' unix ownership on /volume1/@appstore/radarr/var/.config
Granting 'sc-radarr' unix ownership on /volume1/@appstore/radarr/var
Fri Mar 12 20:21:21 -04 2021
===> Step postupgrade. USER=radarr GROUP=sc-download SHARE_PATH=
Granting 'sc-radarr' unix ownership on /volume1/@appstore/radarr/var
Invoke service_postupgrade
Granting 'sc-radarr' unix ownership on /volume1/@appstore/radarr/var/.config
Granting 'sc-radarr' unix ownership on /tmp/radarr_backup
Granting 'sc-radarr' unix ownership on /tmp/radarr_update
chown: cannot access '/tmp/radarr_update': No such file or directory

radarr.txt

2021-3-12 20:22:33.9|Info|Bootstrap|Starting Radarr - /volume1/@appstore/radarr/share/Radarr/bin/Radarr.dll - Version 3.0.2.4552
2021-3-12 20:22:35.3|Warn|SingleInstancePolicy|Failed to check for multiple instances of Radarr.

[v3.0.2.4552] System.UnauthorizedAccessException: Access to the path '/proc/897/maps' is denied.
 ---> System.IO.IOException: Permission denied
   --- End of inner exception stack trace ---
   at System.IO.FileStream.CheckFileCall(Int64 result, Boolean ignoreNotSupported)
   at System.IO.FileStream.ReadNative(Span`1 buffer)
   at System.IO.FileStream.ReadSpan(Span`1 destination)
   at System.IO.FileStream.Read(Byte[] array, Int32 offset, Int32 count)
   at System.IO.StreamReader.ReadBuffer()
   at System.IO.StreamReader.ReadLine()
   at System.IO.ReadLinesIterator.MoveNext()
   at Interop.procfs.ParseMapsModulesCore(IEnumerable`1 lines)+MoveNext()
   at System.Diagnostics.ProcessManager.GetModules(Int32 processId)
   at System.Diagnostics.Process.get_Modules()
   at NzbDrone.Common.Processes.ProcessProvider.<>c__DisplayClass21_0.<GetProcessesByName>b__0(Process process) in D:\a\1\s\src\NzbDrone.Common\Processes\ProcessProvider.cs:line 344
   at System.Linq.Enumerable.WhereEnumerableIterator`1.MoveNext()
   at System.Linq.Set`1.UnionWith(IEnumerable`1 other)
   at System.Linq.Enumerable.UnionIterator`1.FillSet()
   at System.Linq.Enumerable.UnionIterator`1.ToList()
   at NzbDrone.Common.Processes.ProcessProvider.GetProcessesByName(String name)
   at NzbDrone.Common.Processes.ProcessProvider.FindProcessByName(String name) in D:\a\1\s\src\NzbDrone.Common\Processes\ProcessProvider.cs:line 91
   at Radarr.Host.SingleInstancePolicy.GetOtherNzbDroneProcessIds() in D:\a\1\s\src\NzbDrone.Host\SingleInstancePolicy.cs:line 68


2021-3-12 20:22:35.4|Info|Router|Application mode: Interactive
2021-3-12 20:22:35.7|Info|MigrationController|*** Migrating data source=/volume1/@appstore/radarr/var/.config/Radarr/radarr.db;cache size=-20000;datetimekind=Utc;journal mode=Wal;pooling=True;version=3 ***
2021-3-12 20:22:36.5|Info|MigrationController|*** Migrating data source=/volume1/@appstore/radarr/var/.config/Radarr/logs.db;cache size=-20000;datetimekind=Utc;journal mode=Wal;pooling=True;version=3 ***
2021-3-12 20:22:40.8|Info|WebHostController|Listening on the following URLs:
2021-3-12 20:22:40.8|Info|WebHostController|  http://*:8310
2021-3-12 20:22:41.3|Info|RadarrBootstrapper|Starting Web Server
2021-3-12 20:22:46.4|Info|CommandExecutor|Starting 2 threads for tasks.

Looking at the above it's strange that it is trying to access the /proc directory. At first I thought it was a fluke so I triggered a restart from within the app. This process didn't complete and I had to do a manual start in the Package Center (likely as a result of the known bug mentioned above by @ta264: #4464 (comment)). When it started up it seemed to be doing the same thing as shown below:

2021-3-12 20:33:38.2|Info|LifecycleService|Restart requested.
2021-3-12 20:36:18.0|Info|Bootstrap|Starting Radarr - /volume1/@appstore/radarr/share/Radarr/bin/Radarr.dll - Version 3.0.2.4552
2021-3-12 20:36:19.2|Warn|SingleInstancePolicy|Failed to check for multiple instances of Radarr.

[v3.0.2.4552] System.UnauthorizedAccessException: Access to the path '/proc/897/maps' is denied.
 ---> System.IO.IOException: Permission denied
   --- End of inner exception stack trace ---
   at System.IO.FileStream.CheckFileCall(Int64 result, Boolean ignoreNotSupported)
   at System.IO.FileStream.ReadNative(Span`1 buffer)
   at System.IO.FileStream.ReadSpan(Span`1 destination)
   at System.IO.FileStream.Read(Byte[] array, Int32 offset, Int32 count)
   at System.IO.StreamReader.ReadBuffer()
   at System.IO.StreamReader.ReadLine()
   at System.IO.ReadLinesIterator.MoveNext()
   at Interop.procfs.ParseMapsModulesCore(IEnumerable`1 lines)+MoveNext()
   at System.Diagnostics.ProcessManager.GetModules(Int32 processId)
   at System.Diagnostics.Process.get_Modules()
   at NzbDrone.Common.Processes.ProcessProvider.<>c__DisplayClass21_0.<GetProcessesByName>b__0(Process process) in D:\a\1\s\src\NzbDrone.Common\Processes\ProcessProvider.cs:line 344
   at System.Linq.Enumerable.WhereEnumerableIterator`1.MoveNext()
   at System.Linq.Set`1.UnionWith(IEnumerable`1 other)
   at System.Linq.Enumerable.UnionIterator`1.FillSet()
   at System.Linq.Enumerable.UnionIterator`1.ToList()
   at NzbDrone.Common.Processes.ProcessProvider.GetProcessesByName(String name)
   at NzbDrone.Common.Processes.ProcessProvider.FindProcessByName(String name) in D:\a\1\s\src\NzbDrone.Common\Processes\ProcessProvider.cs:line 91
   at Radarr.Host.SingleInstancePolicy.GetOtherNzbDroneProcessIds() in D:\a\1\s\src\NzbDrone.Host\SingleInstancePolicy.cs:line 68


2021-3-12 20:36:19.3|Info|Router|Application mode: Interactive
2021-3-12 20:36:19.6|Info|MigrationController|*** Migrating data source=/volume1/@appstore/radarr/var/.config/Radarr/radarr.db;cache size=-20000;datetimekind=Utc;journal mode=Wal;pooling=True;version=3 ***
2021-3-12 20:36:20.2|Info|MigrationController|*** Migrating data source=/volume1/@appstore/radarr/var/.config/Radarr/logs.db;cache size=-20000;datetimekind=Utc;journal mode=Wal;pooling=True;version=3 ***
2021-3-12 20:36:21.3|Info|WebHostController|Listening on the following URLs:
2021-3-12 20:36:21.3|Info|WebHostController|  http://*:8310
2021-3-12 20:36:22.0|Info|RadarrBootstrapper|Starting Web Server
2021-3-12 20:36:27.5|Info|CommandExecutor|Starting 2 threads for tasks.

If this is a bug then a new issue would need to be opened. Anyone else experiencing this?

publicarray · 2021-03-13T02:55:25Z

This might be a strange question, but why is it so difficult for the creators of software to get their software into a community project that extends the available applications to syno users?

Limited time/resources usually. From my (limited) experience here there are on average 0~3 people with the ability to publish packages for a given week. There over a hundred of packages here and Synology is not a typical Linux environment. Testing is done manually per package. And I do get it wrong a lot because we have very limited architectures/units to test on. Suggestions to improve this are welcome.

If the binaries are provided by radarr, and they have control over the package that provides their software, it's understood that it is them who provides the user support, not synocommunity.

I don't disagree, but the reality is mixed. To begin with the package was maintained by synocommunity, I think it's the first time a radarr developer submitted a PR for radarr: https://github.com/SynoCommunity/spksrc/commits/955a8537929aa4151353cca1355ea40d40cbb316/spk/radarr/Makefile

We have been trying to get a proper SickChill package in for years, and a proper SickRage package in for years (sickrage wasn't allowed to have our own package until echelon took the name, we had to modify sickbeard-custom which is no longer compatible with SickChill). Every time we make the changes they request, it's more changes requested undoing or completely changing what they asked the last go round, and it never ends.

It's very frustrating, because this org is supposed to be for users, for the community.

I emphasise and It saddens me too. I don't have any python knowledge especially how it works with Synology. Otherwise, I would have helped review your package.

Also, I've tried submission a package to Synology directly. Trust me when I say they have more restrictions than we do. (e.g. all packages must me self-contained, installable offline, updates through their package center only, no syntax errors (that would still work fine anyways), no extra info variables that don't do anything anymore on the latest DSM version, but we use for backwards compatibility reasons, and with no errors in any logfiles (not even mkdir file exists errors which I want to remove here as well since it makes debugging harder and logs more unreadable). Actually I don't mind these restrictions but their error messages where't very clear.

ymartin59 · 2021-03-16T21:58:45Z

spk/radarr/Makefile


-DEPENDS = cross/busybox cross/curl cross/mediainfo cross/sqlite cross/radarr
+# .NET is not supported on PPC, ARM5 or x86
+UNSUPPORTED_ARCHS = $(PPC_ARCHS) $(ARM5_ARCHES) $(x86_ARCHES)


@publicarray Why not use compilation with Mono implementation for these architectures? (the same way as for Jackett if I remember well)

I mean we can add it for one more version:

@ta264

The mono builds in Radarr will be switched off in the not too distant future (in case you haven't realised, I'm a Radarr dev) - we're planning to release 3.1 but then I think the next release will be 4.0 which won't support mono. We'd love to not leave the non-docker-compatible synology users behind, but we're not willing to maintain mono builds to make that happen I'm afraid.

Actually there shouldn't be any need since the package auto updates until it won't be supported anymore.

mreid-tt · 2021-03-18T23:17:49Z

If this is a bug then a new issue would need to be opened. Anyone else experiencing this?

As this continues to occur for me, I opened a new bug report here: Radarr/Radarr#6068

ta264 · 2021-03-25T18:02:38Z

@publicarray not sure of the best place to mention this, apologies if this is not the best place. Just run through debugging with a user on a 213j where it doesn't work at all - it fails with

Illegal instruction (core dumped)

I think we might need to mark armv7l as unsupported too. Does this sound plausible or do you think there's something else going on?

publicarray · 2021-03-25T20:55:08Z

Yes you are correct, sorry must have missed it in my review. I'll disable the offending architecture.

Edit: hi3535 was already disabled. So it wont show up in the package center but is still visible on our website.

ta264 · 2021-03-26T01:48:09Z

Thanks. I think the 213j is an Armada370 which is listed as ARMv7 here:

spksrc/mk/spksrc.archs.mk

Line 9 in 2f2428c

    
           DSM_ARMv7_ARCHS = alpine armada370 armada375 armada38x armadaxp comcerto2k monaco

But the user reported this as the output of uname -a:

Linux DISKSTATION 3.2.40 #25426 Wed Jul 8 03:15:48 CST 2020 armv7l GNU/Linux synology_armada370_213j

Is it misfiled as arm7 and should be armv7l? Or am I reading too much into the uname output?

miigotu · 2021-03-26T02:38:07Z

Thanks. I think the 213j is an Armada370 which is listed as ARMv7 here:

spksrc/mk/spksrc.archs.mk

Line 9 in 2f2428c

DSM_ARMv7_ARCHS = alpine armada370 armada375 armada38x armadaxp comcerto2k monaco

But the user reported this as the output of uname -a:
Linux DISKSTATION 3.2.40 #25426 Wed Jul 8 03:15:48 CST 2020 armv7l GNU/Linux synology_armada370_213j
Is it misfiled as arm7 and should be armv7l? Or am I reading too much into the uname output?

You would want to check something more like gcc -dumpmachine | sed "s/-/-$(uname -p)-/", uname is unreliable when some archs are compatible with more than one processor class. I just had this issue with ARMv6 (detects as arm7 on uname) and i386/i686 which get uname -a of x86_64 in docker builds at least (have not tested outside docker)

rust-lang/rustup#2700

Maybe this doesnt help you, but I just had 2 days of tracking down an issue like this.

publicarray · 2021-03-26T06:49:32Z

Going by deviwiki it's ARMv7 https://deviwiki.com/wiki/List_of_NAS_Devices
And http://natisbad.org/NAS2/refs/Marvell_ARMADA_370_SoC.pdf

Im not 100% sure but it would be unusual to leave of the endianness

ta264 · 2021-03-26T07:15:41Z

This link suggests its as much about how stuff is compiled as the SoC

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/29166619/differences-between-arm-versions-armv7-only

publicarray · 2021-03-26T07:19:15Z

Oh I learned something new today.

ta264 · 2021-03-26T11:07:22Z

I think that might have been a red herring.

Awaiting confirmation from the user, but it my guess is that the armada 370 cpu is armv7 but with an FPU that doesn't support net core. The requirements are listed here.

Looking at a core dump in gdb, it's falling over trying to access registers 16-31, so I guess this cpu will have the vfpv3d16 feature as mentioned here. If confirmed, then armada370 is not supported for net core even though it's an arm7 architecture.

ta264 · 2021-03-26T12:40:31Z

Ok mystery solved I think. This is the output of cpuinfo on a ds213j:

Processor       : Marvell PJ4Bv7 Processor rev 1 (v7l)
BogoMIPS        : 1196.85
Features        : swp half thumb fastmult vfp edsp vfpv3 vfpv3d16 tls
CPU implementer : 0x56
CPU architecture: 7
CPU variant     : 0x1
CPU part        : 0x581
CPU revision    : 1

Hardware        : Marvell Armada-370
Revision        : 0000
Serial          : 0000000000000000

CPUs with vfpv3d16 are not supported by the MS published SDK. It's possible to compile a version that would support it I think but that may be a little too involved...

For now I think we need to mark armada370 as not supported for any net core spks. I don't know if the same would affect the other armada variants.

miigotu · 2021-03-26T17:59:51Z

Ok mystery solved I think. This is the output of cpuinfo on a ds213j:
Processor       : Marvell PJ4Bv7 Processor rev 1 (v7l)
BogoMIPS        : 1196.85
Features        : swp half thumb fastmult vfp edsp vfpv3 vfpv3d16 tls
CPU implementer : 0x56
CPU architecture: 7
CPU variant     : 0x1
CPU part        : 0x581
CPU revision    : 1

Hardware        : Marvell Armada-370
Revision        : 0000
Serial          : 0000000000000000
CPUs with vfpv3d16 are not supported by the MS published SDK. It's possible to compile a version that would support it I think but that may be a little too involved...

For now I think we need to mark armada370 as not supported for any net core spks. I don't know if the same would affect the other armada variants.

Looks like it might vbe arm v7 without neon? armv6 binary would run on it then afaik

ta264 · 2021-03-26T18:11:19Z

Looks like it might vbe arm v7 without neon? armv6 binary would run on it then afaik

.NET Core doesn't support armv6. So essentially Radarr is dropping support for this architecture after the release of 3.1 (hopefully next few weeks). 3.1 will run under mono on this architecture.

azz22 · 2021-05-25T19:38:23Z

Hi, sorry if this is not the right place to post but as its related thought i would.

I tried to upgrade in app tonight from 3.0.2.4552 to 3.2.0.5048 and it didn't work. The app went through the motions, backup, restarted but didn't update. Is this because its .NET and not mono? I've attached my log file for you to peruse.

appreciate your help in advance.
radarr.txt

bakerboy448 · 2021-05-25T19:44:00Z

Info logs are typically useful for debugging.

for this: stop sonarr, update radarr, start sonarr has typically been doing it. Synology has something weird going on with DSM

azz22 · 2021-05-28T19:55:42Z

fix makes sense, i suppose....and it worked! Appreciate your help @bakerboy448 . i was starting to think i'd be stuck on that version.

This reverts commit f0dc885. # Conflicts: # cross/libstdc++/Makefile

ta264 force-pushed the radarr-net-core branch from 44f2b05 to e290efd Compare March 1, 2021 19:29

publicarray added the status/do-not-merge label Mar 2, 2021

Use .NET core builds for Radarr

93182f0

publicarray merged commit f0dc885 into SynoCommunity:master Mar 10, 2021

hgy59 added status/published Published and activated (may take up to 48h until visible in DSM package manager) and removed status/ready-to-merge labels Mar 11, 2021

publicarray mentioned this pull request Mar 12, 2021

Radarr fails to start on Synology #4363

Closed

ymartin59 reviewed Mar 16, 2021

View reviewed changes

publicarray mentioned this pull request Mar 29, 2021

Framework: .net add armada370 to unsupported architectures #4528

Open

3 tasks

VincentMasselis mentioned this pull request Apr 26, 2021

Sonarr functionality is broken when using latest versions of Sonarr and Mono on rtd1296 architecture #4584

Closed

mijuu added a commit to mijuu/spksrc that referenced this pull request Feb 25, 2022

Revert "Radarr: Use .NET core builds (SynoCommunity#4464)"

b71c498

This reverts commit f0dc885. # Conflicts: # cross/libstdc++/Makefile

mijuu added a commit to mijuu/spksrc that referenced this pull request Feb 25, 2022

Revert "Radarr: Use .NET core builds (SynoCommunity#4464)"

a3aaad4

This reverts commit f0dc885. # Conflicts: # cross/libstdc++/Makefile

hgy59 mentioned this pull request May 14, 2022

[New Package] Readarr #5110

Merged

10 tasks

bakerboy448 mentioned this pull request Aug 9, 2023

DSM 7.1 - Radarr failed to start package. (Version 20220515-18) - Armada 370 Radarr/Radarr#8957

Closed

2 tasks

Use .NET core builds for Radarr #4464

Use .NET core builds for Radarr #4464

Conversation

ta264 commented Mar 1, 2021 • edited by publicarray

Checklist

wkobiela commented Mar 1, 2021 • edited

JeremieBergeron commented Mar 2, 2021

mreid-tt commented Mar 2, 2021

bakerboy448 commented Mar 2, 2021 • edited

ta264 commented Mar 2, 2021 • edited

mreid-tt commented Mar 2, 2021

bakerboy448 commented Mar 2, 2021

publicarray commented Mar 2, 2021

publicarray commented Mar 2, 2021

mreid-tt commented Mar 2, 2021

ta264 commented Mar 2, 2021

ta264 commented Mar 2, 2021

publicarray commented Mar 2, 2021 • edited

ta264 commented Mar 2, 2021 • edited

ta264 commented Mar 2, 2021

publicarray commented Mar 2, 2021

ta264 commented Mar 2, 2021 • edited

publicarray commented Mar 2, 2021 • edited

ta264 commented Mar 2, 2021

publicarray commented Mar 2, 2021 • edited

publicarray commented Mar 2, 2021 • edited

ta264 commented Mar 2, 2021

th0ma7 commented Mar 2, 2021

mreid-tt commented Mar 2, 2021

ta264 commented Mar 2, 2021

ta264 commented Mar 2, 2021

publicarray commented Mar 2, 2021 • edited

ta264 commented Mar 10, 2021

publicarray commented Mar 11, 2021

mreid-tt commented Mar 13, 2021 • edited

publicarray commented Mar 13, 2021 • edited

ymartin59 Mar 16, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

publicarray Mar 16, 2021 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

publicarray Mar 16, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mreid-tt commented Mar 18, 2021

ta264 commented Mar 25, 2021

publicarray commented Mar 25, 2021 • edited

ta264 commented Mar 26, 2021

miigotu commented Mar 26, 2021 • edited

publicarray commented Mar 26, 2021 • edited

ta264 commented Mar 26, 2021

publicarray commented Mar 26, 2021

ta264 commented Mar 26, 2021

ta264 commented Mar 26, 2021

miigotu commented Mar 26, 2021

ta264 commented Mar 26, 2021

azz22 commented May 25, 2021

bakerboy448 commented May 25, 2021

azz22 commented May 28, 2021

ta264 commented Mar 1, 2021 •

edited by publicarray

wkobiela commented Mar 1, 2021 •

edited

bakerboy448 commented Mar 2, 2021 •

edited

ta264 commented Mar 2, 2021 •

edited

publicarray commented Mar 2, 2021 •

edited

ta264 commented Mar 2, 2021 •

edited

ta264 commented Mar 2, 2021 •

edited

publicarray commented Mar 2, 2021 •

edited

publicarray commented Mar 2, 2021 •

edited

publicarray commented Mar 2, 2021 •

edited

publicarray commented Mar 2, 2021 •

edited

mreid-tt commented Mar 13, 2021 •

edited

publicarray commented Mar 13, 2021 •

edited

publicarray Mar 16, 2021 •

edited

publicarray commented Mar 25, 2021 •

edited

miigotu commented Mar 26, 2021 •

edited

publicarray commented Mar 26, 2021 •

edited