Live data from Hacker News

FreeCORE TrueNAS Core – Continued

freecore.org

51–60 of 106 posts

Re: FreeCORE TrueNAS Core – Continued

#51
post #47
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been using things like Samba and NFS since the 1990s. They're not hard to figure out with useful resolution. When I finally became determined to give ZFS a serious go around 2016, I looked at all of my options -- including throwing some hardware together for FreeNAS, and running FreeNAS in a VM. I decided to just use an existing Linux box that was already doing storage stuff and add ZFS to it. It's been fine eve…

This is what I do, to try out ZFS in a "safe" and easy way. An HP Microserver (my home server) with a USB3 disk attached formatted as ZFS. The server still runs Debian stable and uses DKMS ZFS. The recent pain points have only been the time taken to rebuild the kernel module for kernel updates and there have been a lot of them over the past few months (due to all the CVE's found and fixed). The ZFS side has been plai…

That's a great test environment and it really helps drive away some of the misconceptions about ZFS.

It's a lovely filesystem and it can work in very stodgy ways with zetabytes on Serious Hardware, but it can also work with relatively small devices on silly hardware.

Another example: I've got a ZFS scratch disk that has seen dozens of terabytes written. It's an old ~120GB Intel-branded SATA SSD that is connected with a very cheap SATA to USB3 adapter cable. I've been using it this way for years.

All of the Internet lore has told me that this must result in resolute failure. Whether because USB is broadly not a serious data bus, or because ZFS doesn't like non-serious things, or because 1 copy is 0 copies, or because SSDs are fragile creatures that hate write cycles, or because I've created a portal to hell, or something else: The lore states that it must result in failure, and usually stipulates that ZFS would amplify this concern.

But it's been great. Really. Zero issues -- except when I unplugged it on accident while it was hot...but even then, it came back fine. (Of course it did. ZFS is intended to be robust in the face of unplanned failures regardless of cause.)

And because ZFS: If it ever has any issues, then they'll be reported and logged either in the normal course of doing things, or during a periodic scrub. Every read is checksummed (even in normal operation), and every discrepancy is reported. It's been clean.

It is my intent to keep it as a scratch disk until it becomes problematic, and my further hope is to be able to analyze those problems once they occur.

It won't last forever, but it's lasted for quite a long time so far. (A little bit of inquiry with smartctl and some math just now shows that it has endured writes equivalent to ~43,000% of its capacity.)

Re: FreeCORE TrueNAS Core – Continued

#52

I used TrueNAS in the past but last touched it several years ago. I gather now there are two flavors: CORE which continues to use FreeBSD under the hood, and SCALE (aka Community Edition) which is based on Debian Linux. If I understand correctly, the former is only receiving security and stability updates, and iXsystems is developing all new features only on SCALE. If you were to install fresh today, would you prefer…

I migrated from TrueNAS CORE to SCALE, and found that Linux had better performance. I don't see why you'd use FreeBSD if you don't have a very specific reason (hobby, jails, etc)

Re: FreeCORE TrueNAS Core – Continued

#53
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And for those still confused, CORE is FreeBSD-based and has been discontinued, while SCALE is Debian-based and the version that will be developed by TrueNAS going forwards. Hence the "continued" part in the title.

Ha interesting, any idea why the FreeBSD variant was discontinued? This was one of the projects I always associated with FreeBSD.

[deleted]

Re: FreeCORE TrueNAS Core – Continued

#54
post #2

What a shame I didn't discover this sooner -- I finally sent my 11-year-old TrueNAS system[1] through the one-way Linux door about a year ago because I gave up on any hope that something like this would come along and I didn't see another way to keep it current. The migration path went smoothly but I preferred the FreeBSD setup if only because it forced me to do something a bit more interesting in my spare time. I do…

FreeBSD with ZFS tends to be less chaotic once setup. Linux distro in storage appliances can be hit or miss, but ZFS/F2FS/CephFS for /home and ext4+Overlayfs for OS / are reliable these days. Usually, for JBOD file archiving people want to avoid cutting-edge anything. Sometimes Linux kernel less-popular fs updates add or remove data-corrupting fringe filesystem bugs and features. People usually discover this on their…

It's worth mentioning that last time I checked encrypted ZFS was not considered production due to obscure file corruption bugs that were unpatched.

This was a while ago so it may have changed but then changes can introduce new bugs...

Re: FreeCORE TrueNAS Core – Continued

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is disappointing, time to migrate from yet another was-open-source-now-only-technically-open-source software. At work the trend is only adopt open source on a paid plan, adopting or relying on open source otherwise is just waiting for the rug to be pulled. Essentially treat open source as closed source. How did we end up with this state of affairs?

Nobody wants to fund it. But, at this point, AI makes code cheap enough that I would just fork the open source software and maintain it, instead of paying for a third party. Heck, even with saas, I may clone internally.

You want to vibe code your own NAS and filesystem software? AI makes code cheap, it doesn't make true understanding and expertise cheap.

Re: FreeCORE TrueNAS Core – Continued

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FreeBSD with ZFS tends to be less chaotic once setup. Linux distro in storage appliances can be hit or miss, but ZFS/F2FS/CephFS for /home and ext4+Overlayfs for OS / are reliable these days. Usually, for JBOD file archiving people want to avoid cutting-edge anything. Sometimes Linux kernel less-popular fs updates add or remove data-corrupting fringe filesystem bugs and features. People usually discover this on their…

It's worth mentioning that last time I checked encrypted ZFS was not considered production due to obscure file corruption bugs that were unpatched. This was a while ago so it may have changed but then changes can introduce new bugs...

Part of the problem is replicating fs bugs that take months/years to occur is nearly impossible... people still sell USB to SAS/SATA adapters that cause large file corruption in hardware too.

ZFS does have bit-rot checksum detection/repair, but the encrypted file feature was a bit of a YOLO feature for awhile. Not sure where it is at these days, as ddr5 ram prices skew away most of ZFS best key features. =3

Re: FreeCORE TrueNAS Core – Continued

#57
post #5

Worth noting that TrueNAS recently stopped publishing their build scripts, intentionally making it harder to build their open source code.[0] [0] https://forums.truenas.com/t/clearing-the-air-on-build-scrip...

Doesn't the GPL require build scripts?

> The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities.

Re: FreeCORE TrueNAS Core – Continued

#58

I used TrueNAS in the past but last touched it several years ago. I gather now there are two flavors: CORE which continues to use FreeBSD under the hood, and SCALE (aka Community Edition) which is based on Debian Linux. If I understand correctly, the former is only receiving security and stability updates, and iXsystems is developing all new features only on SCALE. If you were to install fresh today, would you prefer…

I have two TrueNAS Scale servers and it's been really good, they backup each other and also run several services i use thanks to Docker.

Re: FreeCORE TrueNAS Core – Continued

#59
post #5

Worth noting that TrueNAS recently stopped publishing their build scripts, intentionally making it harder to build their open source code.[0] [0] https://forums.truenas.com/t/clearing-the-air-on-build-scrip...

Doesn't this violate the whole spirit of the GPL? He's shocked that the usual suspects are ripping off GPL code. Tale as old as time. It's like those SOHO router vendors that release incomprehensible tarballs of their GPL components; lotsa luck building it. If I'm paying for closed-source ZFS, I'll go with the real thing and buy a Solaris license.

Truenas core is BSD, not GPL.

Re: FreeCORE TrueNAS Core – Continued

#60

Why does anyone bother with these ephemeral meme distros when you can accomplish the same with vanilla FreeBSD/Illumos/Linux using standard commands and documentation? If you need your hand held to file share, that's why Windows Server still exists and is the gold standard for SMB.

Why use open source when windows exists?
Post reply on HN