I do not know what the moderators think, but I believe it’s this community role to educate about ZFS and share experience about TN. Using unsupported configurations has been proven multiple times to result in data loss. As stated, we welcome any user with different experiences here, especially so I would say.
If someone like a moderator wants supporting evidence when discussing a topic where nobody else is really doing so than politely ask. I did mention my source, the ACHI specification. My guess is @ericloewe wanted a link otherwise he wouldn’t have made a threat of taking action. And threatening suspending an account over that is uncalled for. There’s almost a false false equivalence being made by many which is, using Truenas on supported hardware will work and therefore using it on unsupported hardware won’t work at all. Without a doubt many many people are using Truenas on unssupported hardware and configurations where it is working exceptionally well, myself included. I would also argue that there are plenty of instances where hardware that was once unsupported over time became supported and without people testing it undertanding where the issues were would have remained unsupported.
The catch is that, like any peer discussion in the scientific world, said user has to bring convincing proof/evidence about its point in order to challenge established paradigms born from others’ experiences.
This is another false equivalence. I have a degree in physics with ample experience in the scientific community. This is a forum, not a scientific journal. The majority of opinions on here are based on anecdotal evidence. So even if you are arguing something you deem to be “established”. It’s generally established opinion based on nothing but anecdotal evidence which is not the basis for science like dialog. I am happy however to reference my opinion supporting claims with specificity if politely requested, not threats of sanction by a moderator and the need to provide evidence goes both ways if you are talking about established “opinion” or consensus based on only anecdotal evidence. Additionally, specific citations, such as links or a literary reference are not usually required for information which is expected to be generally known on a topic or if the statement itself references a publication. In this case a publication being the AHCI specification. If it was generally expected to include references in responses on this forum I would have expected to see a single one on this thread that wasn’t just links to other posts and forums.
Well, look again then 
And imho, which I believe many share, “a simple google search” is not really helpful… you have to be more specific, or post links. We need to understand where you are pulling your data from or based on whom opinion and which steps and conditions they used.
Again, politely ask, not threaten suspension. IMHO when someone mentions the specification for something it is pretty easy to go look it up especially when you have the time to disect replies and respond paragraph by paragraph. When “we” are discussing something that is unsupported it should be on both people in the debate to support their “opnions”. Being a moderator doesn’t make your word gospel. Either way, if you are moderator, there is no reason to be rude or threatening about it.
What a pity, without communication we cannot resolve anything and come to understand each other. If you are going to give feedback about some users or the community in general I would appreciate you to follow through the entire process.
If multiple parties disagree without much concession and the original topic is not really being discussed anymore and people are arguing the same things in a neverending cycle it might be time to move on. Case and point.
Well… I likely should have used “We” instead since my point is that on this community we do not do such things (hence the “here” at the end of the sentence). I apologize if I have come offensive to you, it wasn’t my intention. English is tricky.
Besides, there are better options than ZFS and TN for non-critical data storage. OMV is just one example.
Well… I likely should have used “We” instead since my point is that on this community we do not do such things (hence the “here” at the end of the sentence). I apologize if I have come offensive to you, it wasn’t my intention. English is tricky.
Besides, there are better options than ZFS and TN for non-critical data storage. OMV is just one example.
I don’t think your use of the English language caused any comfusion. Better solution than ZFS depends on the individual user and use case. I’ve not only been using Truenas professionally for enterprise clients as well as personally, but I have been ZFS development since the gluster days. I probably as well informed as most of you. Sure, if you want to make that suggestion to a newbie or someone just curious about it that might make sense, but as I have reiterated many times I am not a novice to Truenas or ZFS in general. Additionally someone new to Truenas may ignore your advice to use a different platform because they are a DIY’er and a tinkerer like myself. Truenas can and does often run beautifully on commody hardware. It’s unfortunate that you actualy think me doing so would actually be “proving you wrong” as there are plenty of examples of people sucessfully running Truenas in unsupported configurations on commodity hardware. Nobody is saying it’s equally as reliable or robust as enterprise hardware, but I don’t need to have servers with SAS HBA to get reliable well performing results from Truenas for home use as long as I understand the risks and plan accordingly. It my experience Truenas has been far more reliable than any off the shelf NAS appliance I have used from Drobo, QNAP, Synology and Western Digital. An honestly that should make the Truenas community feel pretty good instead of insessintly discouraging using it on anything but enterprise hardware. Say your peace that it’s unsupported and won’t be as robust or reliable as running enterprise hard and has a higher risk of resulting in data loss and move on. Not everyone needs to spend hours debating it.
I will document and post on here too so I can listen to a whole bunch of ridicule me on why I shouldn’t be dong that.
It woulnd’t be proving anyone wrong or right. It would be merely sharing in the experience and what is possible with Truenas. Everybody has their own opinions on acceptable risk for home lab use, you can’t really prove anyone right or wrong here. I haven’t been disrespectful. We are typing in a forum and tone can be difficult to asertain. While I have sensed a kind of snarky and arrogant tone from some, nobody on this thread, including myself deserves to be suspended or reprimanded based on what has been said.
