Wasn’t aware. Where do they state that?
You keep saying this, but still haven’t answered my question: what do you need TrueNAS to do, that SCALE doesn’t do? Or doesn’t do as well as CORE?
I don’t know where you get that. Here’s their software status page:
Note that they list SCALE as available for Enterprise (all of those 24. versions), up to and including “mission critical” applications.
False, as shown above.
Just a reminder to keep discussions respectful and avoid making posts personal. Differences of opinion are completely natural and even healthy as they encourage diverse perspectives. While some decisions may spark strong feelings that’s okay! At the end of the day we all share a common passion our love for TrueNAS. Let’s keep the conversation constructive.
7 Likes
Well @dan , i stand corrected then as it seems from 24.04.2.5, e.g. November 2024, they do indicated Scale for enterprise use. Last time i looked, it only showed Core as Enterprise.
As for functionality, i need Nextcloud to do exactly what it does now, preferably with a dedicated internal IP. Not sure if HAproxy can make it work with a shared IP and a port. I would need to look into that.
Of course it can; just point it to the correct port.
Sorry, but that is completely wrong. (apologies… redundant to previous post).
For our current position, the software status page confirms that both CORE and SCALE (Now CE) versions are supported for Enterprise.
We now recommend the SCALE version for Enterprises with new deployments.
1 Like
Not to start a war, I swear.
How is a breaking change, such as this (which was committed in a “minor” update), considered suitable for enterprise clients?
“Swap on a Linux base has been giving us issues! Let’s just gut everything to do with swap, which means we’ll no longer partition a couple GB for drives being added to a new vdev. What could possibly go wrong?”
It comes off as a lack of QA.
As humble home user myself, even I could foresee this problem.
In a chapter about ZFS, FreeBSD’s handbook recommends to “provision” (partition) a drive, to allow for some buffer, for the explicit reason of not finding yourself stuck with this problem when the time comes to replace disks in a pool. (This has nothing to do with swap. Such a “buffer space” of a few GB should be a default standard.)
iXsystems can’t simply rely on their trust of HDD/SSD manufacturers. Even when a user ordered the same size and same model of drive, the new ones were slightly smaller than the existing drives in the pool. Now he is out of luck, unless he returns the drive and then purchases a larger (and more expensive) capacity drive.
2 Likes
Its a good issue (drives shrinking) to bring up and deserves some thought.
But, we have not encountered this issue with our Enterprise systems. We use WD drives not Seagate.
When we do replace a drive, the drives have been prequalified. There can be many drive compatibility issues, not just this one.
A friend of mine bet me $50 that I could never get a staff member from iXsystems to vote on a feature request.
Do the right thing, Captain.
I need the cash…
4 Likes
For $30 I’ll vote…
5 Likes
That’s more than half the money at stake!
How about a compromise? A smile[1], a thank you, and a handshake[2]?
3 Likes
Yes please. It’s an easy fix; it was present in CORE; it can be in CE/Enterprise without running into issues with swap: The point isn’t swap, the point is to have a bit of buffer against 12TB and 12TB being close but not exact - between manufacturers, or between revisions of a drive with the same manufacturer.
1 Like
To point out the obvious:
- This locks you to specific behavior by WD. If they ever change and a new drive revision is a little smaller, you’re up the proverbial creek.
- This locks you to WD or a drive vendor like it that won’t have slightly varying sizes between revisions. Which means you don’t have the business flexibility to choose Seagate or some other vendor in future, should you wish to do so.
Both of those constraints are easily solved by making 2 GiB buffer space the default. It unlocks optionality for you and your Enterprise customers.
2 Likes
But just for clarity we are not suggesting the entire Community can only use WD drives right?
No, just making it clear that this issue hasn’t impacted our ability to deliver Enterprise-grade systems. The drives would fail our qualification process.
2 Likes
Tbh, you also have Seagate and Micron drives in Drive Compatibility List.
https://www.truenas.com/truenas-mini/
I checked my drive (ST14000NM001G) and the number of sectors is exactly the same as Guaranteed sectors listed in specs: https://www.seagate.com/www-content/product-content/enterprise-hdd-fam/exos-x-16/en-us/docs/100845789f.pdf
Before this I thought it mean “minimum number of sectors”, but now I am more inclined to believe HDD should have the exact number and if not its defect.
Btw, I cant find the same info for WD drives. Any idea where WD lists Guaranteed sectors for their HDDs?
How can one be sure new WD HDD of the same model will have the exact same size as previous one?
I’m honestly the same way. I my Core boxes will be Core until the end. I worry about Scale running ZFS (and ZFS-on-boot as well) on linux, an OS that has a clear disdain for ZFS among the kernel developers. I feel like we are waiting for the other shoe to fall. Even Linus says “don’t use ZFS.”
Personally, I have had an amazing time with ZFS on FreeBSD, versus ZFS on linux…Everything from ZFS on boot to boot environments to being able to snapshot before upgrades and roll back an upgrade that goes sideways (something I have wanted in linux for 30 years).
Minis are sold as professional-grade… not Enterprise systems. They have more flexibility, but not 24x7 with 5x9s reliability.
Its an appliance.
If for some reason Linux stops supporting/allowing/tollerating OpenZFS, iX could go back to BSD if they wanted as the underpinnings of their Storage Appliance OS.
The same pools would still work.
ZFS is more open than relying on a linux only filesystem…
We already make changes to our linux kernel to enhance ZFS compatibility (c.f truenas/linux in github).
1 Like