Forum Suggestions

It seems tags have been created and locked to that category:

1 Like

Suggestion: Add Tags for sVDEV, SSL, ARC, L2ARC, Network and like sub-categories.

I believe this would be beneficial. @will, thoughts?

I’ve already added a tag for TLS, and just created the others. Well, I thought I had, but now I’m not seeing them.

Created these again for you, plus SLOG. It seems that you have to add them to a thread to validate, and they they remain in the list even after deletion, though one has to click on the pencil icon next to “Tags” in order to see tags with a count of zero.

There appears to be some differences between users’ permissions: apparently me, @etorix and @winnielinnie have the same priviledges but I seem to not be able to edit another user’s topic to insert categories or create any tags.

I have found the reson: apparently, my trust level is member while theirs is regular, maybe because of the bootstrap mode being activated after my registration.

Some toughts about Categories / Tags and “TrueNAS General”, all coming from thinking about the thread on best uses of Optane drives.

If the “TrueNAS General” category is meant to discuss TrueNAS products, tagged as CORE and/or SCALE as required, where do general discussions about ZFS features go? Here as well, with the “ZFS” tag? To both “CORE” and “SCALE” tags? How is “ZFS” different from allocating both “CORE” and “SCALE”.
Discussions about TrueNAS hardware products presumably go under “TrueNAS General” with the “Hardware” tag, since these are “TrueNAS products”. But then discussions about generic hardware and home builds, which are not products from iXsystems, should NOT go to “TrueNAS General”… Do they go into “General Discussion”, or shouldn’t “Hardware” be a category rather than a tag?

We need the “point up” emoji as an option for a “reaction”.


It’s different than just a “like” or “thumbs up”. It means we want to stress or affirm an important point that someone else posted. (Not simply that we “agree”, but that others should seriously note what was written.) Especially if there are a lot of a good posts in a thread, maybe someone writes something profound.

Post: “Try adding some more RAM first before you mess with special vdevs.”
:heart: or :+1:

Post: “I think special vdevs are overrated. More headache than they are worth.”

Post: “Check out this guide on special vdevs and why you should probably avoid them. Since your issue sounds like slow metadata crawling (not just small file access), you might consider more RAM or this tunable. The guide explains why you might end up needlessly putting your data at risk with a special vdev in your situation.”

“thumbs up” actually is tagged as +1 which has a similar social function I believe. Replacing it would maybe make it more clear.

I edited my post to explain why I think a “point up” should be added as an extra option. It carries a specific reaction / message.

I suggest that the company invest some resources to peruse the old forum resources and port as many as are still relevant to the new forum.

Some folk spent considerable time and effort putting all that info into the old forum - hopping back and forth between forums to locate good info for user questions is going to get old and expecting the demi-gods to re-do their work is a big ask. Especially if a lot of links are involved, that may need to be hand-transcribed between forums.


*I agree with this and also want to emphasize that others should heed this message.

As someone who’s manually ported over a few resources (though not as many as Victor), links and quite a bit of other formatting copy/paste just fine, though of course the link destination doesn’t change (i.e., if a link goes to a thread on the old forum, it will still go to that thread on the old forum unless manually changed).

I stand my point of long posts being awful to read here.

What about the very fundamental references we always point new users to ?

Things like :

or this one

They really deserve to be migrated here and not just pointed to as external references…



Just going to… point up at this very important post, because I want to bring the reader’s attention to it while emphasizing its importance.


…and here we have exhibit 1 of why signatures are bad. Does this really need to appear at the bottom of every single post?

1 Like

Testing out nesting “details” within a “detail”.

Check out these helpful tips!
100% data protection without backups

Check out this resource on how to fully protect your data, indefinitely, without requiring backups! :sunglasses:

Eat more veggies

You should really eat more veggies!

Go for walks

Try going for a one-mile walk at least three times a week!

Drink more cola

Water is overrated! Drink more cola and sugary beverages. Did you know cola contains water? That’s right! Drink up!

EDIT: @dan, perhaps users should be encouraged to used “nested” details in their signatures? It seems to work as expected. (See my temporary signature, which I’m going to remove after today.)

Therefor, in the example above, they would make “3-copies rule” the parent detail, and then nest the the other details (No1, No2, No3) within it.


Discourse is new for me and I just re-created my signature about the same way it was in the old forum.

I consider that backups are of the highest priority because no matter how good the primary server is, a single server is always a single point of failure. If the primary server is not that well designed, backups are just more important. Data loss is also the highest risk to address and again, backups are the key for that. Last thing is that backups are almost never performed by most new users.

Still, I agree that signatures here seems to take more place than they did in the old forum. They are also not isolated the same way so are harder to skip when reviewing messages.

@winnielinnie mentionned nested details. That may be a way to simplify this.

Do you have any other idea how to achieve a better balance ?

1 Like

Perhaps something like this?

3-copies Rule

Data need to exist in at least 3 copies to ensure protection against any single incident.

Copy No1

Always online and onsite by definition

Copy No2

At least one copy must be offsite to protect against physical incidents

Copy No3

At least one copy must be offline to protect against logical incidents

Was modifying it when you posted :slight_smile:

1 Like