"Althea" == Althea Shaheen <lists@altheashaheen.com> writes:
I would love to hear more from you John about what your experience is with TrueNAS Enterprise versus NetApp, as I am looking at the same options myself. We have used NetApp for longer than I have been around but the cost of it is a whole different level than what I imagine TrueNAS would be. I've used Scale personally and Core for backup systems at work, but the HA/failover is what I am most curious about if we went the route of Enterprise.
With Netapp... it's solid. Rock solid. It just works. Failover works, no interrupptions with clients. It's really really really solid. I love them. And you can split things up and add tons of VLANs, volumes, etc. Snapshots, ESX integration if you want to go that route, etc. But it's not cheap. You pay for what you get. It's annoying that they now do capacity based licensing. TrueNAS. It's easy enough to use (though the CLI sucks, I've got a bunch of scripts to pull data out using the API with python). I'm using the legacy 13.0 Enterprise BSD based stuff. TrueNAS recently moved to the linux based SCALE edition, but I have no experience with it. So far performance is good, it's ZFS, and it just runs. But we're not putting it under huge performance stress, so I can't talk to how well it scales or performs. I've used Netapps for 26+) years now. Super solid systems. I love how you can grow/shrink volumes (NFS/CIFS) on the fly. No hassles. TrueNAS is fixed volumes you can expand only. So you need to look at Scale Enterprise and see what they will quote you for support, and maybe you can get in a test system to see how failover works. In my case, since TrueNAS Enterprise is Active/Passive, failover takes too long in my book. Sorry, this reply is all over the place as I free associate my reply.
On Fri, Oct 11, 2024, at 09:36, John Stoffel via WLUG wrote:
> "Tim" == Tim Keller via WLUG <wlug@lists.wlug.org> writes:
I'm currently stuck in traffic I should be there for about 7:10
So how did the meeting go? Any comments or thoughts on ZFS and how it's useful and how it can be abused?
I'm using ZFS on a TrueNAS Enterprise cluster, which works, but has it's issues, mostly around failover speed. Been spoiled by Netapps for too many years.
I've also managed to make Oracle branded ZFS appliances fall over due to load, so I have reservations about ZFS to this day.
I do like the *ideas* behind it, and some of the powerful features it has. But the layering violations make me worry.
Just go look at the problems btrfs has had trying to do it's own RAID5 instead of just layering on top of MD RAID5 (which I also admit has had problems too! Nothing is perfect...).
The goals of ZFS in terms of file content checksums are awesome, I really like that. I just wish there was a better way to actually shrink ZFS filesystems (even if done as any offline process) without jumping through all kinds of hoops.
Anyway, I hope to see you all at the next meeting! John _______________________________________________ WLUG mailing list -- wlug@lists.wlug.org To unsubscribe send an email to wlug-leave@lists.wlug.org Create Account: https://wlug.mailman3.com/accounts/signup/ Change Settings: https://wlug.mailman3.com/postorius/lists/wlug.lists.wlug.org/ Web Forum/Archive: https://wlug.mailman3.com/hyperkitty/list/wlug@lists.wlug.org/message/SQAQ63...