Container File Systems

[DeletedUser080302028]

Let's say I'm using VeraCrypt on a Windows 10 machine to create encrypted file containers that I'm storing on a FreeNAS server. Those containers would have an NTFS or exFAT file system. Does that defeat the purpose of using ZFS (from a data-protection/reliability standpoint) since I'm basically reading/writing data to an NTFS/exFAT volume that isn't doing anything to protect against corruption and bit rot?

 

[nightshade00013]

Basically it sounds like the same concept as iSCSI

https://doc.freenas.org/9.3/freenas_sharing.html#block-iscsi

As long as the data is stored on the pool FreeNAS does not care about what the data is or how it is stored the ZFS filesystem will continue to function as designed. However in cases of iSCSI use you don't want to fill the pool up or you will have issues with speed.

 

[Stux]

Let's say I'm using VeraCrypt on a Windows 10 machine to create encrypted file containers that I'm storing on a FreeNAS server. Those containers would have an NTFS or exFAT file system. Does that defeat the purpose of using ZFS (from a data-protection/reliability standpoint) since I'm basically reading/writing data to an NTFS/exFAT volume that isn't doing anything to protect against corruption and bit rot?

No. The data in the container is still protected from corruption, and can still benefit from snapshots etc. BUT will not benefit from compression (because of the encryption)

 

[SweetAndLow]

No. The data in the container is still protected from corruption, and can still benefit from snapshots etc. BUT will not benefit from compression (because of the encryption)

Compression happens to blocks so I think it would still work just fine. It might not compress great but it will try.

Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk

 

[Stux]

Compression doesn't work on encrypted data. It shoukd function fine, it just won't compress as it should fall back to disabled on a per block basis.

If the encryption is any good, it should be indistinguishable from random data, and thus can't be compressed.

 

[DeletedUser080302028]

Is there a recommended file system for containers stored on ZFS or is interaction between the container's "dumb" FS (like exFAT) and ZFS irrelevant?

 

[danb35]

Compression happens to blocks so I think it would still work just fine.

It "works" in that it won't crash the system, corrupt the data, or anything like that, but encrypted data should be incompressible. The data should be indistinguishable from random data (if it isn't, the encryption algorithm isn't doing its job), and randomness isn't compressible.

 

[SweetAndLow]

Is there a recommended file system for containers stored on ZFS or is interaction between the container's "dumb" FS (like exFAT) and ZFS irrelevant?

Irrelevant, I would not use a checksumming filesystem on top of another. Stick with ext4, ntfs styles.

Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk

 

[DeletedUser080302028]

Irrelevant, I would not use a checksumming filesystem on top of another. Stick with ext4, ntfs styles.

I won't use ReFS on top of ZFS then. lmao

exFAT all right or would you suggest NTFS instead?

 

[Ericloewe]

From FreeNAS' perspective, it's completely irrelevant and hidden.