More TrueNAS Testing with some questions...

[danb35]

Though I expect a Mac can work with NFS, SMB really is what they expect for the most part.

And though my druthers were to go iSCSI initially, I realize now that doing that eliminates the option of utilizing some NAS features that I might want to have such as installing a Plex media server

Not at all; there's nothing at all about using iSCSI that precludes you from using Plex--though you wouldn't be able to point Plex to the iSCSI store for its media.

 

[Arwen]

...

But at this point, I'm leaning towards either a home brewed clone for TrueNAS or one of those HP microservers... and I will connect to the NAS via a dedicated 10G Ethernet link. And though my druthers were to go iSCSI initially, I realize now that doing that eliminates the option of utilizing some NAS features that I might want to have such as installing a Plex media server and even ZFSs skills in all things "self-repair" - assuming it does that at the file level ... but now that I think about it ... that might be done at the block level meaning that it doesn't matter what kind of share you have, ZFS will protect whatever I chose.

...

Any iSCSI volume stored on ZFS / TrueNAS will have ZFS protection at the level of the pool. Meaning if your pool was a simple 2 disk Mirror, then you can loose 1 disk before data loss in your iSCSI.

ZFS also has an odd feature some other RAID schemes don't include. You can loose blocks from BOTH disks in a Mirror and still not loose data. (Similar in RAID-Zx.) As long as 1 valid copy remains, ZFS will use that copy. Repair in this case is more complicated, but possible.

Further, ZFS' protection is at the block level, not the file level. Meaning a large file made of hundreds / thousands of ZFS RAID-Zx stripes would be protected at the ZFS stripe / block level.

Note that in most cases iSCSI volumes works better when configured in a ZFS pool of Mirrored vDevs. However, for light duty, you can use iSCSI volumes in a ZFS pool of RAID-Zx vDevs. Just be aware their are both performance and space allocation issues with iSCSI volumes on RAID-Zx.

 

[EasyGoing1]

Though I expect a Mac can work with NFS, SMB really is what they expect for the most part.

Not at all; there's nothing at all about using iSCSI that precludes you from using Plex--though you wouldn't be able to point Plex to the iSCSI store for its media.

Well that was my point. If I stored media files in the iSCSI share, then Plex would not be able to access those files.

 

[EasyGoing1]

Note that in most cases iSCSI volumes works better when configured in a ZFS pool of Mirrored vDevs. However, for light duty, you can use iSCSI volumes in a ZFS pool of RAID-Zx vDevs. Just be aware their are both performance and space allocation issues with iSCSI volumes on RAID-Zx.

This is why I am now leaning towards NFS instead of iSCSI ... just seems like allowing the NAS to have direct access to the files that I map to in the pool would make things less complicated.

 

[Patrick M. Hausen]

If you have Mac clients you definitely want SMB ... NFS is for server to server mounts in a strictly Unix environment.

 

[EasyGoing1]

If you have Mac clients you definitely want SMB ... NFS is for server to server mounts in a strictly Unix environment.

But MacOS runs on a *nix kernel ... and NFS is - from what I remember - closer to the kernel than SMB ... it's a more native way to mount as it works as though it was a physical disk attached to the OS as opposed to a whimsical SMB share ...

 

[Patrick M. Hausen]

No it isn't. It is working on the file level just as SMB does. I don't understand what you mean by "closer to the kernel". Apple supports SMB. Use NFS if you insist but be prepared to run into lots of issues like corrupted filenames, applications crashing when trying to access files on the share (Microsoft Office is notoriously known for this), ...

For example mounted NFS volumes are not displayed on the desktop by Mac OS. You can read more about NFS in a Mac environment here (and buy a separate application to facilitate using it in the first place):

NFS Manager: Description

Product description for NFS Manager

www.bresink.com

 

[EasyGoing1]

No it isn't. It is working on the file level just as SMB does. I don't understand what you mean by "closer to the kernel". Apple supports SMB. Use NFS if you insist but be prepared to run into lots of issues like corrupted filenames, applications crashing when trying to access files on the share (Microsoft Office is notoriously known for this), ...

For example mounted NFS volumes are not displayed on the desktop by Mac OS. You can read more about NFS in a Mac environment here (and buy a separate application to facilitate using it in the first place):

NFS Manager: Description

Product description for NFS Manager

www.bresink.com

I've used NFS quite a bit in the past, and what I liked about it is that it mounts into the OS like a drive ... and not just a share. Kind of analogous to communicating to your data through a low-level interface as opposed to just accessing a folder ... if that makes any sense. That's what I mean by "closer to the kernel" ... though I don't have any recollection of doing any real heavy lifting with NFS ... I do with iSCSI but not NFS.