SCALE vs CORE for virtualization

[calum74]

I installed TrueNAS CORE on an Intel i5 with 64GB RAM. I've run into a few annoyances with bhyve, and wondered if upgrading to TrueNAS SCALE would solve my problems:
- Unreliability for Windows 11: No TPM, cannot boot without attaching VNC first, VM crashes after a few days.
- VM performance isn't great
- No nested virtualization

 

[calum74]

I actually "upgraded" to TrueNAS SCALE and found the migration experience quite easy. Amazingly, all the VMs migrated perfectly (apart from changing the network device names), and this does seem to have fixed these issues.

 

[sfatula]

Yeah, been running a WIn 10 VM for quite some time on Scale nad no issues at all. It's quick, and it simply works.

 

[Patrick M. Hausen]

Yeah, been running a WIn 10 VM for quite some time on Scale nad no issues at all. It's quick, and it simply works.

Same for CORE with Windows 10. Plus Windows Server 2016 in production - our two domain controllers run on two separate CORE systems.

I am not debating that KVM has got more features and is more mature than bhyve. Complete lack of TPM is going to be an issue even if it isn't for everyone already.

What I am really puzzled about is the experience of some users that bhyve is "slow". My experience and the stated development goal when the project started is quite the contrary. Being late to the party simply drop all legacy features - no 32 bit, UEFI only, ... - but go for a clean design and high performance. That's my experience in reality so I would really like to know what is different for some other people.

Kind regards,
Patrick

 

[sfatula]

That's funny Patrick as I've seen the same posts in Scale, Windows is slow, lol. I am puzzled by that one. Before Scale, was using qemu in Ubuntu running Windows VM for probably 5 years, was not slow then either!

Heck, my spice client is running on a Raspberry PI, if anything, mine should be slow but it's quite performant.