Which version to install: 11.3 U5 instead of 12.0 U3?

[seldo]

Hello,

I’ve installed TrueNAS CORE 12.0-U2.1 to play around with.
Now is time to move my data and I’m wondering if I should pick FreeNAS 11.3 U5 over the latest 12.0 U3 version.

I don’t plan to update the system often.
I’m now thinking of using the 11.3 U5 version as I believe it’s more polished, against 12.0 U3 that’s still fairly new in the 12* branch.
From my hardware and requirements, I don’t think I’ll see differences in options and features.
Only the GUI looks slightly difference.
I’m just looking for something polished were I don’t have to think much about.
I guess the main difference might come from the ZFS version.

Thoughts?

 

[winnielinnie]

TrueNAS 12-U2.1 is quite polished, and -U3 will be even more so. If you plan on using any type of encryption, it's much preferable to do it via native ZFS encryption (on a per-dataset level), rather than through GELI block device encryption which is no longer supported in creating new pools with TrueNAS 12 and beyond. FreeNAS (11.x) does not support native ZFS encryption.

There's a few other niceties in 12 that are missing in 11.x. Not game-changers, but things that I have found to make managing and automating the NAS server less headachey.

 

[ChrisRJ]

It all depends on your functional requirements and level of paranoia. If v12 works for you and you have thoroughly tested it, I would probably keep it. If you your only decision criterion is stability, then by definition v11 is the winner, simply because it has been out for much longer.

There are various threads on this subject here in the forum. So I recommend to go through those as well.

 

[kspare]

If you are a heavy nfs or iscsi users....basically if performance matters, use fn11. ive not tested 12u3 yet but we have to revert back For the time being to fn11

 

[seldo]

TrueNAS 12-U2.1 is quite polished, and -U3 will be even more so. If you plan on using any type of encryption, it's much preferable to do it via native ZFS encryption (on a per-dataset level), rather than through GELI block device encryption which is no longer supported in creating new pools with TrueNAS 12 and beyond. FreeNAS (11.x) does not support native ZFS encryption.

I won't encrypt, because my data are not sensitive.
I just want to be able to keep them safely and also reduce overhead.

There's a few other niceties in 12 that are missing in 11.x. Not game-changers, but things that I have found to make managing and automating the NAS server less headachey.

Any items you find helpful in 12 that I should have a look at to make my decision?

It all depends on your functional requirements and level of paranoia. If v12 works for you and you have thoroughly tested it, I would probably keep it.

I haven't tested it thoroughly.
The only system I've tested was Nas4Free 11 that I kept running for a few years until a few months ago when I started looking at migrating to FN/TN.

Actually, my usage is pretty simple: two pools with one mirror, one attached replication (and another offline coming kind of soon I hope).
One pool is for cold storage: it's mostly a one way thing from PC to NAS.
The other one is a scatch pool, data is sitting waiting to be processed and then moved to the other pool when done.

I do not work from the NAS, so I will copy a few GB (between 2 and 100GB), process it on the PC and then send them back (usually less data as its culled).

If you your only decision criterion is stability, then by definition v11 is the winner, simply because it has been out for much longer.

That is! I also don't want to play sysadmin on a regular basis.

There are various threads on this subject here in the forum. So I recommend to go through those as well.

I should have thought about it, though I haven't seen any pinned topics.
I will check that now.

If you are a heavy nfs or iscsi users....basically if performance matters, use fn11. ive not tested 12u3 yet but we have to revert back For the time being to fn11

I was using SMB on Nas4Free, and it seems that NFS has slightly better performance.
I haven't made up my mind yet.
It will be running on a gigabit ethernet network, so I don't expect very high speed anyway. I just want the data to move reliably, which I believe is already the case.
What do you mean by 'heavy nfs usage'?
I won't work on files over network, so I guess I'm not affected by your statement?

[...] considering people tend to blindly follow advice from rando's on the internet.

If you close your eyes on details and it works, you save a lot of time, and if it doesn't work, you usually hit a wall

 

[ornias]

You usually hit a wall

Or trashed your data :P

 

[kspare]

At least explain your reasoning, instead just pointing at "performance" without any explaination.
It's confusing for other users, considering people tend to blindly follow advice from rando's on the internet.

I’m hardly a rando...lol

if you are using looking for a shared storage server using nfs or iscsi and using 10gb or higher stick with fn. There are many threads about this.

 

[ornias]

I’m hardly a rando...lol

You're a forum regular, not an authority on the mater.
So yes, you perfectly fill the catagory "rando on the internet" for me. "lol"

if you are using looking for a shared storage server using nfs or iscsi and using 10gb or higher stick with fn. There are many threads about this.

Just because people are complaining, doesn't make them right.

I've run linux->windows iSCSI on both 11.3, 12.* and SCALE and have had not troubles with either of them.
I've also ran NFS on 11.3 and 12.* and had no troubles either.

Does that make me right? No, because having no troubles doesn't make me right either.
But just don't pick one side of the argument and provide that as proof of (in)stability.

Thats also the response from iX on most of those topics: "There might be issues and we are willing to look into it, but most users do not have issues"
It's called "silent majority"

Anyway, like OP said:
He is looking for copying a few GB once in a while using a 1gb connection.
12.* is a totally solid system for that usecase.

 

[kspare]

You're a forum regular, not an authority on the mater.
So yes, you perfectly fill the catagory "rando on the internet" for me. "lol"



Just because people are complaining, doesn't make them right.

I've run linux->windows iSCSI on both 11.3, 12.* and SCALE and have had not troubles with either of them.
I've also ran NFS on 11.3 and 12.* and had no troubles either.

Does that make me right? No, because having no troubles doesn't make me right either.
But just don't pick one side of the argument and provide that as proof of (in)stability.

Thats also the response from iX on most of those topics: "There might be issues and we are willing to look into it, but most users do not have issues"
It's called "silent majority"

Anyway, like OP said:
He is looking for copying a few GB once in a while using a 1gb connection.
12.* is a totally solid system for that usecase.

Thanks for policing the internet. I’m sure your mom is proud. You are also entitled to your opinion.

mine is not an opinion. I use truenas /freenas in production for my company. I can tell factuality, that truenas does not offer the same high performance as freenas.

not a guessing game, not a matter of not knowing what I’m doing.
so get off your High rando horse and stop making it like truenas is the end all be all.

 

[danb35]

mine is not an opinion.

Yes, it is. Your (apparent) observation that, in your particular use case, TN12 gives worse performance than FN11, is fact insofar as you've actually observed that. Your conclusion that TN12 universally gives worse NFS/iSCSI performance is an opinion based on a very small sample size.

 

[kspare]

Yes, it is. Your (apparent) observation that, in your particular use case, TN12 gives worse performance than FN11, is fact insofar as you've actually observed that. Your conclusion that TN12 universally gives worse NFS/iSCSI performance is an opinion based on a very small sample size.

I dont think it’s slow...it is slow. So it’s not an opinion, it’s fact. if you are running gig connections it’s probably ok. If you are expecting high performance like you can get from fn11 you wont, that’s a fact not an opinion.

if you guys are so knowledgeable get involved in the iscsi and nfs threads where people are struggling to make tn12 work.

this banter helps no one, I’ll try tn12u3 when it comes out and give feed back again. Hopefully it works.

 

[kspare]

I should clarify too....my specific use for fn or tn is ONLY as a VMware nfs store. I use it for nothing else.

Hello,

I’ve installed TrueNAS CORE 12.0-U2.1 to play around with.
Now is time to move my data and I’m wondering if I should pick FreeNAS 11.3 U5 over the latest 12.0 U3 version.

I don’t plan to update the system often.
I’m now thinking of using the 11.3 U5 version as I believe it’s more polished, against 12.0 U3 that’s still fairly new in the 12* branch.
From my hardware and requirements, I don’t think I’ll see differences in options and features.
Only the GUI looks slightly difference.
I’m just looking for something polished were I don’t have to think much about.
I guess the main difference might come from the ZFS version.

Thoughts?

what are you going to use it for? ultima somethings work better on tn12 and something work better on fn11.

all i can speak to is usning it as a dedicated nfs store for VMware using 40gb adapters. In this case fn11 works better. Do some research and see what others are experiencing based on your intended use....

 

[seldo]

There's a few other niceties in 12 that are missing in 11.x. Not game-changers, but things that I have found to make managing and automating the NAS server less headachey.

@winnielinnie : let me @ you and ask you again if you could share which niceties you appreciate having in 12

 

[seldo]

I should clarify too....my specific use for fn or tn is ONLY as a VMware nfs store. I use it for nothing else.


what are you going to use it for? ultima somethings work better on tn12 and something work better on fn11.

all i can speak to is usning it as a dedicated nfs store for VMware using 40gb adapters. In this case fn11 works better. Do some research and see what others are experiencing based on your intended use....

I'll be using it for mostly 1) cold storage for storing pictures original files, and exports 2) a scratch disk to store unsorted/unedited pictures while they are waiting to processed.
Processing is done with files local to my PC.

I'll be transferred (receive and transmit) 100 GB a week if it's a busy week. Otherwise, it might be 10 GB, something like that.

 

[kspare]

I'll be using it for mostly 1) cold storage for storing pictures original files, and exports 2) a scratch disk to store unsorted/unedited pictures while they are waiting to processed.
Processing is done with files local to my PC.

I'll be transferred (receive and transmit) 100 GB a week if it's a busy week. Otherwise, it might be 10 GB, something like that.

what Are you goi g to use for sharing? Smb? Nfs? I’m guessing smb...tn will likely be the best bet then. Do your research on these forums, and make an educated decision.

 

[winnielinnie]

@winnielinnie : let me @ you and ask you again if you could share which niceties you appreciate having in 12

User-friendly presets for creating new SMB Shares. More streamlined permissions/ACL for SMB Shares with the newly introduced groups of "builtin_users", "builtin_administrators", "builtin_guests". Ability to manually invoke a Replication Task to a local pool (such as a USB drive) without creating a schedule nor automatically replicating with a Periodic Snapshot Task (though I think this already existed in 11.3? It might have been introduced in one of the 11.x iterations. I just never noticed it / used it until 12.0). And of course, with native encryption you can pick and choose what data to encrypt and even send locked datasets to another pool without requiring a key being sent over. (But you mentioned you won't be using encryption.)

I call these niceties since they're not rocket-ships to Mars, and some of them you might appreciate by playing with a test machine or VM. In fact, with VMs you can even have both versions running and open up two web browsers side-by-side to discover the differences.

 

[seldo]

what Are you goi g to use for sharing? Smb? Nfs? I’m guessing smb...tn will likely be the best bet then. Do your research on these forums, and make an educated decision.

I'll at least start with SMB since I didn't get NFS to work in my tests yesterday. I'll see for NFS later if needed.
I've been using SMB for the last past years and I'm happy about it.

I'll check on SMB performance between FN11 to TN12.

 

[seldo]

User-friendly presets for creating new SMB Shares. More streamlined permissions/ACL for SMB Shares with the newly introduced groups of "builtin_users", "builtin_administrators", "builtin_guests". Ability to manually invoke a Replication Task to a local pool (such as a USB drive) without creating a schedule nor automatically replicating with a Periodic Snapshot Task (though I think this already existed in 11.3? It might have been introduced in one of the 11.x iterations. I just never noticed it / used it until 12.0). And of course, with native encryption you can pick and choose what data to encrypt and even send locked datasets to another pool without requiring a key being sent over. (But you mentioned you won't be using encryption.)

I call these niceties since they're not rocket-ships to Mars, and some of them you might appreciate by playing with a test machine or VM. In fact, with VMs you can even have both versions running and open up two web browsers side-by-side to discover the differences.

Thanks for pointing out places of interest. I'll definitely compares these using VMs.

 

[seldo]

Ability to manually invoke a Replication Task to a local pool (such as a USB drive) without creating a schedule nor automatically replicating with a Periodic Snapshot Task (though I think this already existed in 11.3? It might have been introduced in one of the 11.x iterations. I just never noticed it / used it until 12.0).

It is actually present as 'Run Once' in 11.3/U5:

8. Tasks — FreeNAS®11.3-U5 User Guide Table of Contents

www.ixsystems.com

The replication task can be configured to run on a schedule or left unscheduled and manually activated. Choosing Run On a Schedule adds the Scheduling drop-down to choose from preset schedules or define a Custom replication schedule. Choosing Run Once removes all scheduling options.

About the encryption, the swap is encrypted by default, right?
So it means that in 11 it will be done through geli, and in 12 though a NAS encrypted dataset?

 

[winnielinnie]

About the encryption, the swap is encrypted by default, right?

Correct!

So it means that in 11 it will be done through geli, and in 12 though a NAS encrypted dataset?

GELI, under-the-hood in both 11.x and 12.x. You can even check with the command swapinfo.

If you want to disable swap on your data disks, you can change the amount from "2GB" to "0GB" under System > Advanced. If your boot drive (where you install FreeNAS / TrueNAS; not to be confused with your installation media) is 64GB or greater, the installer will prompt you to use 16GB for swap on this drive(s). I prefer this method, since (1) you get plenty of swap, (2) make good use of your over-sized boot drive(s), and (3) you can squeeze out an extra 2GB of space from your data drives.

However, some users prefer to leave 2GB (GELI) swap partitions by default on their data drives, because this "shaves off" a bit of room from their pool, which means there's a less likely chance that building an identical pool will yield a pool that is slightly smaller (vendor to vendor differences in drives, etc) than those used in the original pool. It's like a comfy 2GB+ wiggle room if you need to backup / replicate. (Though such a scenario is only an issue if you're about to fill up your entire pool!)

UPDATE: From a Reddit discussion, this applies to FreeNAS/TrueNAS and FreeBSD:

Encrypting swap provides protection against unauthorized access to memory contents after power-down (or other means), when such sensitive data in volatile RAM would normally be lost.