rebuilding my NAS wondering which OS to use

[Chaoticlusts]

Hey all

I currently have a 4 drive homebuilt NAS using ZFS under FreeNAS. I've filled it up and have bought another 4 drives to rebuild into a new ZFS array, however I've had some recommendations that I avoid FreeNAS for various reasons and thought i'd seek opinions from people who have more experience than me (which isn't hard )

the drives are 1.5TB WD green drives so they use the 4K sectors but luckily freenas has very very recently released a beta build finally supporting that

I've been told to use opensolaris over freenas and freebsd over opensolaris hense the confusion

this is purely for home use no server operations or anything so it will be used for backup/data storage

oh and if it makes any difference i'll have 4 drives on my motherboard sata and 4 drives on a pci sata controller

thanx in advance for any help

 

[yinan]

Windows Storage Server 2008 R2

 

[Nothinman]

Because of Oracle's purchase of Sun, I would avoid anything Solaris like the plague. And I personally would avoid FreeBSD just because I like Linux better. I thought I read that FreeNAS wasn't supporting ZFS in the future, so that might be a consideration if it's true.

 

[mtnd3vil]

Windows Storage Server 2008 R2

Although the OP is probably not using any iscsi connections and I'm not sure how effective SIS would be for a single home user... I still think this is a cool idea. But really, taking the above two features out of the equation, Storage Server wouldn't offer much more than regular Windows Server.

 

[taltamir]

Because of Oracle's purchase of Sun, I would avoid anything Solaris like the plague. And I personally would avoid FreeBSD just because I like Linux better. I thought I read that FreeNAS wasn't supporting ZFS in the future, so that might be a consideration if it's true.

linux doesn't support ZFS though.
FreeNAS is a FreeBSD distro that comes out of the box with GUI tools and configuration for NAS deployment. I don't see how FreeNAS is going to possibly drop support for ZFS considering that FreeBSD is currently committed to supporting ZFS (they made a public statement to that extent). Sub.Mesa is developing a FreeBSD distro that focuses entirely on ZFS NAS, to have more robust and specific GUI tools for ZFS management then FreeNAS.

Open solaris is dead thanks to Oracle, and oracle is indeed plague-like... but you can still use opensolaris to great effect, and the illumos fork of opensolaris is completely free of oracle's claws. (replacing all proprietary tech with open source alternatives)

Currently I am sticking with with my open solaris until illumos matures a bit, or FreeBSD implements latest ZFS versions.

 

[Nothinman]

linux doesn't support ZFS though.
FreeNAS is a FreeBSD distro that comes out of the box with GUI tools and configuration for NAS deployment. I don't see how FreeNAS is going to possibly drop support for ZFS considering that FreeBSD is currently committed to supporting ZFS (they made a public statement to that extent). Sub.Mesa is developing a FreeBSD distro that focuses entirely on ZFS NAS, to have more robust and specific GUI tools for ZFS management then FreeNAS.

Open solaris is dead thanks to Oracle, and oracle is indeed plague-like... but you can still use opensolaris to great effect, and the illumos fork of opensolaris is completely free of oracle's claws. (replacing all proprietary tech with open source alternatives)

Currently I am sticking with with my open solaris until illumos matures a bit, or FreeBSD implements latest ZFS versions.

Except that ZFS isn't worth putting up with FreeBSD IMO. I would rather use Linux and the slightly more limited LVM+XFS combo than use FreeBSD.

 

[taltamir]

Except that ZFS isn't worth putting up with FreeBSD IMO. I would rather use Linux and the slightly more limited LVM+XFS combo than use FreeBSD.

ZFS is very much worth it, ZFS is the only FS in the world that gives you end to end checksumming and recovery of data corruption (redundant raid with any other FS only handles full drive failure, not individual data corruption on a functional drive). Not to mention its various other advantages (dedup, compression, etc) and exceptional ease of management and robustness.

Yes, we get it, you love linux. but if someone is going to go to the effort of handling an OS more difficult then windows home server, then he better be getting a lot for his efforts... with ZFS he does (on either solaris or BSD), with linux he doesn't.

 

[ViviTheMage]

openfiler

 

[Nothinman]

ZFS is very much worth it, ZFS is the only FS in the world that gives you end to end checksumming and recovery of data corruption (redundant raid with any other FS only handles full drive failure, not individual data corruption on a functional drive). Not to mention its various other advantages (dedup, compression, etc) and exceptional ease of management and robustness.

Yes, we get it, you love linux. but if someone is going to go to the effort of handling an OS more difficult then windows home server, then he better be getting a lot for his efforts... with ZFS he does (on either solaris or BSD), with linux he doesn't.

I understand what ZFS gets you, but I still prefer the package management and such that comes with Linux. If ZFS were GPL'd and included in Linux I'd be all over it, but I'm not going to put up with the crap package management in OpenSolaris or FreeBSD when XFS+LVM has been perfectly safe with my data for like a decade now. Error rates with drives are obviously going up considerably lately, however IMO it's still a lot of hand waving because every Windows, Mac, Linux, etc system out there doesn't have end to end checksumming and they get along just fine. Meaning to me that it's just a "would be nice" feature for the time being.

 

[Zap]

I've been told to use opensolaris over freenas and freebsd over opensolaris hense the confusion

Maybe it is all personal preference? You want to be confused? Go to a hardcore Linux forum and ask which distro to use. D:

 

[Voo]

I understand what ZFS gets you, but I still prefer the package management and such that comes with Linux.

Not sure how that's of much importance for a NAS - I'd think most people don't install much software after the setup on their NAS. Imo the filesystem is by far the most important metric for something like that AND with TBs of disk space you really strain your luck if you're using Raid5 or co.
Doesn't mean that Linux or Windows aren't able to do the job just fine, but I think most of their advantages aren't that important for a NAS.


@FreeBSD vs. OpenSolaris: FreeBSD lags behind a bit with the implementation, but has sound implementations of most of the interesting features.. deduplication is missing though, which is rather interesting for mass storage and can save some storage (though never use it in a "real" server.. CPU utilization skyrockets and it's also in no release version of solaris yet afaik).

Also there's a project that tries to port ZFS to linux, but with the licensing pita afaik it's not ready for real usage and has some performance penalties.

 

[taltamir]

Not sure how that's of much importance for a NAS - I'd think most people don't install much software after the setup on their NAS.

Correct. With opensolaris I had to install exactly 2 packages... for CIFS. called SUNWsmbs and SUNWsmbskr.

Here is a complete wiki guide (which I contributed to btw) on how to setup your opensolaris ZFS fileserver for sharing to a windows machine.

http://wiki.genunix.org/wiki/index....laris_CIFS_Service_Software_.28OpenSolaris.29

I don't disagree that linux has better packaging systems, etc. But the thing is, I put up with solaris because of ZFS... why would I bother putting up with linux's quirks? sure, solaris is even more difficult than linux (amazingly enough), but its worth it.

Maybe it is all personal preference? You want to be confused? Go to a hardcore Linux forum and ask which distro to use. D:

so true.

Here is where things stand:
Solaris Flavors: Newer ZFS implementations with the latest features.
BSD Flavors: Older ZFS implementation, thus missing some features (ex: dedup, ability to safely use an SSD as a log device for VAST performance improvements, etc)

BSD is generally considered to be much more user friendly and easier to use and learn. It also helps that BSD has a nicer community... In the 3 weeks it took me to learn solaris all I got in their IRC channel were "go back to windows noob" and much worse when asking for help or advice... and the community is tiny. Forums were better, but problematic.

Solaris flavors:
Solaris - Proprietary, costs money, don't bother unless big corporation.
SECE - now defunct project by sun, they asked people to use opensolaris instead.
OpenSolaris - Very solid, free, has some closed source drivers and the like, development halted when Sun was bought by oracle so that it doesn't compete with payware solaris. Currently what I use. (development halted, but last version still available)
Illumos - opensolaris fork meant to get away from corporate control of sun (and now oracle) and replace proprietary stuff with open source stuff. Currently under development, gets funding from various corporations with interest in the platform but supposedly community controlled.

BSD flavors:
FreeBSD - FOSS OS, ported ZFS, lags a little in features.
FreeNAS - FreeBSD with preinstalled GUI software and configuration for NAS (all of which available and doable for regular FreeBSD)
sub.mesa's distro - currently being built by sub.mesa (who is active here on anandtech), meant to be like FreeNAS only with a greater focus on ZFS and more GUI utilities for ZFS.

So which should you use? entirely up to you.

 

[taltamir]

delete

 

[Nothinman]

Not sure how that's of much importance for a NAS - I'd think most people don't install much software after the setup on their NAS. Imo the filesystem is by far the most important metric for something like that AND with TBs of disk space you really strain your luck if you're using Raid5 or co.
Doesn't mean that Linux or Windows aren't able to do the job just fine, but I think most of their advantages aren't that important for a NAS.

Because even though it starts out as a NAS it rarely ends up staying that way. Eventually it starts running some other services and I'd rather deal with that on Linux than something else. Sure, one would do a better job with the separation of services on VMs but for home it's not really worth it.

Also there's a project that tries to port ZFS to linux, but with the licensing pita afaik it's not ready for real usage and has some performance penalties.

Yea, it's a FUSE implementation because of the license incompatibility which means it'll always have shitty performance and I doubt any major distros will pick it up and try integrating it. Eventually BTRFS will supplant it, but that's a while off.

I don't disagree that linux has better packaging systems, etc. But the thing is, I put up with solaris because of ZFS... why would I bother putting up with linux's quirks? sure, solaris is even more difficult than linux (amazingly enough), but its worth it.

Because Linux's quirks are a lot easier to find fixes for and hardware compatibility is going to be better too.

 

[pjkenned]

Because Linux's quirks are a lot easier to find fixes for and hardware compatibility is going to be better too.

Hardware compatibility in OpenSolaris can be painful. Along with the advice that these things rarely stay simple NAS devices for long, I would suggest whatever you get (hardware wise) you make sure it works with ESX and OpenSolaris. This basically means you get something like an Intel or Supermicro motherboard rather than an Asus/ Gigabyte/ MSI/ etc. consumer board. The plus side is that these server boards have great compatibility and management features.

With that being said hardware compatibility wise, let's face it, Windows rocks. I tried installing Mellanox InifiniBand adapters in the boxes this weekend. Windows was double click on the install package, next, next, finish and good to go. Linux was reading for 20 minutes and building a few packages. OpenSolaris was get a different Mellanox card, read for an hour, and it works now.

Assuming you are building a box, then this is less of an issue. If you have an existing platform, it can be more so.

BTW check out Nexenta/Core and OpenIndiana if you are looking OpenSolaris. As for FreeNAS the question is whether you want to wait for 8.x stable.

 

[taltamir]

Because even though it starts out as a NAS it rarely ends up staying that way. Eventually it starts running some other services and I'd rather deal with that on Linux than something else. Sure, one would do a better job with the separation of services on VMs but for home it's not really worth it.

over a year now and my NAS stayed a NAS... I do everything else from my windows PC, even running my FTP server (thanks to filezilla)... although, I have been considering installing an FTP server on the NAS as well (not instead of, in addition to). so I guess I can't speak out, but I haven't done it yet though.

BTW check out Nexenta/Core and OpenIndiana if you are looking OpenSolaris. As for FreeNAS the question is whether you want to wait for 8.x stable.

nexenta is running illumos, the opensolaris fork. it is in fact one of its corporate sponsors which I mentioned earlier.

Hardware compatibility in OpenSolaris can be painful.

it can be, so its worth testing... but its easy as pie to throw on freeBSD if opensolaris is giving you trouble, or illomos, or schillax, or FreeNAS any of those other dristros of BSD or solaris.

 

[Nothinman]

Hardware compatibility in OpenSolaris can be painful. Along with the advice that these things rarely stay simple NAS devices for long, I would suggest whatever you get (hardware wise) you make sure it works with ESX and OpenSolaris. This basically means you get something like an Intel or Supermicro motherboard rather than an Asus/ Gigabyte/ MSI/ etc. consumer board. The plus side is that these server boards have great compatibility and management features.

With that being said hardware compatibility wise, let's face it, Windows rocks. I tried installing Mellanox InifiniBand adapters in the boxes this weekend. Windows was double click on the install package, next, next, finish and good to go. Linux was reading for 20 minutes and building a few packages. OpenSolaris was get a different Mellanox card, read for an hour, and it works now.

Assuming you are building a box, then this is less of an issue. If you have an existing platform, it can be more so.

BTW check out Nexenta/Core and OpenIndiana if you are looking OpenSolaris. As for FreeNAS the question is whether you want to wait for 8.x stable.

Windows may be simpler up front, but it hardly rocks. I have to mess with Windows servers every day and it really seems like MS pays someone on each team to find ways to unnecessarily obfuscate and complicate things that should be simple.

 

[Chaoticlusts]

Thanx heaps for all the responses

I think I can safely write windows off...at the very least cause I don't want to pay for an OS when there's perfectly functional free ones around that can do what I want them too....as for the other choices...well seems everyone has a different opinion at least I have a few days to really make up mind before i'll have fully backed up my old NAS

oh one other thing I forgot to mention...currently i'm running FreeNAS off a flash drive...I was planning on continuing that...I could rip an old IDE drive out of my main computer and use it as a boot drive...hell I could rip both and mirror them...it'd greatly reduce capacity but at least if one failed...though I'm not even sure if I could install to a mirrored setup but yeah that's another thing to take into account