iXsystems Announces TrueNAS SCALE As A Linux-Based Offering

[kpedersen]

That company constantly creates new "cool projects with great future" and scrapping them as failure after some time. PC BSD, Lumina, TrueOS, Project Trident.

Add one more to the list FreeNAS Corral. It was a FreeNAS built on Linux which flopped quite badly. I don't know if it was simply rejected by the community, had technical issues regarding Jails or was simply too young and buggy for wide adoption.

That said, I wish iXsystems well in whatever their next "thing" is. Even if it is Linux based (which is still a bit odd because Berkely Software Design Inc. (BSDi) lives on through them).

[Space Heater]

Add one more to the list FreeNAS Corral. It was a FreeNAS built on Linux which flopped quite badly. I don't know if it was simply rejected by the community, had technical issues regarding Jails or was simply too young and buggy for wide adoption.

Corral used FreeBSD just like other FreeNAS releases. iX clearly stated that Corral was based on FreeBSD 11.0-STABLE.

[rhavenn]

I love FreeBSD and manage plenty of AWS VMs running it. However, FreeNAS was a buggy mess the few times I tried it. The UI had glitches and it would forget settings. It worked okay as long as you stayed inside a very specific swim lane, but I found it easier to just build a NAS on FreeBSD core and read the docs / manpages for the pieces I wasn't familiar with.

When I talked with some iXsystems people for a specific issue when we were running a trial comparing it some Nexenta systems I was told I should just buy TrueNAS because it's better. Ummm...what? No, you have a basic bug (it wouldn't set / remember custom NTP servers) that I replicated across 3 different clean installs and your answer is to tell me to just buy TrueNAS? Lol..no. I just rolled a plain FreeBSD install that we used as a tertiary / DR point for the Nexenta systems. Additionally, NTP worked fine.

Personally, I think iXsystems should have worked with the FreeBSD Foundation to offer some certified for FreeBSD systems and FreeBSD support contracts to get that "support" option so many companies look for. Still one of the main reasons you can't get it by any corporate purchasing or approval "gates".

[edwaleni]

I thought iX tried to move FreeNAS to Debian years ago and faced a BSD rebellion and retreated back?

I have given FreeNAS a whirl several times in their lifetime on various generations of hardware and it always came down to the same thing, periodic freezing up.

Different hardware, same issue. Different storage types. Same issue. After jumping into the FreeBSD world briefly, all the answers were the same, 1. I don't know 2. Try recompiling from base 3. Buy the hardware from us

I finally moved on.

[drjohnnyfever]

I tried installing FreeBSD 12.x on bare metal a few months ago. That experience left me disappointed, because:

- The installer functionality feels like something from 10 years ago, what with its lack of being able to go back and forward between tasks -- this means that if this is your first FreeBSD install in a while, you can't navigate back and forth to check (and update) options and settings to your satisfaction.

- The partitioner in the installer was similarly void of recovery/change logic, which makes it user-unfriendly (people make mistakes, period).

- When I started the system with an older, well-supported Radeon HD 5770 card, it took me a while to figure out that the official documentation was flat out lying (= woefully out of date) about the default console driver and how things were supposed to work.

Other parts of the system worked great (ports etc.), but if this is the kind of barrier of entry the FreeBSD people are creating, I'm not all that surprised that people aren't jumping on the FreeBSD bandwagon in droves; the single greatest thing FreeBSD has going for it is that it is an integrated system where they control everything from the kernel to the basic userland to documentation.

However, if FreeBSD can't even keep their own house in order (i.e, if my experience is indicative of the general state of affairs and not some random fluke) I'm afraid that my only option is to conclude that FreeBSD is circling the drain but for a few hidebound developers fighting the landslide of obsolesence.

FreeBSD itself isn't competing in the same segment of the market as Ubuntu. I'm not saying you need to like the installer but it isn't that bad. There are downstream projects like GhostBSD that have pretty Ubuntu-like installers if you want it.

The Debian TUI installer, which is the classic good Linux installer, is worse than the current FreeBSD TUI installer in my opinion.

[kpedersen]

Corral used FreeBSD just like other FreeNAS releases. iX clearly stated that Corral was based on FreeBSD 11.0-STABLE.

You are right. I have no idea why I recalled Corral to be based on Linux. Looking back now, it was FreeBSD 11 and the main change was the web framework they used for the frontend that wasn't so good.

https://www.marksei.com/freenas-corr...se-based-9-10/

[kreijack]

I would like to see OpenBSD based NAS system but I fear it will not have docker support. Maybe OpenBSD as Hypervisor. And some Linuxoid VM for docker.

Why do you think that stacking two OS will result in a more secure system ? If we are lucky we had the sum of the bugs (and the exploits) of the OSs.
However the true is that we have the sum of:
- the bugs (and the exploits) of the upper os
- the bugs (and the exploits) of the lower os
- the bugs (and the exploits) of the VM subsystem
- the bugs (and the exploits) of the interaction of the layers above....

(then we should add the docker layer... but this is another history..)

Anyway, linux over openbsd doesn't make any sense. I suggest the opposite: openbsd (more secure ?) over linux (better support of the hardware).
I don't think that docker makes sense in a so vertical context (NAS): docker is a barrier between services; but a NAS systems is supposed to provide only SAMBA/NFS service. Otherwise is not a NAS.

In a NAS service the point of failure is samba (not the service but the clients, think about cryptolock virus).

I have to point out that the assumption that openbsd is more secure than linux requires some explanation..

[CochainComplex]

I have to point out that the assumption that openbsd is more secure than linux requires some explanation..

Lets start with this Point. It seams you have never digged into OpenBSD right? They have a very radical code audit approach. e.g. They dont support modules because it could compromise the host....
Nice features https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBSD_security_features Less Line of code. Less possible security bugs.
Besides I still try to find something similar to pledge or unveil under Linux.

also worthwhile OpenBSD vs. Linux

I don't think that docker makes sense in a so vertical context (NAS): docker is a barrier between services; but a NAS systems is supposed to provide only SAMBA/NFS service. Otherwise is not a NAS.

In a NAS service the point of failure is samba (not the service but the clients, think about cryptolock virus).

Network Attached Storage ... this might include smb but If I mostly only use Linus devices at home smb is not necessary.
You know WebDAV ?

This leads us to Docker...
My NAS uses Nextcloud among other services.
I dont want to screw around with different versions of php, nginx, sql so lets just dockerize it.

As stated I would like to have openbsd with docker. because I dont like to have an additional layer. But even if.
I can isolate this kernel rather stricktly. I cant do this with the host system otherwise I would not have e.g. USB support.

Why do you think that stacking two OS will result in a more secure system ? If we are lucky we had the sum of the bugs (and the exploits) of the OSs.
However the true is that we have the sum of:
- the bugs (and the exploits) of the upper os
- the bugs (and the exploits) of the lower os
- the bugs (and the exploits) of the VM subsystem
- the bugs (and the exploits) of the interaction of the layers above....

(then we should add the docker layer... but this is another history..)

It is not stacking - such an ensamble does not mean ...put openbsd with graphic user interface a vm and fullblown debian with libreoffice into it.

OpenBSD has most probably the most secure Kernel available so having this as a host is quite admireable.. Do you know pf? this is a great firewall. Afaik it is not easily possible to set up a openbsd vm and give the eth0 exclusively to it. There is some virtualisation driver in it.

Why is Linux more secure ? Why not dockerizing if you can separate users with each service? adding SECCOMP profiles to harden it.

I dont get your point.

[ermo]

FreeBSD itself isn't competing in the same segment of the market as Ubuntu. I'm not saying you need to like the installer but it isn't that bad. There are downstream projects like GhostBSD that have pretty Ubuntu-like installers if you want it.

The Debian TUI installer, which is the classic good Linux installer, is worse than the current FreeBSD TUI installer in my opinion.

I'm suggesting that the installer is rudimentary at best and is lacking a properly thought out and executed design -- it's fine if it's a TUI installer, but as it stands, it is user-unfriendly because it isn't interactive enough; if you make a mistake or decide to go back and change something, you have to start over instead. The Linux distributions identified this as an issue a long time ago and made appropriate changes.

And since when isn't FreeBSD competing against Debian, Ubuntu Server and Fedora Server? When judged by the same criteria, the FreeBSD install experience simply falls short. End of story.

Note that I'm not suggesting that FreeBSD is bad (it certainly has its strong points!), just that the installation experience was poor for me on my particular hardware and that this matters in terms of first impressions when the market has options that present themselves as having a more thought through install and first boot experience where the documentation isn't just correct, it's actually not needed because KMS works out of the box on Linux even on servers booting in a CLI only.

These are literally the first things a new or returning user sees.

[mbello]

I wish they had chosen Ubuntu as the base for next gen TrueNAS because Ubuntu is now shipping ZFS officially and they could benefit from it.
Other than that, nice move, these days just having to maintain a OS that is not what I know by heart becomes an issue.
I already deal with too many programming languages (and their infinite number of libraries and frameworks), too many virtualization solutions, etc

And OSes other than Linux will always miss a tool or two that make all the difference in day-to-day work.