FreeNAS is a two-year-old rewrite of NAS4Free, which is eight years old and formerly known as FreeNAS. The question to me is, why switch?
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Cary Kempston <[email protected]> wrote: > Why do you prefer NAS4Free? Just curious, as I've heard that a couple > times but don't see any compelling reasons to switch from just looking at > the website. > > > On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Andrew Akira Toulouse > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I found that NAS4Free is better. NAS4Free was FreeNAS until trademark >> hijinks happened and the original fork had to rename itself. I've used both >> and prefer NAS4Free. It definitely helps configuration get out of the way >> except for just the stuff you really want to configure. I'd recommend it >> for a home setup. >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Cary Kempston <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I'm a fan of FreeNAS for storage at home. While you don't get the >>> "learn FreeBSD" aspects, it is really easy to use, and for storage >>> generally just works. >>> >>> raidz2 works, and should mitigate the risks of losing the array during >>> rebuilding if you have to replace a drive. I've never been concerned about >>> copies=2 - out of curiosity, why is that a concern? And if you have a >>> reasonably fast cpu, consider enabling compression on some volumes (lzjb if >>> fast). DI don't bother with it on media-heavy volumes, however, although >>> it might help if you have lots of RAW pictures. >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Matthew Goff <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> > Why not spin up a test VM in virtualbox or whatever, attach a couple >>>> of >>>> > virtual disks as a mirror, and give it a try? Go ahead and use dd to >>>> corrupt >>>> > one of the mirrored disks, then watch as the zpool scrub finds and >>>> corrects >>>> > the errors. Take some snapshots and have zfs show you the >>>> differences. Maybe >>>> > clone a second VM and send/receive some snapshots between the two. I >>>> think >>>> > you'll be impressed. >>>> >>>> I've actually spent the morning playing in a VM and trying to figure >>>> out what TYPE of ZFS pool(s) would be best. I've come to the >>>> conclusion that copies=2 is a necessity to take advantage of the >>>> self-healing with file checksums, but should I run this in mirror, >>>> raidz, raidz2...etc? >>>> >>>> Right now I'm in the middle of another re-install of FreeBSD 9.1 >>>> trying raidz2. If my thinking is correct, a 4x1TB raidz2 would leave >>>> me with 2TB of usable space and the capability of losing two drives at >>>> once. Setting the file copies to 2 in places I most care about >>>> (photos, videos; not ports or random downloads, etc) would then cut my >>>> 2TB down a bit further. Does this sound sane? Everything I've read >>>> about ZFS really has me wanting to migrate to it and learn FreeBSD >>>> some but I want to ensure I have a sane idea of what I plan to create >>>> with it. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> discuss mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.prgmr.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.prgmr.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.prgmr.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.prgmr.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.prgmr.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
