Saving configuration via CLI in Scale?

[jasonmicron]

Hello -

I am attempting to save the configuration of a Scale deployment via the CLI using an iDRAC remote console (regular access to the normal NICs is unavailable). I can copy data to/from the system using the iDRAC virtual device manager though.

Long story short, this system was moved to another rack with different VLANs and configurations and the boot drives are about to get blown away for a temporary use case, and I would prefer to simply restore my configuration to the boot drives after this temporary situation is over.

I entered the TrueNAS CLI and I stumbled my way to what I assume is the command syntax required, however I am stumped on how to complete it:

Code:

system config save configsave=

I am assuming it wants the name of a file to save the configuration, however no matter what I input I get the following return:

Code:

Error: ValueError("Pipe 'output' is not open")

I checked the documentation and the only help I could find is GUI-based. Is saving the configuration via the CLI to a local .tar file or whatever not possible?

 

[artlessknave]

this seems....janky, but you can find the config here on Core. /data/freenas-v1.db. It wont have some of the passwords related security stuff, but way better than nothing.
I would think it's the same on Scale, or at least similar.
not sure if the CLI UI thing is in any way ready yet.

 

[jasonmicron]

Seems TrueNAS has some growing to do. I ended up needing the system for the other use case and couldn't figure this out. In my case though, the system wasn't really changed too much as it was a fairly new install. So I am fine just reinstalling from scratch.

But it is sort of amazing that this isn't something that is a ...thing. This is an Enterprise environment, and I was under the impression TrueNAS was targeting that sector over home use. Seems to not be the case, at least for this specific workflow. That's unfortunate. I'd open a Jira ticket but I have enough of a backlog in our own Jira system and just can't handle the spam.

Clearly though, something is amiss with the above command, seeing as how it just doesn't work.

@artlessknave thanks for the tip, very much appreciated!

 

[artlessknave]

the entire system that provides the command you tried to use is BETA (might be alpha).

Code:

system config save configsave=

it is not, and has never been, completed. in fact, trying to use it likely to break your system.
it is not in use by enterprise, because it was never completed.
it was started with [THE FREENAS VERSION THAT WILL NOT BE NAMED], but they mostly have abandoned it in favour of getting other things working, such as the code unification for FreeNAS and TrueNAS Enterprise, as well as SCALE.

I like the idea, but it's a lot of work for not really much gain. enterprise space typically buy support directly from ix, who know perfectly well that this is a non functioning subsystem. they would know how to get a copy of the DB if they need to without it.

 

[artlessknave]

Scale deployment

SCALE itself is not enterprise ready.

 

[jasonmicron]

SCALE itself is not enterprise ready.

Well that's good to know. I'm about to build a new environment for our company's lab and I was hoping to use TrueNAS Scale for shared data storage via NFS to an oVirt cluster. Sounds like that isn't advisable.

And I want Scale because literally no one else at the company really dabbles with BSD so having Linux under the hood would really help if I were to leave the company / get hit by a bus / whatever and can't be around to help.

I'll just roll an AlmaLinux server using LVM or something then. Appreciate the help!

 

[anodos]

Well that's good to know. I'm about to build a new environment for our company's lab and I was hoping to use TrueNAS Scale for shared data storage via NFS to an oVirt cluster. Sounds like that isn't advisable.

And I want Scale because literally no one else at the company really dabbles with BSD so having Linux under the hood would really help if I were to leave the company / get hit by a bus / whatever and can't be around to help.

I'll just roll an AlmaLinux server using LVM or something then. Appreciate the help!

NFS is SCALE is just the Linux kernel NFS server, which is fairly rock-solid. ZFS on Linux is also pretty solid. Basic file sharing should be fine in 22.12.0 for deployment in production environments (just keep an eye on release notes for any breaking issues for your use-case).

 

[jasonmicron]

Yea I was targeting TrueNAS Scale specifically for the reason I mentioned above (Linux / company expertise) but mostly because I really, really like the additions that ZFS has to its filesystem. Snapshots being the most important.

It has 2x NVMe SSDs in a Dell R7920 for the boot drive, which I guess can be whatever OS I want. The deeper storage is ~64TB raw. ECC RAM, etc. I suppose I could dabble with OpenZFS on AlmaLinux. Will see how far I get hah.

 

[anodos]

middleware/tests/api2/test_140_core.py at 7759a991716ef393b5bbd696f5776053c84d8b3d · truenas/middleware

TrueNAS CORE/Enterprise/SCALE Middleware Git Repository - truenas/middleware

github.com

Here's an example from our CI of using a REST call to get a download link for the config database.

 

[anodos]

it is not, and has never been, completed. in fact, trying to use it likely to break your system.
it is not in use by enterprise, because it was never completed.

This is different from Corral CLI and is actually the basis for the shell menu you see in 22.12.

Code:

root@truenas[~]# cli --menu
1) Configure network interfaces
2) Configure network settings
3) Configure static routes
4) Change local administrator password
5) Reset configuration to defaults
6) Open TrueNAS CLI Shell
7) Open Linux Shell
8) Reboot
9) Shutdown
 
Enter an option from 1-9:

That might look familiar.

 

[artlessknave]

company's lab

to be more accurate, SCALE is not officially production enterprise ready. you won't be able to get IX official support, which you aren't really going to have anyway if you are building it yourself.
it's pretty stable, overall, and generally very usable.
for a lab it should be plenty fine, just don't use features that are known to not be completed. (this is the only one I know it, it's kind of been forgotten)
it really should be completed OR removed, so feel free to look for a bug report if you like.