Can't connect to TrueNas or its web interface

[phradr]

Are you saying that connecting two NICs together with a normal cable is impossible?

At least as far as I remember...

 

[SlowHorse]

When will this nonsense die? Crossover cables are completely unnecessary with gigabit ethernet, whether connecting through a switch or directly.

At least as far as I remember...

It's up and running with nothing more than two cheap intel cards and a Cat 7 cable. And apart from a six month break when god-know-what happened, it's been a very satisfying set-it-and-forget-it experience for the best part of four years.

 

[danb35]

Just to reiterate, there is nothing inherently unusual about connecting a PC directly to a NAS.

Just to reiterate, yes, there is. A NAS is not a DAS. It should work (and does, if you configure it correctly), but it adds many layers of complexity that are completely unnecessary for that application, introduces many additional points of failure, greatly reduces performance, and unnecessarily burns a lot of watts.

I've no idea how new users are managing to make TrueNAS work with this omission.

Well, it's implicit in this section of the manual:

SMB Share Creation

Provides information on how to create Server Message Block (SMB) shares on your TrueNAS.

www.truenas.com

And most guides will have you create a user for your share. See, e.g.:

fester112:shares_basic [danb35's Wiki]

www.familybrown.org

Sharing as root is a Worst Practice that never should have been allowed.

 

[phradr]

I googled a bit, the last minutes... This is an approach I totally missed, as I never had such idea since I had my first LAN hub.
At least I learned sth :D

 

[danb35]

At least as far as I remember...

That isn't correct and never has been with compliant gigabit hardware. A crossover cable was required with 100 Mbps and prior UTP Ethernet, but automatic MDI/MDI-X configuration has been part of the 1000Base-T standard for over 30 20 years.

 

[phradr]

That isn't correct and never has been with compliant gigabit hardware. A crossover cable was required with 100 Mbps and prior UTP Ethernet, but automatic MDI/MDI-X configuration has been part of the 1000Base-T standard for over 30 years.

And the GBit standard got into my consumer hardware in the early 2000ers. Since then I already had a hub or later a switch.

That's why I wasn't aware of that :) Thanks for this "new info" xD

 

[danb35]

And the GBit standard got into my consumer hardware in the early 2000ers.

Yeah, brain fart above; the standard was implemented in 1999. Over 20 years ago is plenty long, but it isn't 30 years. But it's pretty rare that there's a real reason to do it.

 

[SlowHorse]

Just to reiterate, yes, there is. A NAS is not a DAS. It should work (and does, if you configure it correctly), but it adds many layers of complexity that are completely unnecessary for that application, introduces many additional points of failure, greatly reduces performance, and unnecessarily burns a lot of watts.

Well, it's implicit in this section of the manual:

SMB Share Creation

Provides information on how to create Server Message Block (SMB) shares on your TrueNAS.

www.truenas.com

And most guides will have you create a user for your share. See, e.g.:

fester112:shares_basic [danb35's Wiki]

www.familybrown.org

Sharing as root is a Worst Practice that never should have been allowed.

Manuals aren't meant to be implicit though, are they? They are meant to be the definitive source of product knowledge. Uncle Fester's Guide doesn't mention it either.
You would need to back up some of those claims about performance reduction and power consumption with something empirical.
I'm not sure the manual mentions this but it's certainly received wisdom that NAS systems are meant to run 24/7. What's a few watts in that scenario?
And yes, sharing is root had to go. But not updating the manual to include this is frankly bad for TrueNAS, and that's bad for me as a happy TrueNAS customer.
Seriously, the role of NAS is so banal, it will eventually become plug and play, I'm baffled by how complex people want to make it.

 

[phradr]

Seriously, the role of NAS is so banal, it will eventually become plug and play, I'm baffled by how complex people want to make it.

Especially within DAS scenarios for a NAS system, you mean? ;P
Just kidding!

It would have plug and play, if you would've tried to use TrueNAS as NAS and not as DAS.
That DAS scenario made you to configure network setup manually.

 

[SlowHorse]

DAS systems by definition don't use anything as pedestrian NIC cards AFAIK.
Despite the outrage at my lamer's disrespect for hallowed IT Guy orthodoxy, for which I'll probably be ritually executed by being drowned in vape smoke, my system works. Try it.

 

[phradr]

Sure it works. And as I stated, that was new to me and I work with IT since decades. Doesn't mean, I know everything.

You said TrueNAS should be plug and play. Only thing we added to that is: it is, if you use it as intended.

tbh: I looked up the definition of NAS after your last post. Indeed DAS is described as "digital storage directly attached to the computer accessing it [...]" (LINK)This means nothing more than: no further hardware between storage and workstation. In bigger scenarios there are other interfaces than GBit to connect storage, hence the throughput would be limited very hard with 1GBit.

If you like to enhance your TrueNAS experience, you should try to attach it to you whole network! It can do so much more for you than just saving some backed up photos.
All you need to do is: connect the TrueNAS system to you internet router and (re)set network to using DHCP. In most cases that is all you need to do. Further more: you don't need to use two NICs in your workstation (or switch cables). You won't loose anything but win a lot :)

 

[danb35]

I'm baffled by how complex people want to make it.

Because it is complex, and it's increasingly clear that you don't know what you don't know.

You would need to back up some of those claims about performance reduction and power consumption with something empirical.

It isn't obvious that running a second computer will burn watts? It isn't equally obvious that an Ethernet link will be a performance bottleneck? For someone who thought that a network switch was an unacceptable point of failure, you're surprisingly willing to introduce dozens of others. The problems you're encountering are primarily a result of your using the wrong tool for the job. Yes, it can do it--but that doesn't make it the right tool. But carry on, you clearly know more than the rest of us.