FreeNAS vs dedicated Samba server

[LearnLearnLearn]

I have a situation where there is a Centos server offering NFS to several clients on a network.
Those shares are in fact fairly static html/php pages for web sites that are load balanced.

Rarely but sometimes, this server has to be rebooted which causes a loss of NFS to the clients.
I've used FreeNAS for many years as an NFS/CIFS and fibre channel SAN and always found it reliable.
Rarely (if ever) does it need to be rebooted.

I was wondering if a FN dedicated server running on the same harsdware as the Cnetos server would be any more reliable than running samba on a Centos server.

 

[blanchet]

FreeNAS running on the same hardware will be probably as reliable as CentOS, because FreeBSD and CentOS are both very stable and mature operating systems. So pick that you prefer.
If you does not want downtime and loss of NFS client when you reboot the file server, then you need a high-avaibility file server like TrueNAS X10-HA

 

[LearnLearnLearn]

Hi, thanks for your reply.

Storage fail over isn't the problem since the clients can re-connect quickly enough.
In fact, there really is no problem, I'm just trying to answer some questions I'm being asked by asking here so I can be 100% sure of what I'm replying.

What about in terms of efficiency, speed, optimized NFS, those kinds of things? Is FN about the same in terms of transfers than simply using samba on a Centos server?

The two questions I have to answer are the above, in terms of which OS is the best way to go and another that came up was 'why not set up a FN/Centos VM so that when those rare reboots happen, they are a lot faster than bare metal hardware'.

Just figured I'd ask here where people have tried, tested all kinds of setups.

 

[anodos]

Centos is generally a bit behind us in terms of Samba versions. TrueNAS 12.0 will be on Samba 4.12, 12.1 on Samba 4.13, and SCALE on 4.13.

 

[LearnLearnLearn]

I appreciate knowing that samba is a bit behind but it doesn't help me answer the questions :).