I should have checked forums before trying TrueNAS Scale

[Ianm_ozzy]

Hi.
Just to start.
I think it should still be in beta and is not ready for release.
I tried it on an old machine I use to test.
i7-3770k 2.5GB RTL 8125B NIC + 16GB memory.
I have a 60GB SSD for boot and 1TB hard drive for storage.
So setup a pool using the 1TB drive , a suitable user & SMB share. I works as expected.
So far so good.
I attempted to install a windows 10 VM and it was an awful experience.
So I uploaded the ISO files to the share to use to install - Windows 10 ISO & paravirtualized driver ISO.
It crapped out with errors.
It could only work when I uploaded the ISO install st the setup time. Apparently only one ISO file can be used, so had to use to much slower AHCI driver & emulated intel NIC.
It installed & 'worked'. I could not ping or access a share on the truenas scale NAS. I could access the internet and other machines with no issue
I assumed it was due to using the emulated intel nic.
So a work around by attaching another virtual ahci disk to the machine, formatted & downloaded the pararvirtualisation drivers to it.
I could now install windows 10 as intended.

So boot ed up, installed the NIC and STILL CANNOT PING OR ACCESS THE NAS.

The NIC I am suing works on TrueNAS core with minor issues and the exact same one proxmox flawlessly.
So checked the forums and it seems others are having similar problems. I thought a debain based system would help with driver issues. Apparently not.

My home server has proxmox. It is so very much better for virtualization. I have truenas core as a VM on there.

As for the 'apps' situation, have not tried any and do not see the point. In proxmox, it is a matter of setting up a container with portainer & nfs (stored on truenas core VM).

I was hoping I could switch over from Proxmox to Truenas scale. Not happening.

So this post not just my whinge, but to let others know it is FAR FROM READY to USE.

 

[morganL]

Hi.
Just to start.
I think it should still be in beta and is not ready for release.
I tried it on an old machine I use to test.
i7-3770k 2.5GB RTL 8125B NIC + 16GB memory.
I have a 60GB SSD for boot and 1TB hard drive for storage.
So setup a pool using the 1TB drive , a suitable user & SMB share. I works as expected.
So far so good.
I attempted to install a windows 10 VM and it was an awful experience.
So I uploaded the ISO files to the share to use to install - Windows 10 ISO & paravirtualized driver ISO.
It crapped out with errors.
It could only work when I uploaded the ISO install st the setup time. Apparently only one ISO file can be used, so had to use to much slower AHCI driver & emulated intel NIC.
It installed & 'worked'. I could not ping or access a share on the truenas scale NAS. I could access the internet and other machines with no issue
I assumed it was due to using the emulated intel nic.
So a work around by attaching another virtual ahci disk to the machine, formatted & downloaded the pararvirtualisation drivers to it.
I could now install windows 10 as intended.

So boot ed up, installed the NIC and STILL CANNOT PING OR ACCESS THE NAS.

The NIC I am suing works on TrueNAS core with minor issues and the exact same one proxmox flawlessly.
So checked the forums and it seems others are having similar problems. I thought a debain based system would help with driver issues. Apparently not.

My home server has proxmox. It is so very much better for virtualization. I have truenas core as a VM on there.

As for the 'apps' situation, have not tried any and do not see the point. In proxmox, it is a matter of setting up a container with portainer & nfs (stored on truenas core VM).

I was hoping I could switch over from Proxmox to Truenas scale. Not happening.

So this post not just my whinge, but to let others know it is FAR FROM READY to USE.

Sorry to hear you had a poor experience. It seems like the bridge interface to connect the VM and NAS was not set up properly. It works, but it's not as easy or as automated as we would like.

SCALE is at RELEASE level because the system is reliable with with its data and is stable once operating. There are still many issues to resolve. Typically there are over 200 fixes per update. The next update will be U1 in about 10 days. For users that want a rock-sold release, we would still recommend 12.0-U8.

The software lifecycle is documented in the release notes which we strongly recommend all users read: https://www.truenas.com/docs/releasenotes/scale/22.02.0/

With respect to your advice, I would agree that Proxmox is a mature virtualization environment but with a deficit in storage capabilities. TrueNAS SCALE has solid storage capabilities, but is still maturing for VMs and Apps. The same KVM hypervisor is used. Using both has been and is a great solution. As SCALE matures, it will simplify the building and operations of a single hyperconverged system.....but it does need to go through it maturation cycle. Whether it is should be used now, very much depends on the use-case and the interest in working through issues.

We appreciate the users that do go through this testing process and their feedback. Thanks and hope to see a better report later this year.

 

[Ianm_ozzy]

TrueNAS scale is zero use to me with such a substantial bug. Others seems to have a similar bug, so it probably not related to my specific hardware.It should have been picked up in the beta stage.
Presently for a home server, proxmox with a truenas core Virtual Machine seems to be optimum.

I may check it out in maybe 6 months or so. The worst thing for me was the trouble trying to get a VM up and running to find out it has no use. Such a waste of time.

 

[stavros-k]

Such a waste of time.

It's funny that you consider waste of time trying a product that is free. And without doing any real bug reporting you expect everything to work for your exact use case.

Scale in terms of the Storage layer (one of it's core functions) is stable.

I was hoping I could switch over from Proxmox to Truenas scale. Not happening.

Well you want to replace a system that is mainly built for virtualization, with a system mainly built for storage.

Sure both has storage options, but one has more options/polishing on the interface. Same goes for the virtualization.


Some of what you mentioned, I have seen them again in forums too many times.
But bugs won't get fixed until someone fills a bug REPORT!

No dev will just sit and scan the whole forum to pick up bug reports. They already has a list of things to fix/improve.
---

TL;DR;
Do bug reports and suggestions on what needs improving/fixing instead of "I'm wasting my time on an enterprise that is free".
Or pay for support and then you will be entitled to say "The thing you sold me does not work as expected."

 

[Kris Moore]

I would mention, the "not being able to reach the NAS from the VM" is not a bug. It's already in the docs how to enable this if thats what you want.

Accessing NAS From a VM |

Accessing NAS From a VM

www.truenas.com

 

[Ianm_ozzy]

I would mention, the "not being able to reach the NAS from the VM" is not a bug. It's already in the docs how to enable this if thats what you want.

Accessing NAS From a VM |

Accessing NAS From a VM

www.truenas.com

Thanks or the info.
It is bizarre that it is not setup like that in the first place - access through a bridge to all VMs can just connect automatically.

I had a lot of trouble getting it to work.
I was careful to get the information correct. I tried about 8 times.
Once I managed to login when testing the network changes to make the changes permanent. It still reverted back to the same settings.

Nearly gave up, then changed the name of the created bridge from br0 to br1 and worked right away.
So more bugs making it difficult to use.

So trunas scale being free or otherwise, still think it is not good enough for release.

 

[morganL]

Thanks or the info.
It is bizarre that it is not setup like that in the first place - access through a bridge to all VMs can just connect automatically.

I had a lot of trouble getting it to work.
I was careful to get the information correct. I tried about 8 times.
Once I managed to login when testing the network changes to make the changes permanent. It still reverted back to the same settings.

Nearly gave up, then changed the name of the created bridge from br0 to br1 and worked right away.
So more bugs making it difficult to use.

So trunas scale being free or otherwise, still think it is not good enough for release.

Glad you found a workaround.

If you can "report a bug" we can make sure it is reviewed and corrected (it isn't already fixed in nightly).
We should check whether the issue is always evident or only in specific circumstances.

Regardless of the bug, we agree the usability for this use-case can be improved.

 

[truecharts]

It is bizarre that it is not setup like that in the first place - access through a bridge to all VMs can just connect automatically.

The primary target for TrueNAS is Enterprise Storage.
For a good solid enterprise storage setup, it's refered not to push all storage trafik through a software bridge, as that could, in theory, create (performance-)issues. Hence it's not the default, as most Enterprise storage users, currently, do not (en-masse) employ VM's or Containers on TrueNAS that require host connectivity.

 

[morganL]

The primary target for TrueNAS is Enterprise Storage.
For a good solid enterprise storage setup, it's refered not to push all storage trafik through a software bridge, as that could, in theory, create (performance-)issues. Hence it's not the default, as most Enterprise storage users, currently, do not (en-masse) employ VM's or Containers on TrueNAS that require host connectivity.

While I agree with the performance issue, we could make the bridge config easier and more automated.

 

[bedaro]

I ran into the same problem today of a KVM guest not being able to connect to the host. It was trivial for me to work around as I was planning on dedicating NIC ports to VMs anyway, but it seems like it would be a good thing to make more intuitive in the UI. Perhaps include a warning in the help text for selecting a NIC device?

 

[Kris Moore]

I ran into the same problem today of a KVM guest not being able to connect to the host. It was trivial for me to work around as I was planning on dedicating NIC ports to VMs anyway, but it seems like it would be a good thing to make more intuitive in the UI. Perhaps include a warning in the help text for selecting a NIC device?

We're putting on the roadmap adding a UI button, which does this setup of the bridge devices automatically.