No separate root pool?

[koalillo]

Hi,

I wish to run FreeNAS on a hosted dedicated server and many providers do not offer sensible options to hold the root pool; no small mirrored boot devices so I would have to say, ask for a 4x big HDDs and waste two of them on the root pool.

I think it would be great to support systems with just 2x big HDDs.

Cheers,

Álex

 

[Mirfster]

Having a FreeNas Server directly connected to the internet is not a good idea

As far as I know the OS Drive(s) are NOT meant to be shared with any pools by design. I think the issue really is with the Server Host, while they are saying you get a dedicated server it may in all actuality be a VM that they are using.

If you really want a Server hosted, then consider "Co-Location" where you provide the Server (built and configured by you) that they will host.

But again... THIS IS NOT A GOOD IDEA

 

[koalillo]

Having a FreeNas Server directly connected to the internet is not a good idea

But again... THIS IS NOT A GOOD IDEA

Why not? I only want to use secure protocols, not inherently insecure protocols like say NFSv3.

As far as I know the OS Drive(s) are NOT meant to be shared with any pools by design.

Yes- I understand that it makes, for instance, updates easier. But in some scenarios, it is a huge inconvenience.

I think the issue really is with the Server Host, while they are saying you get a dedicated server it may in all actuality be a VM that they are using.

If you really want a Server hosted, then consider "Co-Location" where you provide the Server (built and configured by you) that they will host.

It is a physical server- I do not follow your reasoning. I could get a colo server, but it would increase costs significantly.

I'm just describing scenarios in which a dedicated boot pool is a huge pain- it would be useful to support sharing the boot pool with data.

 

[Mirfster]

Why not? I only want to use secure protocols, not inherently insecure protocols like say NFSv3.

By default FreeNas is not the most securest application. Ever notice that one can walk right up to a system and do pretty much whatever they want without having to actually log in?

Yes- I understand that it makes, for instance, updates easier. But in some scenarios, it is a huge inconvenience.

No offense, but see my first reply.

What exactly are you trying to accomplish or your "Use Case"?

 

[koalillo]

By default FreeNas is not the most securest application. Ever notice that one can walk right up to a system and do pretty much whatever they want without having to actually log in?

I'm not worried about security for someone with physical access (or access to a serial console). That case is lost not just for FreeNAS, but for just about everything. With proper authentication and secure protocols, it shouldn't be a problem. In any case, security is a desirable property of most systems.

No offense, but see my first reply.

I don't know what are you referring to.

What exactly are you trying to accomplish or your "Use Case"?

To have a ~10Tb, ZFS-backed storage (mostly to prevent bitrot) in an accessible-from-anywhere (but using secure protocols, such as SFTP, rsync over SSH, WebDav, Owncloud, btsync/syncthing- also maybe a Synology backup target) environment, with a non-scary web-based interface, using cheap dedicated server hosting.

 

[pirateghost]

And what does this feature request entail exactly? What are you actually asking for?

 

[koalillo]

To be able to use the boot pool/fs for storage, create new zfs filesystems in it, etc. (probably under a big disclaimer saying that it’s not recommended)

 

[Ericloewe]

To be honest, I don't expect the devs to show much interest. There's limited value in that...

 

[anodos]

To be able to use the boot pool/fs for storage, create new zfs filesystems in it, etc. (probably under a big disclaimer saying that it’s not recommended)

I'd still be leery of putting it exposed to the internet. I don 't know how much testing of webgui/API goes on with this use-case in mind. You're better off just using FreeBSD.

 

[maglin]

Irony is it's pretty good chance the HDD space you purchase is already on a NAS and has bit rot protection. I would just get some hosted space that supports the protocols you are wanting to use. Would be cheaper too.

 

[jgreco]

To be able to use the boot pool/fs for storage, create new zfs filesystems in it, etc. (probably under a big disclaimer saying that it’s not recommended)

No. Let me be extra super clear here, so there's no ambiguity.

At one point, the way old FreeNAS 0.7 used that sort of strategy (and the current iteration of that previous product, NAS4Free, still does). Try using that.

iX bought the name FreeNAS five years ago, and the design goal of FreeNAS for the last five years has been to create a storage appliance, similar to a Dell EqualLogic or EMC Storcenter. The point is to have a large pile of disks that can be upgraded/replaced/modified/etc without all the drama and complication of having to tiptoe around an OS installation sitting on the data disks.

The devs are creating FreeNAS as a way to test TrueNAS, their dedicated storage appliance that they sell as a competitive product in the software defined storage NAS marketplace. To do that, the ability to treat storage in this abstracted manner is a *requirement*.

Trying to support the OS on the data disks is a fail, because then you get into all the issues of "what happens when the OS isn't viable" or "what happens when the user insists on non-redundant storage for the OS" or "how do you handle the user complaining that there's 16GB missing from each data disk" or any of the other obvious problems from that strategy. It's a frickin' disaster of complexity and ambiguity as to unforeseen problems and issues and other ${mess}.

There is not going to be any interest by the devs in supporting this, because it goes 180' against one of the first design decisions they made, which was to keep the OS and data disks separate.

There's no interest in making FreeNAS work on every possible platform, because there's enough work involved just making FreeNAS work on the narrowly scoped set of hardware that is targeted as a supported environment.

So with all that said, please feel free to go try NAS4Free, which, being targeted at home users, probably still allows the OS to be on the data drives.