TrueNAS 12.0 Features

[morganL]

We (iXsystems) posted a blog on the upcoming TrueNAS 12.0 (CORE and Enterprise) features at https://www.ixsystems.com/blog/truenas-core-features/

The feature summary text is below:

The features in black were existent in FreeNAS 11.3 and are shared by both TrueNAS CORE and TrueNAS Enterprise. The features in blue are new features being added with TrueNAS 12.0. The column to the right displays features that are available in TrueNAS Enterprise only. As you can see, no existing FreeNAS features have been moved over to the Enterprise column.

TrueNAS Enterprise has additional features that are needed for deployment in production applications. Many of these features are tied to the ability to support High Availability (HA) systems. By default, all new TrueNAS 12.0 features are included in both TrueNAS CORE and Enterprise. The feature additions for TrueNAS 12.0 can be summarized as:

Metadata on Flash: Special SSD vdevs can be used for Metadata acceleration. This can include both file systems metadata and dedupe tables. This is one of the core features of OpenZFS 2.0.
Fusion Pools: The special SSD vdevs can also be used for data based on I/O write size. This is configurable on a per dataset basis. Users can accelerate database datasets or special VMs.
SSD Wear Monitoring: Any SSD (Boot, L2ARC, slog or vdev) can be monitored for wear and alerts created.
Dataset Encryption: Specific datasets can be selected or deselected for encryption with a user-provided key. When replicating the dataset to another TrueNAS, the key does not have to be provided and so the data can be transmitted and stored in the original encrypted state.
Asynchronous ZFS Trim: Trim commands free up space, particularly within SSDs. By making these Trim commands asynchronous, they scale and perform better. This is particularly useful for deduplication of flash storage and can significantly reduce costs.
Faster ZFS Boot: OpenZFS 2.0 includes a more parallel process for importing a ZFS pool with many drives. This reduces boot and failover times.
ZFS Linux Compatibility: Linux and FreeBSD are peer operating systems for OpenZFS 2.0. Compressed, deduplicated, and encrypted data can be efficiently replicated from a Linux host to a TrueNAS system for backup and archive. It is also possible to import a pool (drive set) from Linux to TrueNAS.
Accelerated ZFS: Several performance improvements have been made to reduce both drive IOPS and the CPU cycles required. More features and higher performance together is a big win for ZFS users .
OpenVPN Client and Server: VPNs provide security for remotely accessing storage services, such as SMB or NFS, across the Internet. This feature enables the OpenVPN Client or Server to be included in the NAS for simpler administration and lower costs. The other end of the VPN connection can be any OpenVPN client, such as another NAS, Firewall Device, or Personal Desktop/Laptop.
Two Factor Authentication: For increased security, two factor authentication is highly desirable. TrueNAS ensures that a compromised root password cannot be used by itself to gain access to the administrator interface.
API Keys: Access to the REST / WebSockets API can now be done by API key. Keys can be created and revoked directly via the WebUI for additional security.
KMIP Support: Key Management Interoperability Protocol (KMIP) is an enterprise-grade approach to securing systems and data through a centralized key management system. This feature will be available in TrueNAS Enterprise to secure drives or datasets.
TrueCommand Dataset Management: TrueCommand is joined at the hip with TrueNAS and will provide some exciting features, including snapshotting, replicating, and migrating datasets between systems.

 

[JoeAtWork]

TrueNAS and will provide some exciting features, including snapshotting, replicating, and migrating datasets between systems.

Mirating just the TruecCommand data set or Migrating data sets that are NFS or iSCSI shares? I am thinking of vmware use cases.

Thanks,
Joe

 

[jenksdrummer]

Noted vCenter plugin listed as an Enterprise feature; is this related to the VMWare snapshot integration in FreeNAS; as that's something that is currently in FreeNAS 11.3 - want to make sure that sticks going forward.

Also, can you speak more to the VEEAM certification; is there actually anything to this or is it just VEEAM saying "yeah, you can use that" as VEEAM claims compatibility with every storage type on the planet...just some have higher levels of integrations (HPE 3PAR/NIMBLE lines, for example)

 

[ravensorb]

Has any thought been given to looking at Wireguard instead of OpenVPN?

 

[Redcoat]

Has any thought been given to looking at Wireguard instead of OpenVPN?

See https://www.ixsystems.com/blog/wireguard-on-freenas-11-3/

 

[morganL]

Noted vCenter plugin listed as an Enterprise feature; is this related to the VMWare snapshot integration in FreeNAS; as that's something that is currently in FreeNAS 11.3 - want to make sure that sticks going forward.

Also, can you speak more to the VEEAM certification; is there actually anything to this or is it just VEEAM saying "yeah, you can use that" as VEEAM claims compatibility with every storage type on the planet...just some have higher levels of integrations (HPE 3PAR/NIMBLE lines, for example)

No changes to current FreeNAS software in TrueNAS CORE ..... the vCenter plugin and VMware certification are TrueNAS features.

Both Veeam and VMware certification are against a whole system with HA. We do that with TrueNAS Enterprise system. TrueNAS CORE will have the same core software, but this is not the same as being vendor certified and getting professional support.

 

[Constantin]

I've looked around but I haven't been able to find an answer yet to this question re: fusion pools / special VDEVs:

Is there a limit on how many drives can be used in a special VDEV mirror for small files, metadata, etc? I ask, since a special VDEV failure could lead to the whole pool gong down. Is each special VDEV mirror set limited to two drives per mirror like the boot pool in 11.x or can each special VDEV mirror have more than two drives? For example, I'd like to consider the use of a three drive mirror for metadata and small files.

On a related note, is there a means of determining the distribution of file sizes in a given pool? It would be good to understand where to set the size for best bang / buck vs. space reserved for metdata and all that.

 

[Yorick]

is there a means of determining the distribution of file sizes in a given pool?

Edit - the code tags mess up the code, how ironic. Check https://superuser.com/questions/565443/generate-distribution-of-file-sizes-from-the-command-prompt , both the first and second answer work. Second is human-readable, it's quite nice.

 

[Yorick]

can each special VDEV mirror have more than two drives?

As far as ZFS is concerned, the answer appears to be "yes". I haven't tried TrueNAS, though I don't see why it wouldn't.

Code:

thorsten@raidz-expand:~$ sudo zpool status
  pool: tank
 state: ONLINE
  scan: none requested
config:

    NAME                                   STATE     READ WRITE CKSUM
    tank                                   ONLINE       0     0     0
      raidz1-0                             ONLINE       0     0     0
        /home/thorsten/zfile/sparse_disk1  ONLINE       0     0     0
        /home/thorsten/zfile/sparse_disk2  ONLINE       0     0     0
        /home/thorsten/zfile/sparse_disk3  ONLINE       0     0     0
    special   
      mirror-1                             ONLINE       0     0     0
        /home/thorsten/zfile/sparse_disk4  ONLINE       0     0     0
        /home/thorsten/zfile/sparse_disk5  ONLINE       0     0     0
        /home/thorsten/zfile/sparse_disk6  ONLINE       0     0     0

errors: No known data errors

 

[morganL]

I've looked around but I haven't been able to find an answer yet to this question re: fusion pools / special VDEVs:

Is there a limit on how many drives can be used in a special VDEV mirror for small files, metadata, etc? I ask, since a special VDEV failure could lead to the whole pool gong down. Is each special VDEV mirror set limited to two drives per mirror like the boot pool in 11.x or can each special VDEV mirror have more than two drives? For example, I'd like to consider the use of a three drive mirror for metadata and small files.

On a related note, is there a means of determining the distribution of file sizes in a given pool? It would be good to understand where to set the size for best bang / buck vs. space reserved for metdata and all that.

Yes, you can have 3 drives in a mirror vdev

For file sizes, you would have to assess those from the client or understanding of the applications being run. 16K is the default size to use.

 

[no_connection]

Question about FC. I understand 8+ being enterprise only, since if you need it it better come with the R&D behind it.
But how about 4g and 2g? it might not be useful (or even used) in enterprise and due to that being sold off really cheap. Is this going to be locked out from free version or more of a non tested but enabled.
While a 4g or even dual 4g might be slower than 10g ethernet it might still be fun to use between ESXi and FN for home use due to it being super cheap. Also I have a gear itch for FC for some reason.

 

[horizonbrave]

I wonder if we could please get a clarification about HA.

It'll be easier to just paste here what I just posted on Reddit,
thanks in advance:
-------------------------
Hi,
I guess so far we can't "officially" enjoy HA (high availability) unless we buy some TrueNAS hardware from iXsystems.
I please wonder if this is going to change with the releases of version 12.

Please don't get me wrong, I'll be more than happy to pay for an HA feature/service, even by a subscription model, knowing that I'm contributing for iXsystems to keep improving their open NAS solution.

My only concern is that I can't afford a TrueNAS system but I still consider my hardware sufficient for implementing an HA solution (and I can't create/hack a solution of my own because of my very limited skills, so here's revealed the reason behind this post :)

I truly understand that we already have an army of people running FreeNAS in unsupported/less_than_ideal/discouraged platforms whom then demand for help/support which eventually end most of the time with them blaming the whole community for being toxic if they don't get the wanted answer. I also understand that HA principles/requirements must be very tight/strict to avoid reliability issues with all the layers/mechanisms involved.

But from my little research I think there's plenty of people that have been requesting it in the past, often quoting the competing Synology HA offer (that requires only 2 identical "HA-supporting" models).
I know that we already can solidly/reliably replicate our NAS to a 2nd/3rd box (rsync & ZFS send) but I guess also know iXsystems must already have an HA solution in place that more users could enjoy ;)

I'm pretty sure that addressing my itch will shift solution/design overheads from users to iXsystems engineers but I'm hoping to not be alone in willing to pay for it.
That sparks also the question: why aren't we buying a TrueNAS solution instead of whinging?
In my case it's unaffordable but maybe that's really what iXsystems wants for avoiding the average/regular users to demanding time consuming support for unrealistic hardware :)

In the end I guess I'm probably personally more happy to pay a subscription to you guys rather then paying/investing in Synology products.

What you guys think?
Thanks

PS: not just interested in HA for shortening down time on services but mainly for creating an integrated (or maybe the word is hyperconverged) and fault-tolerant system

PPS: I'm also posted something related on the Proxmoz sub:

Reddit - Dive into anything

www.reddit.com

 

[JoeAtWork]

iXsystems really needs a NFR(not for resale) and not for Production. VMware does this with the whole stack for VMUG subscribers, $200 a year and you can use as much of the kit as you want across 12 cpu's

NFR/NFP is one part, the home use and LAB use case.

The other on is the business case for SMB that already have the hardware, i.e. Proxmox cluster or PetaSAN and want to use TureNAS... Maybe cap the TB of storage to protect or only allow one pool?

The iXsystems FreeNAS/TrueNAS Core product is rock solid, much more so that the data center version of Microsoft Storage spaces Direct.

Microsoft is eating everyone's lunch, as of 2018 they have at least $250,000 in income based on Storage spaces direct:
Storage Spaces Direct: 10,000 clusters

 

[morganL]

Question about FC. I understand 8+ being enterprise only, since if you need it it better come with the R&D behind it.
But how about 4g and 2g? it might not be useful (or even used) in enterprise and due to that being sold off really cheap. Is this going to be locked out from free version or more of a non tested but enabled.
While a 4g or even dual 4g might be slower than 10g ethernet it might still be fun to use between ESXi and FN for home use due to it being super cheap. Also I have a gear itch for FC for some reason.

Hello NoConnection,

Anything we release, we have to be prepared to support. We can't support random FC HBAs with FC switches in many configs without both a large lab and many people. We can support on Enterprise with fixed configurations that we can test and support.

iSCSI is a better solution unless you have very stringent performance requirements and are prepared to pay for them. You can share NFS and SMB on the same physical ports as well.

 

[morganL]

I wonder if we could please get a clarification about HA.

It'll be easier to just paste here what I just posted on Reddit,
thanks in advance:
-------------------------
Hi,
I guess so far we can't "officially" enjoy HA (high availability) unless we buy some TrueNAS hardware from iXsystems.
I please wonder if this is going to change with the releases of version 12.

Please don't get me wrong, I'll be more than happy to pay for an HA feature/service, even by a subscription model, knowing that I'm contributing for iXsystems to keep improving their open NAS solution.

My only concern is that I can't afford a TrueNAS system but I still consider my hardware sufficient for implementing an HA solution (and I can't create/hack a solution of my own because of my very limited skills, so here's revealed the reason behind this post :)

I truly understand that we already have an army of people running FreeNAS in unsupported/less_than_ideal/discouraged platforms whom then demand for help/support which eventually end most of the time with them blaming the whole community for being toxic if they don't get the wanted answer. I also understand that HA principles/requirements must be very tight/strict to avoid reliability issues with all the layers/mechanisms involved.

But from my little research I think there's plenty of people that have been requesting it in the past, often quoting the competing Synology HA offer (that requires only 2 identical "HA-supporting" models).
I know that we already can solidly/reliably replicate our NAS to a 2nd/3rd box (rsync & ZFS send) but I guess also know iXsystems must already have an HA solution in place that more users could enjoy ;)

I'm pretty sure that addressing my itch will shift solution/design overheads from users to iXsystems engineers but I'm hoping to not be alone in willing to pay for it.
That sparks also the question: why aren't we buying a TrueNAS solution instead of whinging?
In my case it's unaffordable but maybe that's really what iXsystems wants for avoiding the average/regular users to demanding time consuming support for unrealistic hardware :)

In the end I guess I'm probably personally more happy to pay a subscription to you guys rather then paying/investing in Synology products.

What you guys think?
Thanks

PS: not just interested in HA for shortening down time on services but mainly for creating an integrated (or maybe the word is hyperconverged) and fault-tolerant system

PPS: I'm also posted something related on the Proxmoz sub:

Reddit - Dive into anything

www.reddit.com

Horizonbrave,

Synology HA is two "identical systems" that mirror data to each other. You can do something similar with ZFS replication between two TrueNAS CORE systems. Or you can have the client mirror the data between two systems. We are looking at enabling further options in the future.

TrueNAS HA is different... its two storage controllers accessing a shared ZFS pool. The data storage is much more efficient and the whole system is faster (no replication) and much more reliable (ZFS SLOG).

 

[morganL]

iXsystems really needs a NFR(not for resale) and not for Production. VMware does this with the whole stack for VMUG subscribers, $200 a year and you can use as much of the kit as you want across 12 cpu's

NFR/NFP is one part, the home use and LAB use case.

The other on is the business case for SMB that already have the hardware, i.e. Proxmox cluster or PetaSAN and want to use TureNAS... Maybe cap the TB of storage to protect or only allow one pool?

The iXsystems FreeNAS/TrueNAS Core product is rock solid, much more so that the data center version of Microsoft Storage spaces Direct.

Microsoft is eating everyone's lunch, as of 2018 they have at least $250,000 in income based on Storage spaces direct:
Storage Spaces Direct: 10,000 clusters

Joe,

Are you asking for a clustered version of TrueNAS CORE?

 

[Patrick M. Hausen]

@morganL I too would find it at least very interesting if there was a TrueNAS license that permitted the advanced features on my own hardware. Getting hold of iXsystems gear in Germany is not easy, stocking spare parts and everything. So if there was an "approved" list of e.g. Supermicro systems and the offer to buy a license from you, that would simplify things a lot, since we could use our established distribution channels.

I see the added time and effort to support externally supplied hardware, of course. So possibly it is simply out of the question due to capacity constraints on iX's part.

Kind regards
Patrick

 

[no_connection]

We can support on Enterprise with fixed configurations that we can test and support.

I get that, and that is also what I said, but there is a difference between support and "locking out" a feature.

We can't support random FC HBAs with FC switches in many configs

I mean most would be Qlogic QLE24xx (QLE25xx unless you want to keep that out as it's 8GB) and similar as well as Brocade. Many are sold dirt cheap as data centers moved to 16G+

One advantage for home or lab use is that you can get cheap QLE24xx and replace any local storage with that, having full power of FN protection with snapshot and everything. Can't really boot windows with iSCSI in a simple way.
You are going to have drivers for QLE24xx and QLE25xx anyway since some custumers are going to use them.

 

[JoeAtWork]

Are you asking for a clustered version of TrueNAS CORE?

Yes, shared nothing or shared SAS disks in external enclosures. The way to do it today is to run ESXI on the hardware, TrueNAS Core as a VM serving up NFS and use PetaSAN as a VM on the NFS datastore. It is doubling up the complexity to just get a shared nothing cluster. PetaSAN is not good enough to test the disks and report issues like TrueNAS Core is.

NFS for VMware guests. Many of the HA products of Linux have many different scenarios. The main problem with VMware is they refuse to support anything other than EMC products... Some smaller clusters would be fine with CEPH or GlusterFS, but VMware would rather force these customers to by an EMC product or vSAN....

I will laugh when the day comes that we can run VMware as a guest on TrueNAS Core. That would be great for small shops. I image once we get TrueNAS Core 12 with KVM those small shops could just migrate to KVM and be done with VMware.

 

[JoeAtWork]

You are going to have drivers for QLE24xx and QLE25xx anyway since some custumers are going to use them.

FC is dirt cheap these days. Home users will never want to deal with zoning.

10gb ethernet is now dirt cheap where you just dedicate Microtik switches for storage. Eight 10gb ports on 23 watts of power for $270 = CRS309-1G-8S+IN

VMware and NFS 4.1 is awesome and for Linux we just have to do a clustered file system for data.