TrueNAS 13.0 BETA Experiences

ThreeDee

Guru
Joined
Jun 13, 2013
Messages
698
I just did the manual update to 13 Beta ..so far so good. SMB shares still working .. Plex and UniFi Controller jails are still working just fine.

I upgraded my UniFi jail to 13.0RELEASE-p7 (Not an issue if I have to reinstall if for some reason I have to roll back) .. and it's running just super.
No pool upgrades for now .. I'll leave those alone until release or IF I end up switching to SCALE
 

kspare

Guru
Joined
Feb 19, 2015
Messages
507
we have our load split between 2 boxes. one running the beta, adn the other 12 u5.1

We use these strictly for nfs file storage. the specs are in my signature.

each server has abut 40 virtual machines.

The beta is running great, im just wondering what I can look for in regards to performance feedback?
 

morganL

Captain Morgan
Administrator
Moderator
iXsystems
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
2,691
we have our load split between 2 boxes. one running the beta, adn the other 12 u5.1

We use these strictly for nfs file storage. the specs are in my signature.

each server has abut 40 virtual machines.

The beta is running great, im just wondering what I can look for in regards to performance feedback?

For a steady workload that is similar on each machine, we'd like to see whether CPU utilization is lower or whether latency is better.

If you had the ability to stress test, we'd like to see what bandwidth/performance you would get from a another client to both machines. Do they both deliver the same speed or is one better. This latter test would reduce the performance of your VMs, so only do if your business can support a slowdown.
 

kspare

Guru
Joined
Feb 19, 2015
Messages
507
For a steady workload that is similar on each machine, we'd like to see whether CPU utilization is lower or whether latency is better.

If you had the ability to stress test, we'd like to see what bandwidth/performance you would get from a another client to both machines. Do they both deliver the same speed or is one better. This latter test would reduce the performance of your VMs, so only do if your business can support a slowdown.
I do notice the cpu is down. when we do a full svmotion on to the server the cpu used to max out, it no longer does this.
 

morganL

Captain Morgan
Administrator
Moderator
iXsystems
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
2,691
I do notice the cpu is down. when we do a full svmotion on to the server the cpu used to max out, it no longer does this.
Can you estimate the % reduction in CPU... or how much faster the vmotion is?
Its also going to depend on which protocols are used... iSCSI or NFS?
 

kspare

Guru
Joined
Feb 19, 2015
Messages
507
I’ll do a move and estimate it. But almost 40% I’d say. Speed is the same. i max out my disk speeds
 

morganL

Captain Morgan
Administrator
Moderator
iXsystems
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
2,691
I’ll do a move and estimate it. But almost 40% I’d say. Speed is the same. i max out my disk speeds
That's good... 40% less CPU for a given workload.
As you point out, for HDDs it may not increase system performance, but for SSDs it may do.
 

kspare

Guru
Joined
Feb 19, 2015
Messages
507
Are there some arc stats you are interested in as well? We run 12tb of l2 and 1tb of ram. The beta has been running more data in l2. We don’t even see much for spinning disk usage
 

kspare

Guru
Joined
Feb 19, 2015
Messages
507
I was able to start the resilvering process by running the zpool replace command from the command line. The GUI is now showing that it is in the process of replacing the drive.
I just ran into this too. What the heck is the command to replace a drive in the command line? I'm busy googling lol
 

Patrick M. Hausen

Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
7,740
I just ran into this too. What the heck is the command to replace a drive in the command line? I'm busy googling lol
zpool replace ... but!
Never replace a failed drive in TrueNAS with a raw disk device of the new disk. You must create a partition table on the new disk (easiest way is to copy via gpart backup | gpart restore from another device) and then use /dev/gptid/<rawuuid-of-partition> as the replacement disk device.

If you are facing the situation right now, we can help you through the process.
 
Last edited:

kspare

Guru
Joined
Feb 19, 2015
Messages
507
zpool replace ... but!
Never replace a failed drive in TrueNAS with a raw disk device of the new disk. You must create a partition table on the new disk (easiest way is to copy via gpart backup | gpart restore from another device) and then use /dev/gptid/<rauuid-of-partition> as the replacement disk device.

If you are facing the situation right now, we can help you through the process.
I appreciate that. We have cold spare servers, i'll just migrate off. much easier..we have 3 disks to replace anyway. Thanks!
 

kspare

Guru
Joined
Feb 19, 2015
Messages
507
I appreciate that. We have cold spare servers, i'll just migrate off. much easier..we have 3 disks to replace anyway. Thanks!
@morganL Will this be fixed in Beta 2? This is really the only show stopper for us. we will go back down to U8
 

LawrenceSystems

Dabbler
Joined
Jun 14, 2017
Messages
13
I upgraded my TRUENAS-MINI-3.0-X+ to TrueNAS-13.0-BETA1 and I use this system with SMB for my video editing, iSCSI for my windows gaming system, no VMs, no NFS & no Jails.

I did not do any extensive before and after bench-marking but when I first upgraded it was a bit slower moving files. Doing an iperf3 test my Chelsio t520-so which was operating fine with TrueNAS 12, I could only get about 1.76 Gbits/sec. I tried disabling hardware offload but still had the same results. This system also has the onboard Intel X553/X557-AT and switching over to that for my connection get's me back to 8.26 Gbits/sec using iperf3 so for now I will just keep that as my primary connection.
 

morganL

Captain Morgan
Administrator
Moderator
iXsystems
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
2,691
I upgraded my TRUENAS-MINI-3.0-X+ to TrueNAS-13.0-BETA1 and I use this system with SMB for my video editing, iSCSI for my windows gaming system, no VMs, no NFS & no Jails.

I did not do any extensive before and after bench-marking but when I first upgraded it was a bit slower moving files. Doing an iperf3 test my Chelsio t520-so which was operating fine with TrueNAS 12, I could only get about 1.76 Gbits/sec. I tried disabling hardware offload but still had the same results. This system also has the onboard Intel X553/X557-AT and switching over to that for my connection get's me back to 8.26 Gbits/sec using iperf3 so for now I will just keep that as my primary connection.
Very possible.... we don't get to performance testing on HW platforms until about the RELEASE phase.
If you "report a bug" can you share the bugID link. Thanks
 

freakdude

Cadet
Joined
Mar 21, 2022
Messages
3
I tried to upgrade from 12.0-U8 and I got stuck at boot with the message "Root mount waiting for: CAM". I had to roll back to 12.0-U8.
 

kspare

Guru
Joined
Feb 19, 2015
Messages
507
Has anyone reported the bug?.. if so please link to it so it can be tracked.
I havent yet. I'll spin up a server to the beta and document it to report this week.
 

morganL

Captain Morgan
Administrator
Moderator
iXsystems
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
2,691
I tried to upgrade from 12.0-U8 and I got stuck at boot with the message "Root mount waiting for: CAM". I had to roll back to 12.0-U8.
Please document your hardware... and anything unusual about your software/networking.
 

Philip Robar

Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
116
I tried to upgrade from 12.0-U8 and I got stuck at boot with the message "Root mount waiting for: CAM". I had to roll back to 12.0-U8.
If you wait long enough (serveral minutes in my case) your system should eventually finish booting. There are multiple discussions about this in the FreeBSD forums. I've got multiple links opened, but I haven't started reading yet. Just search on the error message. (I see this error on my SuperMicro X8SI6-F, but not my Lenovo ThinkServer TS140.)
 
Last edited:
Top