TrueNAS might not be for you, if you are home user.

[Patrick_3000]

I use the shell all the time also, both currently in Scale and previously when I used Core. It's a lot easier than SSH for simple commands, like to check the status of the UPS or kill an rsync task that was mistakenly run. The lack of copy and paste has always been a bit of a hassle, but it's usually not much of a problem to type things out. I would not like to see the shell go away, but I could work around it by using SSH if I needed to.

 

[victort]

No Jails no gain. @jgreco would likely disagree to your statement that SCALE has better hardware support than CORE; chelsio and mellanox are good alternatives to intel NICs: just because it works, it doesn't mean you should use realtek trash drives. SCALE's UI is indeed better. Apparently, it also has better energy saving management.

You didn't mention any of the drawbacks of SCALE, from the kubernet issue to the ARC issue (which is being worked on).
Again, CORE's jails are a feature that I do not see being able to be replaced by the current SCALE capabilities.

Thus, I do not think SCALE is better. At the very least, not yet.

Jails are superior to Apps for me. The ability to do everything yourself is just better. Apps require everything to be configured on install. There is not much support for changing things after deploying an App, whereas Jails you have full access to the virtual environment.

Why don't you use ssh and something like putty?

I have started just for that reason, (guacamole, obvously in a jail) but I often find myself having to login in remotely, and the web shell is sometimes easiest for me at that point.

 

[winnielinnie]

I do understand the reasons people don't like it as I have also found myself needing to copy paste many times.

It's not just that copying text is broken.

Run this command, and enjoy the output in the Shell:

Code:

zfs list -r -t filesystem -o space

Now run that same command in an SSH session.

 

[Patrick_3000]

If you're accessing Truenas from a Windows client, then you need to install and configure Putty to get to the Truenas command line through SSH, which is a far greater hassle than using the shell in the Web UI.

If you're accessing Truenas from a Linux client, then in most distros, SSH client is installed out out of the box, and all you need to do is type "SSH [user]@[ip address]" from the terminal to get to the Truenas command line. That's arguably very slightly more of a hassle than going through the shell, but not by much.

Even though I'm usually on a Linux laptop, I usually end up going through the shell, because it's through my browser and doesn't require opening a terminal, but even I come from Windows once in a while, in which case the shell is far easier.

Bottom line, however: many users are on a Windows client, so it would be a hassle if the shell went away.

 

[winnielinnie]

If you're accessing Truenas from a Windows client, then you need to install and configure Putty to get to the Truenas command line through SSH, which is a far greater hassle than using the shell in the Web UI.

Windows PowerShell natively supports SSH. Nothing extra is needed. No additional software must be installed. Just launch PowerShell (the same as you would any terminal in Linux) and ssh into your server.

 

[Davvo]

If you're accessing Truenas from a Windows client, then you need to install and configure Putty to get to the Truenas command line through SSH, which is a far greater hassle than using the shell in the Web UI.

Not really? Aside from the PowerShell that @winnielinnie spoke about, configuring putty is quick and easy. And calling up a shell is even quicker once you have it setup, just two clicks: one to open putty, another to establish the connection. Imho quicker than opening a browser, clicking on a bookmark, digiting username and password, clicking on the webUI shell... that's broken so you can't visualize the data you need, let alone copy it or use essential tools like tmux.

 

[jgreco]

. @jgreco would likely disagree to your statement that SCALE has better hardware support than CORE;

Mostly if we're concerned about your QutiePie Ez Blinky Kitty Fan USB accessory. FreeBSD won't support it. Linux might. But for all the non-client-side gear that should be used on TrueNAS, they support approximately the same stuff. If you really insist on using a desktop mainboard with an Atheros ethernet chipset, yeah, okay, Linux might do better on that, but it'll suck to be you trying to use it. :-(

For all the stuff that we recommend you should use, the level of support is about the same.

 

[winnielinnie]

QutiePie Ez Blinky Kitty Fan USB accessory

I can't believe I searched for that on Amazon and AliExpress, just to make sure you were joking.

 

[Patrick M. Hausen]

Not really? Aside from the PowerShell that @winnielinnie spoke about, configuring putty is quick and easy. And calling up a shell is even quicker once you have it setup, just two clicks: one to open putty, another to establish the connection.

Shhh ... don't tell them about public key authentication

 

[Arwen]

A great many people over look a detail about Linux. It has such a fast development cycle, that things break or are purposefully removed, (breaking ZFS in the process, at least temporarily).

Some say, we won't have that problem with a long term supported kernel. Sure you won't. But then, you don't get the latest drivers, some security fixes and such. Now to be clear some new driver support is back ported to Linux LTS kernels.

But, in my own experience with laptops and newish desktops, I have to use more recent kernels to get things working. Then, as a new LTS kernel comes out, I can standardize on it.


FreeBSD's model of stable kernel API allows stable software development. Linux's un-stable, (on purpose!!!), kernel API forces some client software to re-compiled to allow use.


Now this does not affect TrueNAS SCALE too much. But some people think Linux, (and its supposed better releases & hardware support), will solve all their problems. Except that Linux introduces new problems. Like reduced ARC.


To paraphrase the One Ring: Their is no OS to rule them all.

 

[jgreco]

I can't believe I searched for that on Amazon and AliExpress, just to make sure you were joking.

The scary bit is that it's kinda plausible, right?

 

[Patrick_3000]

Look, SSH is great, and I didn't realize that Windows has a client in Powershell. I don't think they did years ago, the last time I tried to get SSH client working on Windows, but I'm glad they do now.

I have no problem with SSH. I use it all the time, especially for rsync tasks with keypairs.

All of that being said, choice is better than no choice. I, and apparently others, usually prefer to go through the Web UI shell to get to the TrueNas command line. I'm not trying to stop anyone from going through SSH (which even I use sometimes), but all else being equal, it's best to have both options available: SSH for those who prefer to go that way and shell for those who prefer to go that way. Then people can get to the CLI whichever of the two ways works best for them, so they can work in the way that's most enjoyable and efficient for them personally.

In Windows, I would still prefer to use the Web UI than SSH in Powershell, which I rarely use in Windows (I use the Windows command terminal more often) to get to the Truenas command line. I suspect that others have the same preference. Though, I certainly see the advantages of SSH, most significantly copy and paste.

I can understand why iXsystems might choose to eliminate the shell, because it's extra code for them to maintain and their enterprise customers probably use SSH nearly exclusively. If they get rid of the shell, I'll be fine switching to SSH for the rare occasions when I need to access the Truenas command line. However, all else being equal, from a user experience standpoint, it would be better to retain both options so that users can do what they're most comfortable with.

 

[winnielinnie]

Then people can get to the CLI whichever of the two ways works best for them, so they can work in the way that's most enjoyable and efficient for them personally.

If the "Shell" actually worked like a terminal emulator. The problem is, it doesn't. It's simply broken. Early wrapping and cutting off text and being unable to copy text are not small, unimportant issues. The stated reason why we're not getting a decent terminal emulator in the GUI is because there's a "risk" (not sure what exactly) to their enterprise customers.

It's a bad look to have half-implemented or broken features.

The Shell became so frustrating for me to use that I created a user-friendly shortcut with a sleek icon to launch from my start menu. It basically starts a terminal and automatically logs into an SSH session. Literally one click from my start menu. (Don't even need to login to the web GUI.)

Here's the icon I made, in PNG format:

(Windows users need to convert it to .ico format. Can't upload .ico on here. Linux users can use the PNG as-is.)

It's transparent outside the white circle.

I named the menu item "TrueNAS SSH Shell".

 

[morganL]

Storage and performance-wise, Core (FreeBSD) is better. Memory management, ARC, ZFS is a first-class citizen,

Agreed, but SCALE can be improved. Every new release has some major improvements.
CORE is better from an IOPS perspective (iSCSI)
SCALE is slightly better from a bandwidth perspective.
I view it as SCALE needs 50% more RAM if ARC is critical to performance.

no constant CPU usage from K3s, no issues with share paths intersecting with Jail mounts (unlike with Apps and HostPath), no insane clutter and used space from the Apps system (I keep seeing how the ix-applications dataset balloons in size), etc, etc, etc.

I'd argue that these issues are not very significant now (22.12.3.2)... I'd be keen to get feedback from users who have run both.
Cobia has a major set of UI improvements and removes the Hostpath safety belt.

As far as better hardware support, it seems less of an issue for a server use-case; unlike gaming and desktop users.

Yes, NICs, GPUs. Newer processor models.
Not an issue for most of the community, but its a major issue for building new appliances with the latest technology.
Many new component vendors cannot (or choose not) to resolve a FreeBSD issue. Linux is their preferred release/support vehicle.

Take the performance and stability of TrueNAS Core + the improvements in UI and bugfixes of SCALE + rapid development for a community userbase = an amazing NAS appliance that doesn't feel "old in the tooth".

Agreed... internally, we view SCALE 22.12.3 as about the performance and stability of earlier CORE 12.0, but with more functional capability and the improved UI.

Cobia (Q4 this year) will take it to early 13.0 quality. NVMe systems will probably outperform.
We're intending to reduce the ARC issue in the Q2 release in 2024.

At the same time, there will be a CORE 13.1 to get some of the ZFS and Samba improvements. There is no intention to force users to switch to SCALE.

 

[jgreco]

Here's the icon I made, in PNG format:

(Windows users need to convert it to .ico format. Can't upload .ico on here. Linux users can use the PNG as-is.)

That's a really slick icon. Very attractive idea if you only have a NAS or two. Could I suggest that you write up step-by-step instructions and post this in the Resources area?

 

[winnielinnie]

Could I suggest that you write up step-by-step instructions and post this in the Resources area?

For the icon? I made it with GIMP using the "legacy shark" (I miss that shark ) as the defining feature. I didn't keep track of what I did, but I recall I got low-level OCD from nudging the "green prompt" shapes in just the right places so it be clear what they represent.

Unless you mean a guide in the Resources section on how to make a one-click shortcut launcher to SSH into your TrueNAS server, which can be accessed from the start menu / taskbar? I can do that, for sure. Just need to sit down and write it up for both Linux and Windows.

I don't know diddly about copyright laws and whatnot. Anyone can use this PNG icon. As long as iXsystems doesn't sue me.

 

[danb35]

Why don't you use ssh and something like putty?

...or just the ssh client that's been built into Windows since Win10?

 

[danb35]

If you're accessing Truenas from a Windows client, then you need to install and configure Putty to get to the Truenas command line through SSH

No, you don't, unless you're using a version of Windows that has been unsupported for many years. Windows 10 (and later) includes an SSH client; there's no need for PuTTY, Bitvise, or any other third-party client.

Powershell, which I rarely use in Windows (I use the Windows command terminal more often)

The ssh client in Windows has nothing to do with Powershell; I have no idea where @winnielinnie got that idea. It's its own application; you can just as well run it under cmd.exe as under Powershell (though I generally prefer the latter).

Really, it's a matter of how you use your client computers. I almost always have at least one terminal window open, whether I'm on a Mac (my main machine), Linux, or Windows. It's far easier for me to pull up one of them and type ssh root@truenas than to do anything in the web UI--particularly since I have TrueNAS configured to use SSH user certificates, which extends my SSO capabilities into SSH. Sure, not everyone does that. And if you're already in the web UI, and you just need to run a single command, and you don't need to copy/paste the command or its output, the web shell is probably faster. For me, it's rare that any of those is true.

 

[winnielinnie]

The ssh client in Windows has nothing to do with Powershell; I have no idea where @winnielinnie got that idea. It's its own application; you can just as well run it under cmd.exe as under Powershell (though I generally prefer the latter).

True.

But when you're done in your server and you log out, if you continue to use "cmd.exe", you end up typing "ls" only to be greeted by:

'ls' is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file.

"cmd.exe" is behind-the-times; a relic from the days of DOS.

 

[jgreco]

The ssh client in Windows has nothing to do with Powershell; I have no idea where @winnielinnie got that idea. It's its own application; you can just as well run it under cmd.exe as under Powershell (though I generally prefer the latter).

It came in post-Win10 probably as part of the Linux Subsystem for Windows stuff, or at least around that time. Of course, some of us have been using Cygwin for many years, which has had ssh for a VERY long time. Mine appears to date from 2014, mostly because it's a PITA to update some bits of Cygwin.