TrueNAS SCALE vs OpenMediaVault

[ChrisRJ]

Regarding cooling constraints, I will be using the Noctua NH-L12S for this NAS (NH-L12S (noctua.at) ). Will there be any constraints on my system's power consumption ?

That information should be available on the vendor's homepage. Since Noctua is a reputable player, I would be surprised if they didn't specify this.

 

[stavros-k]

There is a CPU Compatibility list in their website :) https://ncc.noctua.at/coolers/NH-L12S-17/cpus/AMD/AM4?q=2700

 

[vn_mnm]

There is a CPU Compatibility list in their website :) https://ncc.noctua.at/coolers/NH-L12S-17/cpus/AMD/AM4?q=2700 View attachment 48408

I am not overclocking my NAS so I think the L12S should be adequate. Man that 2700E CPU is the real moon rock, nowhere to be found on Earth yet. 8 cores 16 threads whilst consumes only 45W !

 

[LarsR]

I'm using an Noctua NH-L9x65 for my Ryzen 1600x and it's idling at 37-38°C. Even under load it never jumps over 50°C

 

[titust1]

Hello everyone,

I am an amateur network hobbyist who looks forward to building my first homebrew NAS rig. FreeNAS 11 is supposedly fine for me, but it is quite selective on the ethernet NICs, thus might cost me a PCIe slot for an Intel one. (My motherboard comes with Realtek LAN port .) I am looking at TrueNAS SCALE vs OpenMediaVault as both are based on Debian Linux, thus should have no compatibility issues with Realtek NICs at all.

So, beside the seemingly obvious difference that SCALE comes with ZFS filesystem support out of the box and by default, whilst with OpenMediaVault I have to install the ZFS addon, what are the other differences that might affect my consideration between the two for the upcoming household NAS ? In addition, I hear the Internet says that ZFS support on Linux is quite a mismatch, has SCALE overcome this issue ?

Also, how is the power consumption of TrueNAS SCALE vs TrueNAS Core / FreeNAS ?

I still have a lot to learn from this forum. Please help me out. Thank you very much in advance.

I really like the Trunas Scale software, but keep in mind that ZFS has a lot of advantages, but it also has some drawbacks that I hate:

1. The cost of ownership is very very high (due to the fact that performance degrades drastically when loading the pool with more than 30%). You have to buy much more drives in a RaidZ vs a regular Raid5 array for the same capacity, in order to have good performance. That sucks.
2. As we speak there is no way to add a drive to a RaidZ pool in order to grow the capacity (for example to go from 4-drives to 5-drives RaidZ pool) without destroying the pool and recreating a larger pool.
   I played recently with OMV and I love the GUI, very user friendly, the only thing I couldn't find was the possibility to speed up reads and writes by using a level 2 cache, like an nvme or simply RAM. It can't be done in the GUI, you have to use linux command line and google a lot to find how to do it, if you're not a linux expert

 

[morganL]

I really like the Trunas Scale software, but keep in mind that ZFS has a lot of advantages, but it also has some drawbacks that I hate:

1. The cost of ownership is very very high (due to the fact that performance degrades drastically when loading the pool with more than 30%). You have to buy much more drives in a RaidZ vs a regular Raid5 array for the same capacity, in order to have good performance. That sucks.
2. As we speak there is no way to add a drive to a RaidZ pool in order to grow the capacity (for example to go from 4-drives to 5-drives RaidZ pool) without destroying the pool and recreating a larger pool.
   I played recently with OMV and I love the GUI, very user friendly, the only thing I couldn't find was the possibility to speed up reads and writes by using a level 2 cache, like an nvme or simply RAM. It can't be done in the GUI, you have to use linux command line and google a lot to find how to do it, if you're not a linux expert

Have you seen performance degrade significantly at 30%??? at 80% it certainly does.
It should be noted that RAIDZ1 has additional checksums and so is much more reliable than RAID5

RAID5 expansions is very slow and unreliable. That's why ZFS prefers adding VDEVs.

RAIDZ expansion is getting through its development process. iX and FreeBSD foundation have been sponsoring this work.
https://freebsdfoundation.org/blog/raid-z-expansion-feature-for-zfs/

 

[titust1]

Have you seen performance degrade significantly at 30%??? at 80% it certainly does.

Hi Captain, well... it's an article and a graph from this forum. This article says that:
A 10%-full pool is going to fly for writes. By the time you get up to 50%, the steady state performance is already pretty bad. Not everyone is going to get there... Particularly noteworthy: The pool at 10% full is around 6x faster than the pool at 50%

I don't know what to say, I say what I see... Check for yourself here

The path to success for block storage

It seems like I haven't written a sticky for awhile, but just in the last week I've had to cover this topic several times. ZFS does two different things very well. One is storage of large sequentially-written files, such as archives, logs, or data files, where the file does not have the middle...

www.truenas.com

Morgan

 

[kiriak]

Hi Captain, well... it's an article and a graph from this forum. This article says that:
A 10%-full pool is going to fly for writes. By the time you get up to 50%, the steady state performance is already pretty bad. Not everyone is going to get there... Particularly noteworthy: The pool at 10% full is around 6x faster than the pool at 50%

I don't know what to say, I say what I see... Check for yourself here

The path to success for block storage

It seems like I haven't written a sticky for awhile, but just in the last week I've had to cover this topic several times. ZFS does two different things very well. One is storage of large sequentially-written files, such as archives, logs, or data files, where the file does not have the middle...

www.truenas.com

Morgan

It is a specific case scenario,
it is written in the post

A 10%-full pool is going to fly for writes. By the time you get up to 50%, the steady state performance is already pretty bad. Not everyone is going to get there... if you have a lot of content that is never rewritten, your fragmentation rates may be much better because you haven't rewritten as much stuff.

But there is a price to pay for the advantages of a COW filesystem.
A lot of people in the forums here and (I suppose) a lot of enterprise users are quite happy with the speed of TrueNAS. I don't think all these are in the area of 10% or 20% disk occupancy.

Of course there are many different needs and if you prioritize speed over data integrity, then for the same money, there are probably better solutions than ZFS.