UFS Raid 1 support

[tocato]

Hi guys,

Firstly sorry for my english which isn't my mother tongue.
Since the last release 9.3, I'm unable to importing my previous UFS RAID1 created into Freenas 9.1. The only choice is the ZFS devil.... Why forcing users to using ZFS ? I know what the performances are better, many features like snapshot... but I don't need that "extra gadgets" because ZFS require lot of ressources. I want just a classical RAID1. How can I import my array without loosing any data ?

To put in the nutshell: Bring back the classical RAID capability (gmirror).

Thanks.

Regards,
Antonio

 

[DifferentStrokes]

9.3 dropped support for UFS. You will have to down grade or maybe check out NAS4Free.

 

[pirateghost]

not gonna happen.

UFS is dying, and you need to let go.

ZFS has mirror capability, and that is as close to a RAID1 as you will get with FreeNAS now or in the future.

 

[tocato]

9.3 dropped support for UFS. You will have to down grade or maybe check out NAS4Free.

Thanks for this confirmation, I'll certainly change to NAS4Free.

not gonna happen.

UFS is dying, and you need to let go.

ZFS has mirror capability, and that is as close to a RAID1 as you will get with FreeNAS now or in the future.

I'm unhappy to hear that but I understand. I think that ZFS it's just too much for personals backups... It is harm.


Thanks again and see you soon.

 

[pirateghost]

It's harm?

Huh?

ZFS is great. If you don't need the features that make freenas what it is, then just set up your own freebsd box and do whatever you like

 

[depasseg]

I thought 9.3 let a user import from UFS?

 

[Alvin]

I thought 9.3 let a user import from UFS?

Yes, it certainly does. The kernel supports UFS and the necessary tools are still there. Just not the gui stuff.

 

[DifferentStrokes]

I thought 9.3 let a user import from UFS?

Yes you can mount 1 disk at a time for temporary means ie. coping files off to a ZFS pool. IIRC it is in read only mode.

 

[DifferentStrokes]

The OP was about a RAID1 not just a single disk. I know ZFS likes direct access to the disks without a RAID controller in the way. Is UFS different? Wouldn't you have to rely on the RAID card to "handle" the array.

 

[Ericloewe]

The OP was about a RAID1 not just a single disk. I know ZFS likes direct access to the disks without a RAID controller in the way. Is UFS different? Wouldn't you have to rely on the RAID card to "handle" the array.

FreeNAS/FreeBSD does software RAID1. It was used for UFS arrays pre-FreeNAS 9.3 and will be used in FreeNAS 10 for reliable swap space. It's called GEOM.

 

[DifferentStrokes]

Yeah, but he's asking about 9.3. I don't know personally. Can he do this in 9.3, I'm thinking not, but I'm not sure.

 

[Ericloewe]

Yeah, but he's asking about 9.3. I don't know personally. Can he do this in 9.3, I'm thinking not, but I'm not sure.

It's definitely not supported. Doable? Maybe. Bad idea? Definitely.

 

[DifferentStrokes]

It's definitely not supported. Doable? Maybe. Bad idea? Definitely.

There you go. That is what I was shooting for. A lot of things can be done, but are they advisable?

 

[tocato]

It's harm?

Huh?

ZFS is great. If you don't need the features that make freenas what it is, then just set up your own freebsd box and do whatever you like

Of course ZFS is great but isn't designed for small NAS configuration. Seriously, who needs ZFS for personnal backups at home ?
FreeNAS was well for recycle old computers but now you almost need a server hardware... So in this case it's a harm.

 

[DifferentStrokes]

I guess it is all in how you look at it. I like the features that ZFS brings to the table for my home NAS.

You are correct, however, in that FreeNAS has changed from the days of reusing old hardware to get up and running. I guess there is still NAS4FREE for those who don't want to get new hardware.

 

[Robert Trevellyan]

FreeNAS was well for recycle old computers but now you almost need a server hardware.

To get the best from the current incarnation of FreeNAS, you do need server hardware, but that doesn't mean you have to break the bank. There are inexpensive off-the-shelf systems available that are entirely suitable for a modest FreeNAS.

And there are plenty of alternatives for people with different requirements.

 

[danb35]

FreeNAS was well for recycle old computers but now you almost need a server hardware...

The product currently called FreeNAS was never designed to recycle old computers. The product formerly known as FreeNAS (and now known as NAS4Free) may have been; in any event its hardware requirements are much more modest. The product currently called FreeNAS was always about putting a nice GUI on a ZFS-based file server. Any support for UFS was half-hearted at best until they removed it completely with 9.3.

Suitable server hardware can easily be had for $300 or less, not including hard drives. That isn't a great deal of money.

To put in the nutshell: Bring back the classical RAID capability (gmirror).

To put it in a nutshell: No. Not that I speak for the devs, but that seems to pretty clearly be their answer.

Really, if you don't want ZFS, FreeNAS isn't the product for you. There are lots of other NAS software distributions out there, some of them even BSD-based (if that's your thing). XPEnology gives you everything you'd get from a Synology box (since it's running their software) on whatever old hardware you want to recycle, with tons of plugins available. Unraid gives you a different form of disk redundancy. NAS4Free is BSD-based and does both UFS and ZFS. Then there's OpenMediaVault, Rockstor (which uses btrfs), Nexenta (Illumos/OpenSolaris-based), and Openfiler, just to name a few. Or, heck, you could use FreeNAS 9.2.something and keep your UFS volume, though you wouldn't get any further security updates on that path (which may or may not bother you).

 

[Robert Trevellyan]

Unraid gives you a different form of disk redundancy.

Different, yes, that's one way of putting it.

 

[Ericloewe]

Different, yes, that's one way of putting it.

Sounds like someone was burned by UnRAID

 

[Robert Trevellyan]

Sounds like someone was burned by UnRAID

Not exactly, though I did evaluate it and find it's performance to be inadequate. What I'm referring to is the way it uses a single, dedicated parity drive, regardless of the number of data drives. That has value if a drive fails completely, but consider what it means when it finds data that doesn't match parity in the unRAID equivalent of a ZFS scrub. It has to decide whether the parity is correct or the data on the drive is correct, but there's absolutely no way of knowing. The solution adopted by unRAID is always to assume that the data on the drive is correct, and to update the parity accordingly. In other words, there is absolutely no protection against bit rot.