[Upgrade] ~ ZFS version upgrade possible....?

[Zehryo]

First of all: I'm a home user and my life doesnt depend on the 100% reliability of my NAS. Peace of mind.

Ok, I've taken my time to read all the FreeNAS 9.2.1 powerpoint so I feel just a bit ashamed to ask this question....but, at the moment, this forum is my only source of "reliable and updated" informations.

About 3-4 years ago I decided to give FreeNAS a try, mostly as an experiment, but also to enhance my on-board RAID1 data redundancy. FreeNAS 7.2.xxxx; those days' RELEASE, thus no comments, please.
So I put together an all-in-one Foxconn MoBo (w/ 1x 1GB NIC), an Intel i3 and some RAM; plus 3x 1TB WD Greens. I wont tell you how much RAM, because I'm already getting enough condemnation from myself, thank you!!
As a positive note, however, there's a semi-dedicated UPS, supplying that machine.

I decided to configure it as a RAID5 (whatever the corresponding RAIDZ number is) ZFS datapool through a iSCSI protocol. It was actually pretty cool, having that T: unit with 1.7TB (non-compressed) where I could backup my minuscule 500MB on-board RAID1.
But then I upgraded my local RAID1 to 1TB and my Internet connection to something that was unimaginable til a short time ago. Suddenly, my backups easily went from few hundreds of megabytes to several GBs.
Most of you people might've already spotted the bottleneckS, here, anyway I soon realized the data transfer was terrible!! >.<
It was really unbearable, most of the times, so I just started disregarding the FreeNAS dedicated machine more and more until I've just stopped even turning it on at all. No more redundant backups. Obsolete data and everything.

Before you shout on me, be aware I'm gonna update the machine with 8GBs of RAM, and probably bring it up to 16GBs in a near future (motherboard's max). This will definitely improve the machine's performance, to start.

But some of that old data, although not vital, is presently unique to the NAS, thus I'm a bit reluctant to wipe everything out and restart from ground up.
I could, of course, save the extra data to another HDD and then do the dirty work in a semi-safe way.

And here comes the question: is FreeNAS 7.2.5xxx's ZFS compatible and/or upgradable to 9.2.1's version so that all I have to do is increase RAM, install the new release and use the old datapool without having to rebuild it?

Simply yes or no, I'm not gonna debate on your reasons.

Thank you!! ^.^

 

[danb35]

FreeNAS 9 should be able to auto-import your existing ZFS pool without loss of data or redundancy.

 

[cyberjock]

You *can* do an auto-import and it *should* work.

But, be warned this isn't recommended for a bunch of reasons and the "better" answer at this time is to make a new pool and move your data to the FreeNAS 9.

The problems stem from assumptions being made on how the system is partitioned, etc etc etc and you kind of "break" those assumptions because FreeNAS 7 shares no code with FreeNAS 8+.

So if you are trying to do the right thing for "long term prospects" I'd look at making a new pool on FreeNAS 9 and move your data to it. If you are just looking at "short term" then import the pool and go.

 

[Zehryo]

Thank you for your reply. ^o^

Anybody else to confirm this "should be able"? =)

 

[cyberjock]

Scroll up. We posted within seconds of each other so you might not have read my post. ;)

 

[Zehryo]

Ops! Cyberjock, we wrote at the same time!! ^^

Well, yep, this is gonna be a mid/long-term solution, something like a "omg, my PC got totally screwed (or "hit by a meteor"), but fortunately I have a full backup of all of my data!!" solution.
Nothing like vital data, just movies, games, softwares, photos, music......the usual junk that comes clogging up our HDDs nowadays.

Just to say, since the powerpoint presentation states iSCSI is to be avoided because of a severe performance pitfall (or something that sounds like that), what protocol would you suggest?
Also, the same presentation reports some problems with SMB4 because of the integration of SMB3 elements. And NFS too is marked for something.....so what remains!? >.<

Your Opinion? =)

 

[cyberjock]

iSCSI and NFS are mentioned when using them for VMs because of the nature of the workload. So don't confuse those with standard file sharing for your family. NFS works great for file sharing if you have client machines that can do NFS.

Also don't confuse SMB(x) with Samba(x). Samba3 supported up to SMB2 while Samba4 suppors up to SMB3. SMB3 support is kind of broken in Samba and that is why the default in FreeNAS is SMB2.

 

[Zehryo]

I see....iSCSI it will stay, then. =0

 

[cyberjock]

Is there a reason why you are using iSCSI vice CIFS, AFP, or NFS? iSCSI has lots of semi-crappy limitations with it that should be avoided if possible because of how it works. ;)

 

[Zehryo]

Make up your mind , you made me understand there's not much of a difference, for my case, whatever protocol I use!! XD

Anyway the point was have my NAS behave like a local unit and not a network one.
What kind of limitations does it bring? I need it to backup and retrieve data, no particularly large streamings (movies to be watched locally MAYBE), so....is it so bad?

What I'm struggling with, at the moment, is slow data transfer, which I ascribe to the low amount of RAM.

But if using NFS instead of iSCSI can improve it, I'm in! =)

 

[cyberjock]

No, I mentioned for *VMs* there are special precautions for iSCSI and NFS. I also said....

So don't confuse those with standard file sharing for your family.

Sharing with your family *should* use a file sharing protocol, which iSCSI is not. It's nothing but a block level device sharing protocol.

 

[Zehryo]

No no, no sharing whatsoever, it's local....for now. And it's not connected to the router, it goes straight to my second NIC with a different IP class.
The streaming I was talking about is like watching a movie from the NAS, but on my system only. I'm still quite far from having the hardware and patience to set a streaming server for the whole house.

 

[cyberjock]

In that case you "could" go with iSCSI. But to be honest, doing CIFS is definitely the better option.

 

[Zehryo]

Your reasons, please!! ^o^

 

[cyberjock]

There's a whole bunch. Sorry but I'm not particularly motivated to write a book. If you understand how iSCSi works as well as how CIFS works you should be able to determine for yourself why CIFS is superior for file sharing.