What are the real world hardware requirements now!

[Magnus33]

With different versions of freenas still being used and a new major update on the way with freenas 10 what are the minimum safe specs/ wow it actually works specs /best setup specs.

We got plenty of guess work and suggestions but no real hard rules to what versions must have .

What versions still works but requires minimum hardware.

What version requires the most..which seems simple but newer doesn't always require more (windows 7 over vista a good example).

There needs to be a more defined set of hardware requirements for the different versions of freenas then the guess work and outdated info that now exists.

A simple hey look here for the info area that people can add to with hardware recommendations and warnings.

People like cyberjock have done great work on this but with the ever evolving freenas versions the hardware requirements have changed.

Your thoughts on this? :)

 

[cyberjock]

We don't know what the minimum specs will be for 10 since the code isn't even complete and its not really usable at the moment.

 

[Magnus33]

Yeah 10 would still be more guessing at this point or at least until the beta out when most of the code laid down.

Other versions though we should have a more defined set a of hardware requirements since then been out for sometime and different version don't require the same hardware.

There always some poor guy thinking he can make one out of his left over computer parts and though kind of true depending on use and version it certainly needs clearing up.

 

[jgreco]

There haven't been any substantial hardware requirement changes since I bumped the minimum RAM required up to 8GB years ago.

This isn't Windows, guys. 10 isn't likely to require a significant bump in resources.

 

[Magnus33]

If you look at whats written you got 8gigs.

Then there a gig for every terabyte.

So on and so forth the hardware requirements are all over the place.

Nothing that says if you got old left over hardware use this version without this or if you got 8 cores and 16 gigs you can do this.

Its very scattered contradicting bits of info all over.

Such as 8 gigs is required but what if you have 16 terabytes do you actually need a gig for each.
Its very all over the place and i cant count the number of times people asked me confused at whats actually the requirements anymore.

its very easy to see how people new to this can get confused very quickly.

 

[anodos]

Hardware requirements are intimately tied in with what you'll be using the server for. There's no simple formula that you can use to find it.

Jpaetzel wrote a series of blog posts here.

http://www.freenas.org/blog/a-compl...are-design-part-i-purpose-and-best-practices/

It and the hardware stickies are good places to start.

RAM guideline is this: 8GB ECC minimum for basic home usage, scale up as needed. :D

This means old hardware that only supports 8GB RAM is probably not a good idea.

 

[Magnus33]

Jpaetzel Does a very nice job of clearing up many of the much more confused points of how much ram and does there really need to be a gig per terabyte as some suggest.

 

[anodos]

Jpaetzel Does a very nice job of clearing up many of the much more confused points of how much ram and does there really need to be a gig per terabyte as some suggest.

It depends on use case. If the server is just archiving data you can get by with quite a lot less. If you're hosting VMs you may need quite a lot more. How many terabytes of storage are you looking at and how do you plan to use the server?

 

[Magnus33]

It depends on use case. If the server is just archiving data you can get by with quite a lot less. If you're hosting VMs you may need quite a lot more. How many terabytes of storage are you looking at and how do you plan to use the server?

Which is where the stickies here fail badly they are either out dated or filled with info that's not current for the versions we have out.

Needs a lot of cleaning up so a person can come in read them and go i am doing this so that's what i need.
Currently we got basic info that says both 8 gigs minimum and then somewhere else says a gig per terabyte but no really explanation why.

I know like you whats behind all this but the laymen new to this going to be confused with contradictory info.
This is in fact what i hear most often why does it say this but in another spot say something else totally.

Not that the info bad its just needs a major cleanup with info all over the place saying one thing or another rather then look here this explains everything currently depending on types of systems.

 

[Bidule0hm]

urrently we got basic info that says both 8 gigs minimum and then somewhere else says a gig per terabyte but no really explanation why.

I know like you whats behind all this but the laymen new to this going to be confused with contradictory info.

In fact it's not contradictory, it should be read as "The rule is to have more or less 1 GB of RAM per TB of drives, with a minimum of 8 GB." ;)

 

[jgreco]

If you look at whats written you got 8gigs.

Then there a gig for every terabyte.

Exactly, that's the recommended minimum, correctly stated.

So on and so forth the hardware requirements are all over the place.

Nothing that says if you got old left over hardware use this version without this or if you got 8 cores and 16 gigs you can do this.

Of course it is. But there's never going to be a guide like you suggest. In the end the advice is always "you give it what you need." For example, for certain uses, such as block storage, or deduplication, the recommended amounts of RAM are substantially higher. Yet people don't bother to read the documentation and they'll wander on in here with their 2GB or 4GB RAM system, because they believed that they got a special pass on the words "minimum requirement".

Which is where the stickies here fail badly they are either out dated or filled with info that's not current for the versions we have out.

That's ridiculous. The information isn't "out dated". You've just ASSUMED it's outdated. It is valid for the current versions. It's reasonably likely to be valid even for FreeNAS 10, because the biggest consumer of resources is actually ZFS itself, which isn't really changing.

Needs a lot of cleaning up so a person can come in read them and go i am doing this so that's what i need.
Currently we got basic info that says both 8 gigs minimum and then somewhere else says a gig per terabyte but no really explanation why.

And that's correct. It isn't an either/or "you get to pick." The 8GB minimum is required for stability. The gig per terabyte is not-quite-required but is such a good idea that you should also think of it as required.

But the problem is that all we can do is to give some rough guidance. System's not performing well enough? ADD MORE RAM.

 

[Magnus33]

There the root of the problem i would say what it should say and what it actually says are very different things.

For example Jpaetzel states 8 gigs should get you through to 24 terabytes and 16 gigs through to maybe 100 terabytes.
It wont implode but at those levels it likely wouldn't break any records either.

Yes i say its outdated and in need of cleaning up since the time it was written the demands of files systems have changed along with hardware.

But if nothing else the purpose of this thread i hoped would be to clear up some of the serious confusion over whats needed.

Why can't there be a quide?
Your yourself just stated instances where ram demands are quite higher so why not simply add this too the guide as a rough map for those who are thinking of this and they no where to ask others for more details.
As of now we got 8 gigs but also 16 gig with little to no explanation at times unless you find the quide by Jpaetzel.

Hell i would replace much of the stickies with that as its more of a quide then whats there now and then expand on it as needed.
He goes into ram needs at the basic level in a way my neighbor would find less confusing then whats written in the threads.

Then maybe have a link to a more advanced section for memory use for those using block storage, or duplication as a example.
Its not very cut and dry for the laymen and the advanced users at the same time which isn't great when you got every increasing amounts of people using the software now.

 

[pirateghost]

You find those blog posts more of a guide than a dedicated sticky that lists ACTUAL vetted hardware?

 

[jgreco]

For example Jpaetzel states 8 gigs should get you through to 24 terabytes and 16 gigs through to maybe 100 terabytes.

Yes, we *know* that 8 gigs will "get you through to 24 terabytes" but it will do it so poorly you'll want to smash something at some point because performance will tank. Paetzel says lots of stuff, and I invite him to come put his money where his mouth is here in the forums, providing support for some of the amazing things that come out of his mouth.

The whole problem is that there are no truly hard and fast rules. We know that FreeNAS will become unstable with only 8GB of RAM at some point, but the exact point isn't clear, and we know that performance tanks to misery well before that. In a way the real alarm bell is poor performance. If you have poor performance, you're probably too low on RAM.

I bumped up the minimum RAM requirement from 6GB to 8GB several years ago. Observationally, we were seeing people on platforms with less than 8GB lose their pools on occasion. Something *I* observed and several of us here agreed was a significant trend.

Modern ZFS has almost always suggested the 1GB per TB thing. Google it. This is basically just a guideline to get you into a reasonable ballpark for typical fileservice. The problem is, it isn't etched in stone, and what ACTUALLY works has a lot more to do with the pool, workload, and other factors. We need something simple to be able to tell users. So "8TB minimum, and 1GB per TB of disk" has been the go-to for years. I can absolutely, easily even, get you a workload for where a 16GB system with 8TB of disk space will fall over. But for your average FreeNAS user, it's a reasonable guideline.

Yes i say its outdated and in need of cleaning up since the time it was written the demands of files systems have changed along with hardware.

I call bullshit. The demands of ZFS haven't changed substantially, and I can't even begin to imagine what you mean by "along with the hardware." RAM is cheaper per gig today than ever, and even a low end system can be taken to 32GB or 64GB at a reasonable cost.

 

[BigDave]

Then maybe have a link to a more advanced section for memory use for those using block storage, or duplication as a example.
Its not very cut and dry for the laymen and the advanced users at the same time which isn't great when you got every increasing amounts of people using the software now.

The software is offered at no charge, the forum has unpaid voluteers, what you ask for is complete folly!
You have been a member her for almost three years, I challenge YOU to make a major contribution!
What's that? You don't have the time? I see...
Easier said, than done, Huh!

 

[jgreco]

Easier said, than done, Huh!

Actually, the wonderful thing about this forum is the number of people who've really stepped up over the years and are so willing to provide the kind of customized advice and wisdom that is really needed with a product that's as complex as ZFS. I am constantly amazed at how often a message that I would have responded to has already received a well-written, thoughtful response or even chain of responses by other participants.

There's no shortage of documentation out there, and honestly, anyone who does it better, I'm happy to sticky their stuff. We're not really able to force anyone to do the reading necessary to become a ZFS and FreeNAS expert, but the information's out there if you only take the time to take advantage of it. If you're unhappy with it, do it better. Go ahead.

 

[Magnus33]

Yes the people in the forum are amazing i just think its needs more consolidation of the basic info.

But this is the great thing about the forums now you can debate like this and find out what works best rather then some places where they just attack you for asking a question.
Down side though is with so many people you can get some seriously contradictory info scattered all over the place.

Should be interesting if 10 affects the requirements to a large degree or reduces them somewhat due to the improved code.

 

[jgreco]

Yes the people in the forum are amazing i just think its needs more consolidation of the basic info.

But this is the great thing about the forums now you can debate like this and find out what works best rather then some places where they just attack you for asking a question.
Down side though is with so many people you can get some seriously contradictory info scattered all over the place.

You've yet to produce examples of lots of "seriously contradictory information." The information presented here is fairly consistent. ECC. 8GB minimum. 1GB per TB. Not that hard.

Should be interesting if 10 affects the requirements to a large degree or reduces them somewhat due to the improved code.

Unlikely to move much in either direction, at least for equivalent functionality. ZFS isn't changing. The underlying sharing protocols aren't changing. Try to remember that FreeNAS is largely just a management layer on top of an existing OS. Changing the management layer drastically is only going to affect the requirements where the management layer gets much bigger, which doesn't seem to be the plan here.

 

[Magnus33]

For you and me we understand why there one part saying 8 gig and then another saying 1 tb.
We don't think about it but the average joe that gets confusing quickly unless you read through Jpaetzel post.

Remember we aren't thinking of what sounds contradictory or confusing to us but the average guy/gal with much less tech know how.

We look at 8 gigs and then 1 gig per tb which we don't think about for a second we know.

I was thinking maybe slightly less a impact on the hardware rather then a bigger demand.
Like you mentioned the protocols aren't changing and though the management layer is improving is changing its a guess at how much its going to affect things.

If it does affect things its probably going to have to real world effect for the user.

Now i got to shut down the nas add a new harddrive and figure out how to do it one handed..cursing seems like its going to happen :(

 

[Ericloewe]

The only major upcoming changes to ZFS and its use of RAM revolve around smallish optimizations and spreading the compression love around. These are unlikely to change minimum requirements, but can improve performance in situations where adding RAM is impractical.