Will TrueNAS Core 13.1 have ZFS 2.2.2?

[Patrick M. Hausen]

I'm willing to bet that this move will kill iX systems. I know a handful of people who will fork CORE the moment they announce its end. Even if they never announce an official end of support - when the FreeBSD releng/13 branch reaches EOL and they don't have any intention to upgrade to FreeBSD 14, 15, ... the product is dead. Because you won't be able to deploy any new jails.

Who owns the "FreeNAS" brand?

 

[winnielinnie]

Please keep me posted too.

I'm eyeing another product, but a fork of Core would be amazing.

FreeBSD + ZFS + jails = an excellent NAS solution
(Which is what made FreeNAS / TrueNAS Core so great.)

The stagnation of Core saddens me. Especially when simple, innocuous things don't get fixed under the rationale of "cannot risk breaking the software for our enterprise customers."

As far as new features that made it to SCALE, but not Core? Don't even get me started. I cannot accept the same excuse of "but our enterprise customers" when SCALE gets on/off toggles for SMB and NFS shares, but Core does not. Same with the "snapshot hold" feature in the GUI.

For instance, what if an enterprise customer requests on/off toggles for shares? Would iXsystems implement them? (Which they already did for SCALE, anyways.) What if an enterprise customer requests a checkbox to protect a snapshot with a "Hold"? Would iXsystems implement it? (Which, again, they already did for SCALE.)

Screenshot from another user's SCALE dashboard.

 

[Juan Manuel Palacios]

I guess it's time to start organizing for a community-mantained CORE. Sad thing is, I'm not a programmer. I can only contribuite with my good intentions and time.
I'm not really against SCALE, but it needs some serious work on levels that I don't know if iX can or is willing to do. I'm aggravated now

I am an odd mix of a DevOps with web developer, with lots of years on my back for both, though with a passionate hate for Python!

Though, as much as I hate Python, I am, at least currently, more put off by the prospect of migrating my CORE rig to SCALE/Linux, if iX does eventually push us in that direction. Additionally, the last 6 years of using FreeNAS/TrueNAS CORE have really accentuated my love for FreeBSD, its packaging system, jails, its overall simplicity, and many other of its features, so I'd definitely be in favor participating in such a community-driven initiative.

In other words, count me in!

 

[Glowtape]

If they go full SCALE, I sure hope they'll eventually deploy two trains then. One with the LTS kernel and one with the current stable kernel.

 

[cobrakiller58]

I'm willing to bet that this move will kill iX systems. I know a handful of people who will fork CORE the moment they announce its end. Even if they never announce an official end of support - when the FreeBSD releng/13 branch reaches EOL and they don't have any intention to upgrade to FreeBSD 14, 15, ... the product is dead. Because you won't be able to deploy any new jails.

Who owns the "FreeNAS" brand?

When we get there please keep me posted as well.

For instance, what if an enterprise customer requests on/off toggles for shares? Would iXsystems implement them?

I am curious how they will manage enterprise customers that refuse to switch to Scale and request feature parity, or new customers who are interested because of FreeBSD

 

[Volts]

enterprise customers that refuse to switch to Scale and request feature parity

"Enterprise" customers don't mix NAS and appserver functionality. That's very "SMB" behavior. I'm not saying it's an invalid thing to do - just that it's a particular mindset. Remember Windows SBS? It filled a niche perfectly.

There are already a few important NAS things SCALE can do that CORE can't.

new customers who are interested because of FreeBSD

There must be literally dozens. I think we're mostly here already.

 

[hescominsoon]

Please keep me posted too.

I'm eyeing another product, but a fork of Core would be amazing.

FreeBSD + ZFS + jails = an excellent NAS solution
(Which is what made FreeNAS / TrueNAS Core so great.)

The stagnation of Core saddens me. Especially when simple, innocuous things don't get fixed under the rationale of "cannot risk breaking the software for our enterprise customers."

As far as new features that made it to SCALE, but not Core? Don't even get me started. I cannot accept the same excuse of "but our enterprise customers" when SCALE gets on/off toggles for SMB and NFS shares, but Core does not. Same with the "snapshot hold" feature in the GUI.

For instance, what if an enterprise customer requests on/off toggles for shares? Would iXsystems implement them? (Which they already did for SCALE, anyways.) What if an enterprise customer requests a checkbox to protect a snapshot with a "Hold"? Would iXsystems implement it? (Which, again, they already did for SCALE.)

Screenshot from another user's SCALE dashboard.

As an Enterprise customer myself with multiple enterprise servers at multiple clients, I don't want new features that have not been tested, tried and true. I want a stable platform that doesn't require a whole lot of testing because someone decide to throw new features into our storage environment. The fact that core is seeming to be outdated is actually its biggest strength. I'm actually disappointed that IX systems is going to be abandoning core, probably in the next 5 to 10 years. As of right now there I have no intention of recommending to any of my clients who are running IX Enterprise gear to go to scale. I have two true Nas servers here in my office. One with core one with scale. For my uses as a pure storage device, core is light years ahead of scale. Scale is trying to be the kitchen sink. I will be watching things very closely with truenas and see how it goes from here. If you want new features or adding new things, go to scale. For Enterprise customers. We don't want new features. We want the features that are there to be stable. We want any features that are added to be stable. New features often aren't stable for quite some time. So if you want to add a new feature, add it to scale and then if it can be ported decor. Great. If it can't be ported decor, don't care.

*Edited first paragraph for clarity*

 

[Davvo]

We don't want new features. We want the features that are there to be stable. We want any features that are added to be stable. New features often aren't stable for quite some time. So if you want to add a new feature, add it to scale and then if it can be ported decor. Great. If it can't be ported decor, don't care.

I'm interested in what would be your stance about fixing features that aren't properly working, ie the WebUI console. Is that considered to be a new feature per your standards?

 

[hescominsoon]

I'm interested in what would be your stance about fixing features that aren't properly working, ie the WebUI console. Is that considered to be a new feature per your standards?

When you get into the large Enterprise space, if a feature isn't working correctly and it's going to affect stability, we just work around it and don't use the feature. If the feature is needed by set Enterprise then we will work with it up to the limits of said feature or we simply just use a different product. It's all about stability. There's been more than once where IX systems on a bug fix has basically said we would fix it, but this either will in their internal testing or might affect Enterprise stability. Larger enterprises value stability over even bug fixes sometimes. How do I know this? I have multiple large Enterprise customers. It really changes your outlook on things when you go up into the true Enterprise space. The philosophy is completely different. How you do things operationally is completely different. Many things that would seem to make sense outside of a large Enterprise don't make sense inside of a large Enterprise. Do not take this as me insulting you, but it sounds like you have not worked inside of a truly large Enterprise or worked with a truly large Enterprise when it comes to storage or networking. If I am wrong I sit corrected and apologize.

 

[hescominsoon]

I'm willing to bet that this move will kill iX systems. I know a handful of people who will fork CORE the moment they announce its end. Even if they never announce an official end of support - when the FreeBSD releng/13 branch reaches EOL and they don't have any intention to upgrade to FreeBSD 14, 15, ... the product is dead. Because you won't be able to deploy any new jails.

Who owns the "FreeNAS" brand?

The 13 branch is not eol until mid 2026. Once that happens, then IX systems will either declare the BSD side end of life, or they will decide to maintain their version of the 13 Branch until they decide to end of life the the BSD side, or they will move to the next long-term supported Branch which will be 14 or 15. We just have to wait until 2026 to find out what IX systems is going to do.

 

[Patrick M. Hausen]

The 13 branch is not eol until mid 2026. Once that happens, then IX systems will either declare the BSD side end of life, or they will decide to maintain their version of the 13 Branch until they decide to end of life the the BSD side.

That is simply not practical. They might support their NAS and maintain a fork of the releng/13 branch of FreeBSD, but users will not be able to create any new jails apart from empty ones because there will be no more packages. And even compiling from ports will break eventually, because backward compatibility with EOL FreeBSD branches is not maintained by the FreeBSD project.

Jails are the #1 feature to prefer TrueNAS CORE.

 

[hescominsoon]

That is simply not practical. They might support their NAS and maintain a fork of the releng/13 branch of FreeBSD, but users will not be able to create any new jails apart from empty ones because there will be no more packages. And even compiling from ports will break eventually, because backward compatibility with EOL FreeBSD branches is not maintained by the FreeBSD project.

Jails are the #1 feature to prefer TrueNAS CORE.

None of my Enterprise clients use jails(neither do I). TNC(enterprise) is a pure storage play. If we need jail or virtual machines or something else, we don't run it inside of our storage appliance. That's where things differ from literally everyone else and Enterprise.

 

[Davvo]

Do not take this as me insulting you, but it sounds like you have not worked inside of a truly large Enterprise or worked with a truly large Enterprise when it comes to storage or networking. If I am wrong I sit corrected and apologize.

I was asking precisely because I do not work in IT, thank you for your reply.

 

[CJRoss]

I have to agree that I would be happy if Core was receiving the same UI, etc love that Scale is getting. I like jails but I'm actually working on moving all of the things I have in jails to externally hosted VMs and containers.

I have no interest in using Apps on Scale as there's no simple, standard way to use just the base functionality like their is with jails and plugins. The biggest draw Scale has for me is better VM support for the few things I want to run with direct access to the storage. But since it looks like I can't just mount datasets and instead have to use SMB or NFS, I may not do that. I'm still investigating.

That all said, I'm not against Scale. I like a lot of the UI changes, but really I'm just looking for a solid, basic NAS like what Core provides.

 

[CJRoss]

When you get into the large Enterprise space, if a feature isn't working correctly and it's going to affect stability, we just work around it and don't use the feature. If the feature is needed by set Enterprise then we will work with it up to the limits of said feature or we simply just use a different product. It's all about stability. There's been more than once where IX systems on a bug fix has basically said we would fix it, but this either will in their internal testing or might affect Enterprise stability. Larger enterprises value stability over even bug fixes sometimes. How do I know this? I have multiple large Enterprise customers. It really changes your outlook on things when you go up into the true Enterprise space. The philosophy is completely different. How you do things operationally is completely different. Many things that would seem to make sense outside of a large Enterprise don't make sense inside of a large Enterprise. Do not take this as me insulting you, but it sounds like you have not worked inside of a truly large Enterprise or worked with a truly large Enterprise when it comes to storage or networking. If I am wrong I sit corrected and apologize.

I have had many arguments with people about how while they want the new shiny, I want to not be called on the weekend. :D

It does feel like Scale is chasing the Homelab market and trying to compete with Proxmox, etc. That said, I can understand the BSD/Linux dilemma, but not the lack of focus on core NAS functionality first and everything else second.

 

[CJRoss]

I'm interested in what would be your stance about fixing features that aren't properly working, ie the WebUI console. Is that considered to be a new feature per your standards?

BTW, what do you mean by the WebUI console not properly working? Are you referring to the Shell or something else?

 

[Ericloewe]

Probably the Web GUI's shell, which is nothing short of catastrophic. The real tragedy is that it worked okay for a while way back in the early days of the then-new UI.

 

[Davvo]

Yeah the WebUI shell. CORE has a few QoL improvements that could be fixed but aren't in the name of stability, and to me some look like minor changes that would hardly impact it. That's why I wanted to understand the point of enterprise users.

 

[winnielinnie]

CORE has a few QoL improvements that could be fixed but aren't in the name of stability, and to me some look like minor changes that would hardly impact it.

Agreed. Hence this post.

 

[morganL]

CORE has a few QoL improvements that could be fixed but aren't in the name of stability, and to me some look like minor changes that would hardly impact it.

Agreed. Hence this post.

CORE 13.1 is planned for Q2 - nightlies are available.

If there are minor fixes to do, now is the time to catalog them and agree on priority.
If there are any developers that know how to fix, please contribute.

Suggest we start a thread and then make sure the bug tickets are in place.

TrueNAS 13.3 Wishlist

TrueNAS 13.3 is scheduled for RC1 and Release in Q2 2024. Nightlies are currently available. Primary improvements are: Samba 4.19 FreeBSD 13.3 updates OpenZFS 2.2.2 (with fast file copy) Bhyve updates Sidegrades to Dragonfish are reliable (HA or not) Interoperability with Dragonfish (rsync...

www.truenas.com