5 ms·

This is a cool article. I wonder why all the content creators use TrueNAS. I evaluated TrueNAS Scale for a storage server and decided not to use it. I had tw

This is a cool article. I wonder why all the content creators use TrueNAS. I evaluated TrueNAS Scale for a storage server and decided not to use it. I had two major complaints. First, when you create a ZFS pool, it partitions drives and puts swap on all of them. IIRC it may have even set up some mdadm RAID mirrors. It's a bunch of complexity and can leave you with swap on spinning disks if you don't notice and override the behavior. For me, whenever I see a bad default like that, where it might have made sense 10+ years ago, I get freaked out about what other poor defaults exist that I'm not noticing or what else may have been neglected for a decade. I use it as an negative indicator and often avoid the whole product at that point. Second, every time I'd boot (or maybe stop) a VM it would trample my ZFS tunables, specifically zfs_arc_max. I couldn't figure out exactly what was triggering it, but I don't want a system that doesn't play nice with the default CLI tooling. I actually had a really tough time finding a decent NAS and I'm going to end up building a plain old Linux system running Ubuntu 22.04. If anyone has any suggestions (not QNAP or Synology) for something that can do a good job of ZFS and 2-6 VMs, I'd love to hear them.

mattpallissard 3y ago
Plain old Linux system is the way to go. Mount your volumes, set `/etc/exports`, configure a keytab if you're into that sort of thing, and move on with life. It's honestly less messing around than any of the off the shelf tools. Depending on what you're doing you may want to mess with some kernel tunables. But even then, most of the time the defaults on a modern kernel are good enough for small stuff.
voytec 3y ago
> If anyone has any suggestions (not QNAP or Synology) for something that can do a good job of ZFS and 2-6 VMs, I'd love to hear them. I'm using FreeBSD and its native hypervisor called bhyve. It's due to overall OS preference, not features Linux lacks regarding ZFS.
- lazide 3y ago
  Don’t use QNAP. It’s super buggy and you can’t trust it. I’ve had a ton of near misses with every piece of QNAP hardware and software I’ve used, and the only reason I haven’t lost data is due to sheer paranoia. Synnology is much better put together, but also tends to be a lot more conservative software stack wise. I’ve had no ‘wtf’ moments with Synnology equipment, unlike QNAP - but I have had a few sigh, that’s lame moments due to older/less efficient software approaches or the like. Anything custom, you’ll have to spend your time figuring everything out, which has pros and cons. Personally I’ve had zero issues with a multi-pool NAS that has 20 (spinning rust) + 6 SSDs totaling around 150TB on Ubuntu with some pretty standard intel server hardware. Been running that for 2 years, zero data loss, currently about 80% full. I’ve also learned a ton about ZFS and done some odd things for my own amusement. I wouldn’t recommend it if you want low maintenance though.
parl_match 3y ago
> I wonder why all the content creators use TrueNAS. Because they're content creators, not ZFS tuners. It's plug and play. It makes it easy to have some redundancy and do backups.
- geerlingguy 3y ago
  This, basically. I need storage to work, and I don't have enough time to get into ZFS's guts unless I'm going to do a video or longer blog post on a specific topic. TrueNAS gives sane defaults, exposes most of the basic features through a (relatively sane) UI, and... works. I still use ADM on my older spinning disk NASes, though—RAID 10 just works, and is fast enough for what I need, and the fact I have three copies of everything (one 'offline' (ish) on Glacier Deep Archive) means if I do ever encounter a corrupted file, I can grab a copy from one of the other backups on different media. If you're a storage nerd / data hoarder, then it's common to spend more time and go deeper than what something like TrueNAS or some other UI gives you. Otherwise it's like the McDonald's of storage software.
  - yoshamano 3y ago
    > Otherwise it's like the McDonald's of storage software. This is why I use TrueNAS. I use Core instead of Scale though because I prefer FreeBSD. Its main job is to hold my ripped media library and run Plex. If I can glue other stuff to it (like an Ubuntu Server VM running Pi-Hole) then that's just an added bonus.
- dark-star 3y ago
  Either that, or (more likely I'd argue), because they're getting paid for promoting TrueNAS
  - geerlingguy 3y ago
    I've never seen a dime from TrueNAS, but I can't speak for other content creators. I am explicit about my sponsorship, and will always mark a video and add information in both the video itself and the description disclosing exactly the relationship I have with any sponsoring vendor. See: https://github.com/geerlingguy/youtube#sponsorships https://github.com/geerlingguy/youtube#sponsorships
predictabl3 3y ago
Frankly none of the Linux content creators are that good at Linux. Or maybe I discount what 18 years of experience with it does to a person but LTT is constantly saying stuff that makes me cringe, even Luke.
- dualboot 3y ago
  Just want to throw out there that people should be allowed to be wrong. Especially if they've shown the capacity to recognize their mistakes and own them. Yeah, we cringe but who ever actually learns something without making some mistakes along the way? If we spent all of our time dealing with the anxiety of trying to never be wrong -- most of us wouldn't be able to function.
  - colechristensen 3y ago
    Most people who “create content” don’t know much and just do the minimum to get something out. This scales from tiktok to YouTube to popular nonfiction… honestly even a lot of academic research. It’s not about people being wrong. There’s a problem at every level with how willing people are to publish before they’ve done enough to be sure that their information is good. Being wrong should be celebrated. Publishing for the rewards of publishing instead of the quality of the work is rightly shamed.
  - predictabl3 3y ago
    Oh sure, most of them are inquisitive and thoughtful, they just aren't "into" Linux the same way some others are. I hope I didn't come off too judgemental.
- eurekin 3y ago
  I'm not in any ways an expert in linux. I don't notice errors, but a lot of times I'm totally stumped how easy they jump to radical conclusions: "we're not using because single detail", "it's just bad", "one would never" without even hinting at any true research
  - mozman 3y ago
simcop2387 3y ago
I'd recommend not using ubuntu, but instead gp with either Proxmox or bog standard debian. Proxmox supports using the zfs pool as storage for vms and using zfs as root disk also. Debian won't help you do the install with zfs on root but it can be done. If you don't go with zfs on root then it's as simple as apt insall zfs-dkms on debian.
- voytec 3y ago
  Recently tried Proxmox, spent few hours on trying to boot any VM placed on ZFS pool but with no luck. Same VMs converted from raw to vmdk (iirc) worked on 2 other, identical NVMe disks with software ext4 raid.
  - simcop2387 3y ago
    Very odd, I'd love to know more since I've got that setup going on my router/edge box right now. ZFS mirror on two NVMe disks as the storage for root fs and VMs.
    - voytec 3y ago
      It was a recent Proxmox version (newest ~6 weeks ago). It's possible that I used some experimental new kernel version and haven't tried on completely basic/default setup. The disks were Samsung's MZVL21T0HCLR-00B00. The pair with ext4 sw raid booted all VMs (Linux, FreeBSD) with no issues but second pair with ZFS pool wouldn't. It may have been due to the newer kernel version but I asked myself a few questions about what's missing in FreeBSD's bhyve regarding my needs and took this route instead of trying default kernel. # zpool list NAME SIZE ALLOC FREE CKPOINT EXPANDSZ FRAG CAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT VMs 952G 828G 124G - - 36% 87% 1.00x ONLINE - zroot 944G 1.21G 943G - - 0% 0% 1.00x ONLINE -
- donmcronald 3y ago
  I tried Proxmox. I mainly need a storage server that can run a few VMs. Proxmox looks pretty good for a VM heavy setup, but it adds a lot of complexity that I just don't need. I like the release cadence on Ubuntu and I had such a bad experience with ZFS DKMS (many) years ago that I'm probably a bit bias towards Ubuntu because I simply don't have to think about it. I won't use ZFS on root unless it simplifies dealing with a failed boot disk. I still prefer CSM over UEFI because UEFI makes it more complicated to recover from failure :-(
elsurudo 3y ago
May I ask what issues you have with QNAP or Synology?
- kstrauser 3y ago
  I went all-in on Synology a few years ago. I can manage a bunch of drives myself, but that's not how I want to spend my free time. The Synology just sits in a corner of the house, doing its thing 24/7/365 without me futzing around with it.
- donmcronald 3y ago
  QNAP had a minor version upgrade a while back that re-enabled auto-updates that had explicitly been disabled and there was a major version update (v4 to v5) not too long after that. I was intentionally holding off on upgrading to v5 because there was a Samba related issue that broke my primary workload. I almost got burned by it. Yesterday I got an email from one of my QNAPs saying an automatic firmware update was scheduled for 00:00 today even though I have auto-updates turned off. I don't think it actually updated today, but I don't think they have their act together when it comes to managing updates and I'm not willing to depend on any of their stuff. Synology is more complicated and ultimately comes down to the use of BTRFS. I don't know a ton about filesystems, but, the way I understand it, BTRFS allocates extents and then puts blocks into those extents. Depending on your workload, you can end up with orphaned blocks in those extents that prevent space reclamation (because it reclaims extents, not blocks) and it can result in runaway space usage. Search for "BTRFS missing space". I may not have gotten that 100% correct, but I think the basic idea is close. My workload (backup storage) overwrites random blocks in existing files and that's one of the scenarios that exacerbates the issue. I've ended up with empty LUNs on a Synology that are "using" TBs of space on the containing volume. The Synology can also have a pretty complicated "stack" by the time you get your data onto it. I think I had an image based LUN on a BTRFS volume on mdadm RAID1. That was achieved through the GUI without making any crazy choices AFAIK.
generalizations 3y ago
Been looking into the same situation, and decided to stay away from TrueNAS for similar (though less specific) reasons. Currently looking at FreeBSD with their bhyve VM tooling.
colechristensen 3y ago
Eh if you want to use truenas you have to do things in the UI. Everything you should need to do you can in the UI. Changes made with the underlying tools often get clobbered because that’s just not very commonly required and anyway you want one source of truth not two. If you just want a stateless UI on top of the system tools you have to create it yourself… but it won’t be easy.
- favorited 3y ago
  Exactly right. TrueNAS is designed to work as an appliance, rather than an infinitely tunable "Unix variant with ZFS preinstalled."
davewritescode 3y ago
I personally like that truenas scale has a small kubernetes installation for adddons. Makes it stupid easy to write my own addons or integrate something like truecharts.
- tempest_ 3y ago
  I have found it infuriating. The TrueNAS portion of TrueNAS Scale seems fine but the Apps side of it I have found half baked. I have multiple apps (both true charts and the base catalog) that just hang on init, with no logs, just the spinner and then it stops. Debugging k8s when you are abstracted like that is frustrating. I also have had a difficult time getting traefik going with either Cert Manager or the TrueNAS certs, one seems to be deprecated the other seems to be undocumented. If people gravitate towards to the apps feature of Scale I would recommend holding off till its had more time in the oven.
noja 3y ago
> First, when you create a ZFS pool, it partitions drives and puts swap on all of them. If you have a drive fail, you don't want to replace the failed drive with one that is slightly smaller. It won't work. So they pad with swap. > IIRC it may have even set up some mdadm RAID mirrors. Yes in case the drive fails with the swap on. You don't want to use ZFS for swap, it can require extra memory to allocate blocks. Not what you want when you are out of memory. > It's a bunch of complexity and can leave you with swap on spinning disks if you don't notice and override the behavior. Perhaps, but you are assuming their reasons are not as good as yours without knowing their reasoning.
- donmcronald 3y ago
  > If you have a drive fail, you don't want to replace the failed drive with one that is slightly smaller. It won't work. So they pad with swap. What advantage does padding with swap give over leaving some unallocated space? > Yes in case the drive fails with the swap on. There's no scenario I can think of where I want swap on a spinning disk. > You don't want to use ZFS for swap, it can require extra memory to allocate blocks. Not what you want when you are out of memory. Is that even possible? Do you mean putting swap on a ZVOL? > Perhaps, but you are assuming their reasons are not as good as yours without knowing their reasoning. If anyone can justify a reason for putting swap on a spinning disk in 2023 I'd love to be enlightened.
  - noja 3y ago
    > There's no scenario I can think of where I want swap on a spinning disk. When you only have spinning disks and you run out of ram. > What advantage does padding with swap give over leaving some unallocated space? It allows you to not run out of ram, and it means you get to use the space.
    - justinclift 3y ago
      > It allows you to not run out of ram, and it means you get to use the space. As someone who (this week) had a spinning disk fail in the NAS, with swap spread across all disks... it's kind of a pain in the arse vs using the whole disk. It's extra complication, which can be especially bad if the disk failure occurs at early am when you're not 100% awake but still need to deal with it. :/
hanklazard 3y ago
I’m probably not as proficient with ZFS as you are, but for me, the basic Ubuntu LTS option you mentioned has been great. I was sick of all of the GUI and bloated features of unraid. Then I tried TrueNas and it was okay, but in the end I realized that all of the GUI abstraction was just getting in the way. I really just wanted ZFS features and some docker apps. I think if I needed a lot of VMs I might go with Proxmox, but yeah, the bare bones Ubuntu has been really elegant and stable since I built it a few months ago.
ilitirit 3y ago
I like TrueNAS because of its plugin support. My installation runs Jellyfin, AdGuard, *arr (Sonarr etc) and a couple of other things. I don't really care about data redundancy for the data that's stored on the NAS, so I just use JBOD. Sure I can build my own linux server to do all this, or maybe run VMs in ProxMox or whatever, but I don't really gain anything from that. TrueNAS works fine for my use cases, and I suspect it's the same for most users.

mattpallissard 3y ago

Plain old Linux system is the way to go. Mount your volumes, set `/etc/exports`, configure a keytab if you're into that sort of thing, and move on with life. It's honestly less messing around than any of the off the shelf tools. Depending on what you're doing you may want to mess with some kernel tunables. But even then, most of the time the defaults on a modern kernel are good enough for small stuff.

voytec 3y ago

> If anyone has any suggestions (not QNAP or Synology) for something that can do a good job of ZFS and 2-6 VMs, I'd love to hear them. I'm using FreeBSD and its native hypervisor called bhyve. It's due to overall OS preference, not features Linux lacks regarding ZFS.

lazide 3y ago
Don’t use QNAP. It’s super buggy and you can’t trust it. I’ve had a ton of near misses with every piece of QNAP hardware and software I’ve used, and the only reason I haven’t lost data is due to sheer paranoia. Synnology is much better put together, but also tends to be a lot more conservative software stack wise. I’ve had no ‘wtf’ moments with Synnology equipment, unlike QNAP - but I have had a few sigh, that’s lame moments due to older/less efficient software approaches or the like. Anything custom, you’ll have to spend your time figuring everything out, which has pros and cons. Personally I’ve had zero issues with a multi-pool NAS that has 20 (spinning rust) + 6 SSDs totaling around 150TB on Ubuntu with some pretty standard intel server hardware. Been running that for 2 years, zero data loss, currently about 80% full. I’ve also learned a ton about ZFS and done some odd things for my own amusement. I wouldn’t recommend it if you want low maintenance though.

parl_match 3y ago

> I wonder why all the content creators use TrueNAS. Because they're content creators, not ZFS tuners. It's plug and play. It makes it easy to have some redundancy and do backups.

geerlingguy 3y ago
This, basically. I need storage to work, and I don't have enough time to get into ZFS's guts unless I'm going to do a video or longer blog post on a specific topic. TrueNAS gives sane defaults, exposes most of the basic features through a (relatively sane) UI, and... works. I still use ADM on my older spinning disk NASes, though—RAID 10 just works, and is fast enough for what I need, and the fact I have three copies of everything (one 'offline' (ish) on Glacier Deep Archive) means if I do ever encounter a corrupted file, I can grab a copy from one of the other backups on different media. If you're a storage nerd / data hoarder, then it's common to spend more time and go deeper than what something like TrueNAS or some other UI gives you. Otherwise it's like the McDonald's of storage software.
- yoshamano 3y ago
  > Otherwise it's like the McDonald's of storage software. This is why I use TrueNAS. I use Core instead of Scale though because I prefer FreeBSD. Its main job is to hold my ripped media library and run Plex. If I can glue other stuff to it (like an Ubuntu Server VM running Pi-Hole) then that's just an added bonus.
dark-star 3y ago
Either that, or (more likely I'd argue), because they're getting paid for promoting TrueNAS
- geerlingguy 3y ago
  I've never seen a dime from TrueNAS, but I can't speak for other content creators. I am explicit about my sponsorship, and will always mark a video and add information in both the video itself and the description disclosing exactly the relationship I have with any sponsoring vendor. See: https://github.com/geerlingguy/youtube#sponsorships https://github.com/geerlingguy/youtube#sponsorships

predictabl3 3y ago

Frankly none of the Linux content creators are that good at Linux. Or maybe I discount what 18 years of experience with it does to a person but LTT is constantly saying stuff that makes me cringe, even Luke.

dualboot 3y ago
Just want to throw out there that people should be allowed to be wrong. Especially if they've shown the capacity to recognize their mistakes and own them. Yeah, we cringe but who ever actually learns something without making some mistakes along the way? If we spent all of our time dealing with the anxiety of trying to never be wrong -- most of us wouldn't be able to function.
- colechristensen 3y ago
  Most people who “create content” don’t know much and just do the minimum to get something out. This scales from tiktok to YouTube to popular nonfiction… honestly even a lot of academic research. It’s not about people being wrong. There’s a problem at every level with how willing people are to publish before they’ve done enough to be sure that their information is good. Being wrong should be celebrated. Publishing for the rewards of publishing instead of the quality of the work is rightly shamed.
- predictabl3 3y ago
  Oh sure, most of them are inquisitive and thoughtful, they just aren't "into" Linux the same way some others are. I hope I didn't come off too judgemental.
eurekin 3y ago
I'm not in any ways an expert in linux. I don't notice errors, but a lot of times I'm totally stumped how easy they jump to radical conclusions: "we're not using because single detail", "it's just bad", "one would never" without even hinting at any true research
- mozman 3y ago

simcop2387 3y ago

I'd recommend not using ubuntu, but instead gp with either Proxmox or bog standard debian. Proxmox supports using the zfs pool as storage for vms and using zfs as root disk also. Debian won't help you do the install with zfs on root but it can be done. If you don't go with zfs on root then it's as simple as apt insall zfs-dkms on debian.

voytec 3y ago
Recently tried Proxmox, spent few hours on trying to boot any VM placed on ZFS pool but with no luck. Same VMs converted from raw to vmdk (iirc) worked on 2 other, identical NVMe disks with software ext4 raid.
- simcop2387 3y ago
  Very odd, I'd love to know more since I've got that setup going on my router/edge box right now. ZFS mirror on two NVMe disks as the storage for root fs and VMs.
  - voytec 3y ago
    It was a recent Proxmox version (newest ~6 weeks ago). It's possible that I used some experimental new kernel version and haven't tried on completely basic/default setup. The disks were Samsung's MZVL21T0HCLR-00B00. The pair with ext4 sw raid booted all VMs (Linux, FreeBSD) with no issues but second pair with ZFS pool wouldn't. It may have been due to the newer kernel version but I asked myself a few questions about what's missing in FreeBSD's bhyve regarding my needs and took this route instead of trying default kernel. # zpool list NAME SIZE ALLOC FREE CKPOINT EXPANDSZ FRAG CAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT VMs 952G 828G 124G - - 36% 87% 1.00x ONLINE - zroot 944G 1.21G 943G - - 0% 0% 1.00x ONLINE -
donmcronald 3y ago
I tried Proxmox. I mainly need a storage server that can run a few VMs. Proxmox looks pretty good for a VM heavy setup, but it adds a lot of complexity that I just don't need. I like the release cadence on Ubuntu and I had such a bad experience with ZFS DKMS (many) years ago that I'm probably a bit bias towards Ubuntu because I simply don't have to think about it. I won't use ZFS on root unless it simplifies dealing with a failed boot disk. I still prefer CSM over UEFI because UEFI makes it more complicated to recover from failure :-(

elsurudo 3y ago

May I ask what issues you have with QNAP or Synology?

kstrauser 3y ago
I went all-in on Synology a few years ago. I can manage a bunch of drives myself, but that's not how I want to spend my free time. The Synology just sits in a corner of the house, doing its thing 24/7/365 without me futzing around with it.
donmcronald 3y ago
QNAP had a minor version upgrade a while back that re-enabled auto-updates that had explicitly been disabled and there was a major version update (v4 to v5) not too long after that. I was intentionally holding off on upgrading to v5 because there was a Samba related issue that broke my primary workload. I almost got burned by it. Yesterday I got an email from one of my QNAPs saying an automatic firmware update was scheduled for 00:00 today even though I have auto-updates turned off. I don't think it actually updated today, but I don't think they have their act together when it comes to managing updates and I'm not willing to depend on any of their stuff. Synology is more complicated and ultimately comes down to the use of BTRFS. I don't know a ton about filesystems, but, the way I understand it, BTRFS allocates extents and then puts blocks into those extents. Depending on your workload, you can end up with orphaned blocks in those extents that prevent space reclamation (because it reclaims extents, not blocks) and it can result in runaway space usage. Search for "BTRFS missing space". I may not have gotten that 100% correct, but I think the basic idea is close. My workload (backup storage) overwrites random blocks in existing files and that's one of the scenarios that exacerbates the issue. I've ended up with empty LUNs on a Synology that are "using" TBs of space on the containing volume. The Synology can also have a pretty complicated "stack" by the time you get your data onto it. I think I had an image based LUN on a BTRFS volume on mdadm RAID1. That was achieved through the GUI without making any crazy choices AFAIK.

generalizations 3y ago

Been looking into the same situation, and decided to stay away from TrueNAS for similar (though less specific) reasons. Currently looking at FreeBSD with their bhyve VM tooling.

colechristensen 3y ago

Eh if you want to use truenas you have to do things in the UI. Everything you should need to do you can in the UI. Changes made with the underlying tools often get clobbered because that’s just not very commonly required and anyway you want one source of truth not two. If you just want a stateless UI on top of the system tools you have to create it yourself… but it won’t be easy.

favorited 3y ago
Exactly right. TrueNAS is designed to work as an appliance, rather than an infinitely tunable "Unix variant with ZFS preinstalled."

davewritescode 3y ago

I personally like that truenas scale has a small kubernetes installation for adddons. Makes it stupid easy to write my own addons or integrate something like truecharts.

tempest_ 3y ago
I have found it infuriating. The TrueNAS portion of TrueNAS Scale seems fine but the Apps side of it I have found half baked. I have multiple apps (both true charts and the base catalog) that just hang on init, with no logs, just the spinner and then it stops. Debugging k8s when you are abstracted like that is frustrating. I also have had a difficult time getting traefik going with either Cert Manager or the TrueNAS certs, one seems to be deprecated the other seems to be undocumented. If people gravitate towards to the apps feature of Scale I would recommend holding off till its had more time in the oven.

noja 3y ago

> First, when you create a ZFS pool, it partitions drives and puts swap on all of them. If you have a drive fail, you don't want to replace the failed drive with one that is slightly smaller. It won't work. So they pad with swap. > IIRC it may have even set up some mdadm RAID mirrors. Yes in case the drive fails with the swap on. You don't want to use ZFS for swap, it can require extra memory to allocate blocks. Not what you want when you are out of memory. > It's a bunch of complexity and can leave you with swap on spinning disks if you don't notice and override the behavior. Perhaps, but you are assuming their reasons are not as good as yours without knowing their reasoning.

donmcronald 3y ago
> If you have a drive fail, you don't want to replace the failed drive with one that is slightly smaller. It won't work. So they pad with swap. What advantage does padding with swap give over leaving some unallocated space? > Yes in case the drive fails with the swap on. There's no scenario I can think of where I want swap on a spinning disk. > You don't want to use ZFS for swap, it can require extra memory to allocate blocks. Not what you want when you are out of memory. Is that even possible? Do you mean putting swap on a ZVOL? > Perhaps, but you are assuming their reasons are not as good as yours without knowing their reasoning. If anyone can justify a reason for putting swap on a spinning disk in 2023 I'd love to be enlightened.
- noja 3y ago
  > There's no scenario I can think of where I want swap on a spinning disk. When you only have spinning disks and you run out of ram. > What advantage does padding with swap give over leaving some unallocated space? It allows you to not run out of ram, and it means you get to use the space.
  - justinclift 3y ago
    > It allows you to not run out of ram, and it means you get to use the space. As someone who (this week) had a spinning disk fail in the NAS, with swap spread across all disks... it's kind of a pain in the arse vs using the whole disk. It's extra complication, which can be especially bad if the disk failure occurs at early am when you're not 100% awake but still need to deal with it. :/

hanklazard 3y ago

I’m probably not as proficient with ZFS as you are, but for me, the basic Ubuntu LTS option you mentioned has been great. I was sick of all of the GUI and bloated features of unraid. Then I tried TrueNas and it was okay, but in the end I realized that all of the GUI abstraction was just getting in the way. I really just wanted ZFS features and some docker apps. I think if I needed a lot of VMs I might go with Proxmox, but yeah, the bare bones Ubuntu has been really elegant and stable since I built it a few months ago.

ilitirit 3y ago

I like TrueNAS because of its plugin support. My installation runs Jellyfin, AdGuard, *arr (Sonarr etc) and a couple of other things. I don't really care about data redundancy for the data that's stored on the NAS, so I just use JBOD. Sure I can build my own linux server to do all this, or maybe run VMs in ProxMox or whatever, but I don't really gain anything from that. TrueNAS works fine for my use cases, and I suspect it's the same for most users.