I started using truenas when scale was released. I decided to learn the platform on scale despite being advised to use core. I have struggled with numerous features due to my lack of knowledge, but overall it is working today and I think it's a gift to humankind to get software this powerful for free.
@@dylantaylor490 It's a sibling product, you are not expected to upgrade to it, only switch to. Updater allows to "switch update train" in order to convert your appliance into it. In reality they are both at the same version on different base OSes.
Considering the same, although rebuilding my plex library etc seems like a pain. i pretty much just run a linux lite VM in bhyve, plex and syncthing on my core machine (as well as general storage), just not sure what i gain by switching, can you detail any of the "additional capabilities" u mentioned?? cheers
I ran a Core system for many, many years and it was solid. Recently built a new machine for my storage needs and found that Core did not support some of the hardware so had to move to Scale. Haven't looked back. It's been solid like its Core brother, so I can recommend either solution. Appreciate the videos and thank you for sharing your knowledge.
TrueNAS Core; single home user, used to clear up multiple USB drives on desk top, moved music, video, scanned documents, deprecating file cabinets, have VM Ubuntu and Docker
Started with Core about 2 years ago with a cobbled together system, added a 2nd Core system for offsite replication and upgraded the drives in the main system to proper NAS drives, upgraded both a few months ago to Scale for the apps and VM support, been an excellent and stable journey so far, definitely made easier by TLS's excellent videos guiding the way👍
Using Core atm. Passing through Broadcom storage controller with 10x (22TB) spinning rust + 8x (4TB) enterprise SSD. My Core is running on a vm inside vSphere. I also have a separate K8S cluster setup independent of Core on the same vSphere server. Contemplated switching to Scale, but my core is literally just a virtualized storage appliance and I’ve stood up the benefits of what Scale has to offer as independent VM’s hosted by vSphere. TruesNAS Core has been running solid for about 18 months, when there is a drive issue it typically self heals - sometimes a nudge or two - and there is no noticeable issue. All of my pools are comprised of some combination of mirrored disks.
I had Ran Core untill about 3-4 months ago an i did a fresh install of scale & i gota say i am liking it ..seams to be great..i have had a 10gb nic just stop working after a while for some reason but i think my old 10gb nic just needs a upgrade..lol. thinking 25gb is in my future at soon ish..ha ha ha ! Keep up the good work & thanks for sharing ! !
I TrueNAS Core always. If you need a pure NAS with ZFS and the peace of mind of having a robust and stable system, without a doubt TrueNAS Core. If you want to work with Docker and VM you have TrueNAS Scale. In my scenario I have two servers (Main and Backup with BackBlaze B2 cloud backup integration (3-2-1)) very low power TrueNAS Core (Dell PowerEdge R210 II - 36 watts stable and sustained consumption) with Xeon E3-1220L v2 processors (TDP: 17w). For Docker and VM themes I prefer other O.S. that more transparently manage such scenarios (UnRAID and VMware ESXi respectively). Thank you very much for sharing your videos, they are very interesting and useful. Kind regards😎
True. I ran FreeNAS for 8 years. So robust. Lucky me, Even all 3TB *8 wd reds have none failed!. I already built my new TrueNAS scale now knowing virtualization is so much better there.
Running 4 TrueNAS machines.. 1 at home and 3 at each branch of our company.. for home use I have Scale, but Core on the 3 machines at each branches of company.. for work related stuff I personally prefer core..
Hi Tom, as usual, great video! A few notes: 1. TrueCommand doesn't have a free version. Starter's kit (subscription) is $6 per month for 30 drives. 2. Scale does support ZFS encryption, but performance is x5-8 slower than the Core version, so I'd put a few asterisks there:) Ping if you need proof of that. Honestly, I was surprised (we're talking about 160 Mb/S VS 750 Mb/s). Also, there are a lot of topics dedicated to this problem. I switched both my home servers to TrueNAS Scale recently. It's the second attempt to do so. Now Scale looks pretty good, except Encryption issue. Also, the permission model in Scale isn't very friendly. Overall, I'd recommend Core as a more stable and robust system for everyone without running VMs/Jails/Containers in the TrueNAS. Otherwise, Scale makes more sense.
I have posted in their forums about this and I have only had this issue on low end CPU's in specific read situations. Oddly it can write at full speed to an encrypted dataset but the first time read is limited to single core.
@@LAWRENCESYSTEMS I use AsRock Rack X570D4U + AMD Ryzen 7 5800X + 128 GB RAM. TrueNAS is virtualized w/ HBA passthrough (64 Gb RAM, 8 cores of CPU). All pools are SSD only (4x Micron 5200 Max and 4x Micron 5200 Eco). Write speed was x2-3 faster than read, but still not 100%. I saw recent topics for the same issues not on low-end CPUs. It may or may not be connected: I encrypt the whole pool, not a dataset. Anyway, it's fine for my home lab to remove encryption, so I recreated pools from scratch, and now I enjoy the full speed of SATA SSD pools:)
I had been running Core, but then it got annoying setting up a VPN instance in a specific jail I had setup... I looked into Scale more and when I realized it's basically Docker containers and it's super easy to set a VPN to run on container deploy, I was sold and I swapped over to Scale... (though the main reason why I left Core was because I was a dumby and I mix and matched modular power supply cables when rebuilding my server, which I primarily use for Plex, and it fried some HDDs, ruining my Raid Z1 array.. Yeah..... I decided to start fresh and go with Scale and I've not looked back).
I started with TrueNAS Scale when it was released on bare metal; evaluated and tested it's functionality and generally liked it. I then committed the apparently cardinal sin of virtualizing TrueNAS Scale onto a VM on the same hardware it had previously been running bare metal and I still like it. Virtualizing it freed up some of the other hardware in that system to dedicate to a different tasks and I haven't really noticed any trouble. The controller is PCIe passthrough and it yas a dedicated chunk of RAM. The neat part for me was ZFS pools imported perfectly fine and the backup config applied to the fresh VM without issue, allowing me to just keep on going as if it was always a VM.
Using scale for two reasons; KVM and Docker/Kubernetes. It’s also nice to to run into all the hardware oddities with FreeBSD when repurposing “older” equipment. As long as there is no purposeful nerfing of Scale I’m happy with it.
No paranoid, i'm paranoid :) 12HDDs 4TB as 3-way mirror vdevs = 4x3HDD=10TB my standard (max 12TB) usable+1 Cache Nvme drive + for system Hdd+Sdd as Work production storage server, its really paranoid :) - for git server
Currently running truenas core as it meets my needs. Only have one jail running urbackup to do de-duplicated file backups from workstations/servers of only important files. I have a proxmox cluser for virtualization so it's not required or wanted on the NAS, I prefer to keep them seperate..
I just want the best solution for long-term use, to operate solely as a NAS plat form. If I want to work the VM's and containers, I'll have a dedicated host for that.
That is the conclusion I came to when trying scale. That was well over a year ago however and I might give it another shot. I'll ALWAYS have a dedicated hypervisor for ease of use and feature set. Keep in mind I won't bet against IXststems, and 4 years from now scale will probably be at a proxmox level for virtualization LoL
I am right now building a new system for a NAS to replace my aging Drobo (it works, but since the company isn't around anymore, having a proprietary RAID format that I can't recover myself if other hardware dies is a bit of a nervous situation). I haven't yet decided between Core or Scale. I like the idea of Core being rock-solid BSD and just being used for storage in my case, but I am building the machine with extra horsepower to perhaps use Scale in the future for VMs and Docker. I am new to TrueNAS so I'll probably install Core on it to get started, but if my needs change in the future I'll migrate to Scale.
I have the same situation last year. Starting out with Core, then eventually migrated to scale for easier time with PCI hardware, VMs and Apps. No regrets for me.
For me, for my readynas the question is: unraid or openmediavault... Can not run truenas of any form, due to 3 gigs of system memory, not to mention lack of brltty in scale, even though omv (open media vault) prooves that it can be done... And yes, brltty (to use a braille display during installation, and to check ip after) is critical for me, since I am completely blind...
For me the basic difference is that core might be a bit more secure and stable and may run slightly better, however pickier on type of hardware due to it being based on BSD, where scale runs on Linux so it can run on a wider variety of computers, and ZFS support is more recent to Linux so the BSD version might have an edge on stability and performance (as ZFS in BSD is built into the kernel versus being a kernel module in Linux). However the containerization in BSD is jails which hasn't been as widely adopted as docker on the Linux side, so you're going to have a larger variety of apps for scale...
Correct, but a little disclaimer. Scale has no jail support. Unfortunately missing in Tom’s list as well. With a jail you are free to install software like an interactive OS. Containers are just packaged applications. Most people just need Docker but both lhave their use cases.
Just two minor corrections here. SCALE is more secure and has additional hardening for security focused environments. Stability wise it is about on parity with CORE these days, more-so if you run on home-brew hardware.
i run TrueNAS Scale only because it is virtualized in proxmox and Scale has guest-agent built-in. Otherwise i would have Core on dedicated hardware for stability
Scale is perfect for a home user like myself that lives in a small apartment and doesn't have much room for a homelab. I think that's one of the best use cases for it.
I'm still running TrueNAS Core but have been testing TrueNAS Scale for a couple of months. As Dylan Taylor mentioned in his comm ents, I am very happy with the new containerized apps in Scale. They are easier to implement and conform to other Docker/Kubernetes apps.
Thanks for the vid. Team Core, still seems i don't need to migrate to Scale for anything thats actually critical. Small nit picky note re: the initial comparison. in my understanding, zfs replication works to any compatible zfs pool, not exclusively core/scale systems.
Still run core at home. Tried scale for a short while while it was still under fast development, but needed a stable system as a home NAS. So returned to core and haven't had the chance to revisit scale. For what I need, core is more than capable and it's reliability is unparalleled. I also have Plex jail, which works fine, but just a bit behind on versions.
This is where I am too, and why I want to switch to scale. Plex is the only service I have open to the greater internet and being behind on versions is not ideal. On a similar note, I also use nextcloud (local only) and I’ve never been able to successfully update it. I always need to reinstall and reconnect my data. Hopefully the update process is more useable on linux, or docker.
Same here on the TrueNAS front. Regarding your Plex installs, I've been on xcp-ng for a couple years now and it may be easier to bite the bullet and let two servers handle your needs. Sure Scale can do it all, but it actually can't if you don't want to manage it. And that's OK. I realize cost/heat/power may be a concern, but grab a mini PC (Tom just did a review) and give it a shot. I've crammed ALL the things in EXSI before, and while rock solid... Sometimes adding another box just makes your life... well...easier.
I'm on core trying to migrate to scale. Moving jails is the worst! They really need to get LXC containers... Originally used for just storage and Plex but now I've been running my business for 3 years off a TrueNAS including groupware, virtual machines, mail server, and dozens of services besides.
Yes this are ugly when you want to run custom scripts for example. In my case I create my own container images with script that do 1 task which ends eventually. So to make it interactive I run a “sleep forever” as main proces and now I can use it like a jail
Fuck, now that I use XCP-NG and TrueNAS, (moving away from VMW and ESOS) I am gonna be coming to this channel a lot I guess. I am still keeping my opnsense though, thank you.
I gotta say my preference - after doing a lot of testing with both - is core The apps on scale are nice I guess. But why not just get a second box to run services, it's not like ur running anything heavy on a storage server anyways....
I'm starting with Core since this is my first use of the product. I figure once I'm ready to try out Scale I'll build out a second unit and give it a go. Stability is essential to me as I start out. Using a TerraMaster F4-223 (yes I know they come with TOS). I think I'd rather go with something more community supported to begin with.
For production maybe not wise. For a homelab run by a guy that seems to know what he's doing?...totes fine. You guys are both correct. Make sure you backup your pools tho!
OK, I've been struggling with scale. Not because of it, but because of me. I just re-installed it fresh and will use your videos for guidance. I've been out of it for more than 10 years (professionally), but what the heck....Here goes.
For me, I completely converted to ( CasaOS ) because it is most suitable for ( Home Use ) with ease for what I want , SMB storage center, containers are EASY in CasaOS and can be installed on any device .. Yes, any computer, including Raspberry Pi if you want to !!
@@LAWRENCESYSTEMS Of course, the system is installed on a separate hard disk, and the storage and backup are on other hard disks, and this is essential. In general, I think that CasaOS for home use it is much better than TrueNAS!! thank you man for all the good job and Thank you for your wonderful UA-cam channel
Core for me as only using it as pure file server. Eventually I will move over to scale simply because I like getting under the hood and Debian is great for that. Another reason why I use ProxMox.
What do you mean with “under the hood”? You should treat the Nas as an appliance. Do not install software on the OS layer. You have jails on Core and Containers on Scale as alternative.
wont try scale for another few iterations yet, but it does look to be becomig what i want. core is fine for now, and cant be arsed to re-set up my nas again using scale, if its potentially less stable.
I'd prefer scale, but I am using core at the moment. I had trouble with network when I had scale installed. Network cut off after some time of usage and that's kind of a bummer.. I was using asrock z77 extreme3 motherboard that has realtek 8111 network chip. Changed to core and I have had no issues since. I have upgraded to intel 2.5gbit lan card later, but have not changed to scale yet, being little afraid of net hassle.
Core or Scale? I kinda wish I had the money for Enterprise... or the need. Ah well, scale works for me. Just running one server with scale right now. It has a few docker containers, and I have zero idea what the heck a kubernetes is or why I'd want any.
It is the orchestrator. It can spin up extra containers if your website gets more load. It is also cluster aware so you can spread the load over multiple machines. So, enterprise features. Not sure if any decent company should run their apps on the NAS directly though
I'm sad this wasn't brought up, but if there's no feature scale offers you that you need and you're running an older system I would recommend core solely over the fact that the scale is a bit of a ram hog in comparison to core.
Running a Core system at home. I just need it to be a NAS/File Storage, plus my use case at home requires RSync. Running a separate eSXi server for my dev work / vms
Leaning towards Core, as I've heard that ZFS is RAM-hungry. Not sure if my understanding is accurate, but seems like I might have to replace RAM more often than Core. LOL not that I believe I will be replacing it every month or so, I'm just a "set it, and forget it." type and that seems like more worry maintenance? I have heard that ZFS is better, but is it worth it's hunger?
Ok, I think I understand it better now? While ZFS does "occupy" as much of the RAM as possible, it's only "working" the RAM as often as data transfers are in use ( basically only updating the cache logs to reflect recent, or most, used.)? So if my pools are achieve only, and I'm not requesting the data within them, then the RAM isn't really being "worked"?
HA for a server i ordered from ix has HA that fails and takes the entire box down with it. we have been running for two years with HA off to keep the machine up. IX has since ghosted us on support saying our network is causing the HA to fail, the box to go offline. It's unfortunate because i was a very vocal advocate for ix systems. no longer. they have worked for others...but for me my nearly 25k ha server is only able to run in single controller mode.
Thanks for another good review I switched back from scale to core. The 2 biggest reasons are 1. Account management was a nightmare to understand in scale and the fact that they would remove support for rsync was what made me switch back. Now it remains but not as a service. so how it will work in the future remains to be seen if it is time to go to scale or stay on core.
The only "rsync" that was removed was "rsyncd", which was moved to an app. Using rsync to sync to and from TrueNAS SCALE over SSH is still fully supported as usual.
@Lawrence Systems hey tom can you do an in depth video possibly about how to get unifi controller working on truenas scale, i have found no real guides on it and it has been very confusing. i am able to get it deployed but then the log shows that the http request gives a 404, which when trying to go to the web ui its an error 404 page as well and i cant seem to figure out what is causing it. thank you
Tom or ANYONE, how can I setup a permissions in a dataset to where I (dad) has full control and want my other users (wife and kid) to be able to read and write files if they want, but not be able to delete each others files ONLY the ones they created? I am able to have each user write files to the dataset but the user that creates the file cannot delete their own file. How do I fix this???
I'm currently using proxmox and I had an instance of truenas core running, there are some thing that don't play nice like monitoring aspects, I'm wondering if it would be worth migrating to scale just to have a Linux based nas for better compatibility
Nope. Neither. I loved Core but jails were too much maintenance. Scale plain blows monkey balls with its implementation of Kubernetes. This is why I switched to Unraid and I'm as happy as ever. (pssst, Unraid now has ZFS)
I still don't understand the difference. I think that the scale is a little better, because runs Linux but, still, if both are so similar, why the Core version exists?
because Core is older than Scale, and is the base for their paid enterprise version. Scale is the "next gen" of their TrueNAS appliance and will probably take over when they are done developing all the features they couldn't have in Core.
I dunno I feel with being able to resize the Arc limitation like Tom just demonstrated in his previous video is pretty mitigating on that front. And with scale being designed with docker containers and Pods using RAM as well the initial 50% limit does seem conservative but some free memory for Apps are necessary.
@@chrish297 it's not a fix. Having X amount of memory completely locked is a problem and is shocking how Linux is incapable of dealing with that in 2023. Its only less of a problem for people running 128Gb+ of Ram, but not everyone is.
@@ralmslb Technically speaking it's more of an integration issue, you don't need to lock away ram to be used as cache for linux native filesystems because they actually use Linux's caching subsystem. ZFS can't.
I started using truenas when scale was released. I decided to learn the platform on scale despite being advised to use core. I have struggled with numerous features due to my lack of knowledge, but overall it is working today and I think it's a gift to humankind to get software this powerful for free.
I upgraded from core to scale and I've been super happy with the additional capabilities with regards to containerized apps and virtualization
It is not an upgrade
@@Mr.Leeroy Sure feels like one, and the UI refers to it as one in CORE 12.
@@dylantaylor490 It's a sibling product, you are not expected to upgrade to it, only switch to.
Updater allows to "switch update train" in order to convert your appliance into it. In reality they are both at the same version on different base OSes.
Considering the same, although rebuilding my plex library etc seems like a pain. i pretty much just run a linux lite VM in bhyve, plex and syncthing on my core machine (as well as general storage), just not sure what i gain by switching, can you detail any of the "additional capabilities" u mentioned?? cheers
@@brandonchappell1535 I didn't have to rebuild my library, I just pointed plex at my old media folders and it used them
I ran a Core system for many, many years and it was solid. Recently built a new machine for my storage needs and found that Core did not support some of the hardware so had to move to Scale. Haven't looked back. It's been solid like its Core brother, so I can recommend either solution. Appreciate the videos and thank you for sharing your knowledge.
TrueNAS Core; single home user, used to clear up multiple USB drives on desk top, moved music, video, scanned documents, deprecating file cabinets, have VM Ubuntu and Docker
Started with Core about 2 years ago with a cobbled together system, added a 2nd Core system for offsite replication and upgraded the drives in the main system to proper NAS drives, upgraded both a few months ago to Scale for the apps and VM support, been an excellent and stable journey so far, definitely made easier by TLS's excellent videos guiding the way👍
Using Core atm. Passing through Broadcom storage controller with 10x (22TB) spinning rust + 8x (4TB) enterprise SSD. My Core is running on a vm inside vSphere. I also have a separate K8S cluster setup independent of Core on the same vSphere server. Contemplated switching to Scale, but my core is literally just a virtualized storage appliance and I’ve stood up the benefits of what Scale has to offer as independent VM’s hosted by vSphere. TruesNAS Core has been running solid for about 18 months, when there is a drive issue it typically self heals - sometimes a nudge or two - and there is no noticeable issue. All of my pools are comprised of some combination of mirrored disks.
Core. Absolutely rock solid, no issues with speed, easy to set up and manage.
I initially used Scale on bare metal, but then migrated to Core in a VM on the Harvester HCI platform.
I had Ran Core untill about 3-4 months ago an i did a fresh install of scale & i gota say i am liking it ..seams to be great..i have had a 10gb nic just stop working after a while for some reason but i think my old 10gb nic just needs a upgrade..lol. thinking 25gb is in my future at soon ish..ha ha ha ! Keep up the good work & thanks for sharing ! !
Came in under Core, but Scale at home all the way.
Core and Ent at work. Great solution for repurpose of old poweredge servers.
I TrueNAS Core always.
If you need a pure NAS with ZFS and the peace of mind of having a robust and stable system, without a doubt TrueNAS Core. If you want to work with Docker and VM you have TrueNAS Scale.
In my scenario I have two servers (Main and Backup with BackBlaze B2 cloud backup integration (3-2-1)) very low power TrueNAS Core (Dell PowerEdge R210 II - 36 watts stable and sustained consumption) with Xeon E3-1220L v2 processors (TDP: 17w).
For Docker and VM themes I prefer other O.S. that more transparently manage such scenarios (UnRAID and VMware ESXi respectively).
Thank you very much for sharing your videos, they are very interesting and useful.
Kind regards😎
True. I ran FreeNAS for 8 years. So robust. Lucky me, Even all 3TB *8 wd reds have none failed!. I already built my new TrueNAS scale now knowing virtualization is so much better there.
Running 4 TrueNAS machines.. 1 at home and 3 at each branch of our company.. for home use I have Scale, but Core on the 3 machines at each branches of company.. for work related stuff I personally prefer core..
Hi Tom, as usual, great video!
A few notes:
1. TrueCommand doesn't have a free version. Starter's kit (subscription) is $6 per month for 30 drives.
2. Scale does support ZFS encryption, but performance is x5-8 slower than the Core version, so I'd put a few asterisks there:) Ping if you need proof of that. Honestly, I was surprised (we're talking about 160 Mb/S VS 750 Mb/s). Also, there are a lot of topics dedicated to this problem.
I switched both my home servers to TrueNAS Scale recently. It's the second attempt to do so. Now Scale looks pretty good, except Encryption issue. Also, the permission model in Scale isn't very friendly. Overall, I'd recommend Core as a more stable and robust system for everyone without running VMs/Jails/Containers in the TrueNAS. Otherwise, Scale makes more sense.
I have posted in their forums about this and I have only had this issue on low end CPU's in specific read situations. Oddly it can write at full speed to an encrypted dataset but the first time read is limited to single core.
@@LAWRENCESYSTEMS I use AsRock Rack X570D4U + AMD Ryzen 7 5800X + 128 GB RAM. TrueNAS is virtualized w/ HBA passthrough (64 Gb RAM, 8 cores of CPU). All pools are SSD only (4x Micron 5200 Max and 4x Micron 5200 Eco). Write speed was x2-3 faster than read, but still not 100%. I saw recent topics for the same issues not on low-end CPUs.
It may or may not be connected: I encrypt the whole pool, not a dataset.
Anyway, it's fine for my home lab to remove encryption, so I recreated pools from scratch, and now I enjoy the full speed of SATA SSD pools:)
I had been running Core, but then it got annoying setting up a VPN instance in a specific jail I had setup... I looked into Scale more and when I realized it's basically Docker containers and it's super easy to set a VPN to run on container deploy, I was sold and I swapped over to Scale... (though the main reason why I left Core was because I was a dumby and I mix and matched modular power supply cables when rebuilding my server, which I primarily use for Plex, and it fried some HDDs, ruining my Raid Z1 array.. Yeah..... I decided to start fresh and go with Scale and I've not looked back).
I started with TrueNAS Scale when it was released on bare metal; evaluated and tested it's functionality and generally liked it.
I then committed the apparently cardinal sin of virtualizing TrueNAS Scale onto a VM on the same hardware it had previously been running bare metal and I still like it.
Virtualizing it freed up some of the other hardware in that system to dedicate to a different tasks and I haven't really noticed any trouble.
The controller is PCIe passthrough and it yas a dedicated chunk of RAM. The neat part for me was ZFS pools imported perfectly fine and the backup config applied to the fresh VM without issue, allowing me to just keep on going as if it was always a VM.
Using scale for two reasons; KVM and Docker/Kubernetes. It’s also nice to to run into all the hardware oddities with FreeBSD when repurposing “older” equipment. As long as there is no purposeful nerfing of Scale I’m happy with it.
I am running scale on my 14TBx8 drive system RAIDZ3 ( yes paranoid).. Nice video as always.
No paranoid, i'm paranoid :) 12HDDs 4TB as 3-way mirror vdevs = 4x3HDD=10TB my standard (max 12TB) usable+1 Cache Nvme drive + for system Hdd+Sdd as Work production storage server, its really paranoid :) - for git server
@@sarajakas2001 lol
Team TrueNAS Scale. Thanks Tom for yet another great video!
Currently running truenas core as it meets my needs. Only have one jail running urbackup to do de-duplicated file backups from workstations/servers of only important files. I have a proxmox cluser for virtualization so it's not required or wanted on the NAS, I prefer to keep them seperate..
I've deployed Core recently and am leaning to upgrade to scale simply due to the containerization and PLUGINS offered via charts.
I had issues with usb 2.5G Realtek nic on Core . So, I've switched to Scale and it's working fine now. Both my boxes are Scale.
I just want the best solution for long-term use, to operate solely as a NAS plat form. If I want to work the VM's and containers, I'll have a dedicated host for that.
That is the conclusion I came to when trying scale. That was well over a year ago however and I might give it another shot. I'll ALWAYS have a dedicated hypervisor for ease of use and feature set. Keep in mind I won't bet against IXststems, and 4 years from now scale will probably be at a proxmox level for virtualization LoL
I am right now building a new system for a NAS to replace my aging Drobo (it works, but since the company isn't around anymore, having a proprietary RAID format that I can't recover myself if other hardware dies is a bit of a nervous situation). I haven't yet decided between Core or Scale. I like the idea of Core being rock-solid BSD and just being used for storage in my case, but I am building the machine with extra horsepower to perhaps use Scale in the future for VMs and Docker. I am new to TrueNAS so I'll probably install Core on it to get started, but if my needs change in the future I'll migrate to Scale.
I like scale. It was easy to get started. Switching over can be a pain learning but not too problematic.
Tough call. Core is a thing a beauty when just used for storage. Scale is a tempting mistress tho. Rest assured that you can't go wrong with either.
I have the same situation last year. Starting out with Core, then eventually migrated to scale for easier time with PCI hardware, VMs and Apps. No regrets for me.
Obviously the best way to setup up your system is to virtualize TreuNAS core in Scale.
TrueNAS CORE because I want stability over everything else. Containers are on a FreeBSD Server and VMs are on Proxmox VE.
For me, for my readynas the question is: unraid or openmediavault... Can not run truenas of any form, due to 3 gigs of system memory, not to mention lack of brltty in scale, even though omv (open media vault) prooves that it can be done... And yes, brltty (to use a braille display during installation, and to check ip after) is critical for me, since I am completely blind...
For me the basic difference is that core might be a bit more secure and stable and may run slightly better, however pickier on type of hardware due to it being based on BSD, where scale runs on Linux so it can run on a wider variety of computers, and ZFS support is more recent to Linux so the BSD version might have an edge on stability and performance (as ZFS in BSD is built into the kernel versus being a kernel module in Linux).
However the containerization in BSD is jails which hasn't been as widely adopted as docker on the Linux side, so you're going to have a larger variety of apps for scale...
Correct, but a little disclaimer. Scale has no jail support. Unfortunately missing in Tom’s list as well. With a jail you are free to install software like an interactive OS. Containers are just packaged applications. Most people just need Docker but both lhave their use cases.
Just two minor corrections here. SCALE is more secure and has additional hardening for security focused environments. Stability wise it is about on parity with CORE these days, more-so if you run on home-brew hardware.
i run TrueNAS Scale only because it is virtualized in proxmox and Scale has guest-agent built-in. Otherwise i would have Core on dedicated hardware for stability
Scale is perfect for a home user like myself that lives in a small apartment and doesn't have much room for a homelab. I think that's one of the best use cases for it.
I'm still running TrueNAS Core but have been testing TrueNAS Scale for a couple of months. As Dylan Taylor mentioned in his comm ents, I am very happy with the new containerized apps in Scale. They are easier to implement and conform to other Docker/Kubernetes apps.
Thanks for the vid. Team Core, still seems i don't need to migrate to Scale for anything thats actually critical. Small nit picky note re: the initial comparison. in my understanding, zfs replication works to any compatible zfs pool, not exclusively core/scale systems.
Core. I value stability and reliability before fancy features my appliance should have nothing to do with.
Still run core at home. Tried scale for a short while while it was still under fast development, but needed a stable system as a home NAS. So returned to core and haven't had the chance to revisit scale. For what I need, core is more than capable and it's reliability is unparalleled. I also have Plex jail, which works fine, but just a bit behind on versions.
This is where I am too, and why I want to switch to scale. Plex is the only service I have open to the greater internet and being behind on versions is not ideal. On a similar note, I also use nextcloud (local only) and I’ve never been able to successfully update it. I always need to reinstall and reconnect my data. Hopefully the update process is more useable on linux, or docker.
Same here on the TrueNAS front. Regarding your Plex installs, I've been on xcp-ng for a couple years now and it may be easier to bite the bullet and let two servers handle your needs. Sure Scale can do it all, but it actually can't if you don't want to manage it. And that's OK. I realize cost/heat/power may be a concern, but grab a mini PC (Tom just did a review) and give it a shot. I've crammed ALL the things in EXSI before, and while rock solid... Sometimes adding another box just makes your life... well...easier.
Core for stability. Scale for compatibility.
Thanks a lot Tom.
I asked for this video. You honored my request.
Respect for INDIA. 🙏🏻
Hope you enjoyed it!
@@LAWRENCESYSTEMSIs it possible to port truenas scale to rhel based distributions?
Where it uses a rhel based linux instead of debian linux?
@@LAWRENCESYSTEMSso truenas command isnt free & open source right?
@@jirehla-ab1671 Anything is possible If someone or some team is willing to put the code together.
@@jirehla-ab1671 Correct
I run Core, and I don't see a reason to migrate to Scale. I don't use containers nor virtualization on my NAS, that runs on ESXi hosts.
I'm on core trying to migrate to scale. Moving jails is the worst! They really need to get LXC containers... Originally used for just storage and Plex but now I've been running my business for 3 years off a TrueNAS including groupware, virtual machines, mail server, and dozens of services besides.
Yes this are ugly when you want to run custom scripts for example. In my case I create my own container images with script that do 1 task which ends eventually. So to make it interactive I run a “sleep forever” as main proces and now I can use it like a jail
A project I'm working on will likely use Ubuntu as its hypervisor uses LXC. So I feel you on LXC support and containers.
Fuck, now that I use XCP-NG and TrueNAS, (moving away from VMW and ESOS) I am gonna be coming to this channel a lot I guess. I am still keeping my opnsense though, thank you.
I gotta say my preference - after doing a lot of testing with both - is core
The apps on scale are nice I guess. But why not just get a second box to run services, it's not like ur running anything heavy on a storage server anyways....
Tho I have and do still recommend scale for users who want services and have a strong preference for a single box for whatever reason
I moved from Core to Scale and Scale suits me much better for my usage.
I have 3 Core setups and love them.
I'm starting with Core since this is my first use of the product. I figure once I'm ready to try out Scale I'll build out a second unit and give it a go. Stability is essential to me as I start out. Using a TerraMaster F4-223 (yes I know they come with TOS). I think I'd rather go with something more community supported to begin with.
TrueNAS Scale. Virtualised under Proxmox, passing through the LSI SAS card.
I would never virtualize my NAS. I do other way around that's why scale is the best. ZFS support is must
@@sagarsriva There is full support for ZFS when you pass through the SAS card. TN Scale sees all attached drives natively. It works very well.
It’s a choice of risks. You create another complex layer (OS) with potential bugs, timing issues, etc.
For production maybe not wise. For a homelab run by a guy that seems to know what he's doing?...totes fine. You guys are both correct. Make sure you backup your pools tho!
Core running on 5 machines and 1 machine using Scale for experimentation purposes.
OK, I've been struggling with scale. Not because of it, but because of me. I just re-installed it fresh and will use your videos for guidance. I've been out of it for more than 10 years (professionally), but what the heck....Here goes.
For me, I completely converted to ( CasaOS ) because it is most suitable for ( Home Use ) with ease for what I want , SMB storage center, containers are EASY in CasaOS and can be installed on any device .. Yes, any computer, including Raspberry Pi if you want to !!
CasaOS is neat, just make sure you are backing things up :)
@@LAWRENCESYSTEMS Of course, the system is installed on a separate hard disk, and the storage and backup are on other hard disks, and this is essential. In general, I think that CasaOS for home use it is much better than TrueNAS!! thank you man for all the good job and Thank you for your wonderful UA-cam channel
Core for me as only using it as pure file server. Eventually I will move over to scale simply because I like getting under the hood and Debian is great for that. Another reason why I use ProxMox.
What do you mean with “under the hood”? You should treat the Nas as an appliance. Do not install software on the OS layer. You have jails on Core and Containers on Scale as alternative.
I might be switching from core to scale to fix some problems I'm running into. Change is hard though.
wont try scale for another few iterations yet, but it does look to be becomig what i want. core is fine for now, and cant be arsed to re-set up my nas again using scale, if its potentially less stable.
Would be great to have an app to take care of memory tuning in scale.
I'd prefer scale, but I am using core at the moment. I had trouble with network when I had scale installed. Network cut off after some time of usage and that's kind of a bummer.. I was using asrock z77 extreme3 motherboard that has realtek 8111 network chip. Changed to core and I have had no issues since. I have upgraded to intel 2.5gbit lan card later, but have not changed to scale yet, being little afraid of net hassle.
Does Scale still have the bug with performance for encrypted pools?
Yes, it does! Massive issues:( I got 5-8 time degradation in read speed compared to the Core.
Core or Scale? I kinda wish I had the money for Enterprise... or the need. Ah well, scale works for me. Just running one server with scale right now. It has a few docker containers, and I have zero idea what the heck a kubernetes is or why I'd want any.
It is the orchestrator. It can spin up extra containers if your website gets more load. It is also cluster aware so you can spread the load over multiple machines. So, enterprise features. Not sure if any decent company should run their apps on the NAS directly though
I'm sad this wasn't brought up, but if there's no feature scale offers you that you need and you're running an older system I would recommend core solely over the fact that the scale is a bit of a ram hog in comparison to core.
Core on backup NAS - it gets an rsync backup from a Synology box each night PLUS monthly snapshots - I am not sure what I'll do if Core drops rsync
rsync is just a package which you can add back in yourself. It won't be available in WebGUI if they decide to remove it.
i too use Core for backup rsync, scale in production, still in migration from old servers in progress :)
Then run the Rsync in a jail I suppose.
Running a Core system at home. I just need it to be a NAS/File Storage, plus my use case at home requires RSync. Running a separate eSXi server for my dev work / vms
Leaning towards Core, as I've heard that ZFS is RAM-hungry. Not sure if my understanding is accurate, but seems like I might have to replace RAM more often than Core. LOL not that I believe I will be replacing it every month or so, I'm just a "set it, and forget it." type and that seems like more worry maintenance? I have heard that ZFS is better, but is it worth it's hunger?
ZFS is not hungry for memory, it's efficient ua-cam.com/video/xp6g-8VS06M/v-deo.htmlsi=pCHEzQUfZoCgW1zL
Ok, I think I understand it better now? While ZFS does "occupy" as much of the RAM as possible, it's only "working" the RAM as often as data transfers are in use ( basically only updating the cache logs to reflect recent, or most, used.)? So if my pools are achieve only, and I'm not requesting the data within them, then the RAM isn't really being "worked"?
@@jeremyhenderson163 pretty much
🥰 Thanks for clearing that up. I'm not sure how I missed that video though, I enjoy (and appreciate) your content and delivery.
In the even there someone only wanted NAS (nothing else), would Core be the better option?
HA for a server i ordered from ix has HA that fails and takes the entire box down with it. we have been running for two years with HA off to keep the machine up. IX has since ghosted us on support saying our network is causing the HA to fail, the box to go offline. It's unfortunate because i was a very vocal advocate for ix systems. no longer. they have worked for others...but for me my nearly 25k ha server is only able to run in single controller mode.
Thanks for another good review
I switched back from scale to core. The 2 biggest reasons are 1. Account management was a nightmare to understand in scale and the fact that they would remove support for rsync was what made me switch back. Now it remains but not as a service. so how it will work in the future remains to be seen if it is time to go to scale or stay on core.
The only "rsync" that was removed was "rsyncd", which was moved to an app. Using rsync to sync to and from TrueNAS SCALE over SSH is still fully supported as usual.
IIRC, is it true only TrueNAS Core supports ACME DNS/ Authenticators?
@Lawrence Systems hey tom can you do an in depth video possibly about how to get unifi controller working on truenas scale, i have found no real guides on it and it has been very confusing. i am able to get it deployed but then the log shows that the http request gives a 404, which when trying to go to the web ui its an error 404 page as well and i cant seem to figure out what is causing it. thank you
mostly using core,but getting tempted to move totally to scale
Tom or ANYONE, how can I setup a permissions in a dataset to where I (dad) has full control and want my other users (wife and kid) to be able to read and write files if they want, but not be able to delete each others files ONLY the ones they created? I am able to have each user write files to the dataset but the user that creates the file cannot delete their own file. How do I fix this???
I'm currently using proxmox and I had an instance of truenas core running, there are some thing that don't play nice like monitoring aspects, I'm wondering if it would be worth migrating to scale just to have a Linux based nas for better compatibility
I did this migration, and I still do see any improvements in the monitoring
Hello!
I would like to know if there is a problem mixing ironwolf discs with EXOS EX10 in the same pool.
It will work but a pool will be limited in performance by the slowest drives in the pool.
But can it generate a problem in my POOL/DEVS?@@LAWRENCESYSTEMS
Nope. Neither. I loved Core but jails were too much maintenance. Scale plain blows monkey balls with its implementation of Kubernetes. This is why I switched to Unraid and I'm as happy as ever. (pssst, Unraid now has ZFS)
Unraid + ZFS FTW!!! The only drawback for most users is that unraid is not free. However, I think it is worth every penny.
What's the difference between Angelfish, Bluefin and Cobia?
Oldest to newest in that order
I prefer core but its being left to rot by IX systems.
I would like to test scale with 3 servers for share nothing, when do see this being ready for production?
Not sure, maybe next year.
Ok thanks@@LAWRENCESYSTEMS
I still don't understand the difference. I think that the scale is a little better, because runs Linux but, still, if both are so similar, why the Core version exists?
because Core is older than Scale, and is the base for their paid enterprise version. Scale is the "next gen" of their TrueNAS appliance and will probably take over when they are done developing all the features they couldn't have in Core.
@@marcogenovesi8570 Got it now. Thank you very much Marco!!
I would love to see videos for WS2022 AD and more!
They are removing Rsync from scale?????
They are leaving in the OS but getting rid of the menus and modules.
Team Core all the way until they pry BSD from my cold dead hands.
core because FreeBSD
The ARC cache limitation on Linux is a deal-breaker for me at this time. No option other than waiting even more :(
You just need to follow his tutorial it's limited by configuration. It just needs a quick config to allow full ARC.
I dunno I feel with being able to resize the Arc limitation like Tom just demonstrated in his previous video is pretty mitigating on that front. And with scale being designed with docker containers and Pods using RAM as well the initial 50% limit does seem conservative but some free memory for Apps are necessary.
@@chrish297 it's not a fix.
Having X amount of memory completely locked is a problem and is shocking how Linux is incapable of dealing with that in 2023.
Its only less of a problem for people running 128Gb+ of Ram, but not everyone is.
@@ralmslb Technically speaking it's more of an integration issue, you don't need to lock away ram to be used as cache for linux native filesystems because they actually use Linux's caching subsystem. ZFS can't.
This is on our roadmap for Q2 '24 to have addressed in Dragonfish, FYI.
scale, bc i can kvm this 😂
First
OMG an American.....
I would bet that iX abandons FreeBSD within 2 years.
They can't and won't as they are still selling 5 year support contracts.
@@LAWRENCESYSTEMS They'll just tell everyone to switch at that point.
TrueNAS core for most things, OSNEXUS Quantastor for HA