unRAID or FreeNAS

[Carpet3]

I've been using unRAID for a while now and really like it, and i'm starting to get to the point where i'll need to purchase it as I need an additional drive.

 

However, i've noticed the FreeNAS currently has version 8 in beta which seems to come with a stable version of ZFS which as far as I can see offers similar functionality to unRAID (if i'm wrong there then please tell me)

 

So my question is, which should I go for? unRAID is great but FreeNAS is free

[kizer]

Sometimes you get what you pay for.

[gfjardim]

ZFS is a very nice filesystem, but it can't expand like unRAID, so for a home server it's useless, IMHO.

[speeding_ant]

I read this and installed FreeNAS onto a test server. Instant problem, ZFS doesn't allow you to expand a disk pool, therefore the point is already lost.

 

Pros:

• FreeNAS does offer a larger set of protocols to share your data, AFP/iSCSI etc.
  
• The installation method is far nicer. Boot from burnt CD image, then it formats and makes the FDD bootable for you.
  
• Gives you the ability to hook into LDAP/AD in the gui (a better implementation than unRAID).
  
• Large set of plugins.
  
• More active development due to loads of developers.
  
• More hardware supported.
  
• It's opensource, therefore free.
  

 

Cons:

• ZFS or UFS won't allow for additional expansion. Makes FreeNAS inflexible.
  
• Less stable. Had a couple of kernel panics just trying to add a NIC config.
  
• Watered down support, the users on this forum are far more knowledgable/helpful. No guaranteed support from the developer.
  
• unRAID is still superior for data/share management.
  

 

Go for unRAID. Single parity and no striping allows for less chance of total data loss when two hard drives fail. You can expand easily by adding disks, and it won't disrupt your existing setup. It does its single task well, which is the whole point in having a media server.

[jamerson9]

The decision maker for me was the easy expandability and upgrade of UnRaid compared to ZFS.

 

If you can afford to plan out your storage requirements long term, ZFS and Freenas will work. However, if wish to expand storage as needed and when it is affordable then UnRaid is the better solution.

 

With a ZFS system, you can add new arrays to your storage pool, but you cannot add additional disks to an existing array.

[dgaschk]

Here is a somewhat long discussion on this topic: http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?t=82811

 

It has a pretty good summary towards the end.

[Carpet3]

However, if wish to expand storage as needed and when it is affordable then UnRaid is the better solution.

 

With a ZFS system, you can add new arrays to your storage pool, but you cannot add additional disks to an existing array.

 

Hadn't seen this, I was under the impression that you could keep chucking drives into the zfs array like you can with unraid, guess this settles it.

 

cheers guys

[jamerson9]

However, if wish to expand storage as needed and when it is affordable then UnRaid is the better solution.

 

With a ZFS system, you can add new arrays to your storage pool, but you cannot add additional disks to an existing array.

 

Hadn't seen this, I was under the impression that you could keep chucking drives into the zfs array like you can with unraid, guess this settles it.

 

cheers guys

Yup, it's the gotcha, that makes UnRaid more attractive and worth the license.

[Chuck]

I looked at both, along with FlexRAID before deciding on unRAID. Part of me disliked paying for a license; part of me is glad I did. Either way it was well worth the money IMO.

 

The other advantage unRAID offers over striped solutions is power usage and disk wear.

[Chris Pollard]

FreeNAS is pretty good but as has already been pointed out,  unRaid will save its licence fee in disks (or aggravation) the first time you want to expand your array.

 

 

[unraided]

The decision maker for me was the easy expandability and upgrade of UnRaid compared to ZFS.

 

If you can afford to plan out your storage requirements long term, ZFS and Freenas will work. However, if wish to expand storage as needed and when it is affordable then UnRaid is the better solution.

 

With a ZFS system, you can add new arrays to your storage pool, but you cannot add additional disks to an existing array.

 

I'm an unRAID user and love the flexibility of it and the main reason I went with it was the fact that if I ever were to loose several disks, I can still retrieve the existing data on the working disks or in fact if unRAID was no more, you can mount the reiserfs with another distro or using a Windows GUI tool to extract and copy your data from it. In most other disk array solutions, this is not possible, leaving you with nothing.

But where credit owed is were credit is due with ZFS. In fact, you can expand a ZFS array, mainly referred to as a 'pool' by adding additional disks, but you cannot decrease the number of disks within the pool, and you must then maintain that same number of disks for the life of the pool.

The only way to do decrease the disks capacity this is to copy your data off the server, destroy the pool and recreate it (Annoying!). ZFS has the ability of losing one disk, whilst maintaining the data in a RAIDZ1 configuration (like a RAID5) and the ability to loose two disks in a RAIDZ2 pool configuration (like a RAID6).

Other advantages in ZFS is good write speeds, snapshot clones which is a handy way to restore the FS from a previous point in time and the prevention of bit-rot (Though the later is rare).

You can expand a pool by keeping the same amount of disks, but you'll have to replace each disk in a 'one-by-one' fashion, with the same size, let the pool resilver (heal and rebuild internally) and then the pool will only increase then, once you have fully replaced all disks of the same kind, and not while you have a mixture of different sized disks (A down fall for ZFS too). Obviously unRAID doesn't suffer from that draw back and is fair more flexible in that right.

Another bonus to having a FreeNAS and a ZFS build is that it is a lot faster then unRAID. FreeNAS has the ability to aggregate multiple NIC's for redundancy or performance gains, where unRAID doesn't. But all in all, for home use, the last point isn't such a problem, as you would tend to probably use FreeNAS for for business use for its particular feature set that it provides and unRAID for home use for the way it works and functions.

 

Again, I favour unRAID for redundancy by the way the RAID array functions, which to me is my primary concern, but its good to know the facts of both products as well.

 

[aaronwt]

I read this and installed FreeNAS onto a test server. Instant problem, ZFS doesn't allow you to expand a disk pool, therefore the point is already lost.

 

Pros:

• FreeNAS does offer a larger set of protocols to share your data, AFP/iSCSI etc.
  
• The installation method is far nicer. Boot from burnt CD image, then it formats and makes the FDD bootable for you.
  
• Gives you the ability to hook into LDAP/AD in the gui (a better implementation than unRAID).
  
• Large set of plugins.
  
• More active development due to loads of developers.
  
• More hardware supported.
  
• It's opensource, therefore free.
  

 

Cons:

• ZFS or UFS won't allow for additional expansion. Makes FreeNAS inflexible.
  
• Less stable. Had a couple of kernel panics just trying to add a NIC config.
  
• Watered down support, the users on this forum are far more knowledgable/helpful. No guaranteed support from the developer.
  
• unRAID is still superior for data/share management.
  

 

Go for unRAID. Single parity and no striping allows for less chance of total data loss when two hard drives fail. You can expand easily by adding disks, and it won't disrupt your existing setup. It does its single task well, which is the whole point in having a media server.

 

All you have to do is mention CD and it becomes a pain. Cds were fine back in the 90's but not in 2011.

[jeff.lebowski]

Agreed about optical media.

 

I've got ~25 cd-r disks and about 80 dvd-r- disks leftover from before I switched to hard drive as a storage method. I burnt maybe four last year...