Once upon a time, Warren Young <wyml@xxxxxxxxxxx> said:
> I see that story in the exact opposite way: iXsystems found and fixed the problem, expending heroic levels of effort to do so.
>
> By contrast, I’ve had several $300-500 NASes become unmountable for one reason or another, and the vendor was no use *at all* in getting it remounted.
So, I was offering my opinion (backed by some personal anecdotes) of
iXsystems. The system we had with all this trouble was much more than
$300 (more like $30,000); IMHO it isn't "heroic levels of effort" to do
something they told us it could do before we wrote the check.
> Did you opt for advance replacement, and if not, why not?
Yes, we had purchased a support contract that included advance
replacement. They had no replacement part and took several weeks to
find one.
> I’ve also had trouble with FreeBSD’s lagg feature. Fortunately, my use case allowed me to switch to a round-robin DNS based load balancing scheme instead. I don’t think you can do that with NFS, by its nature.
Yes, NFS talks to a single IP at a time. My problem isn't with FreeBSD,
it with the TrueNAS software; it considers any configured network link
dropping as a reason to fail over (even if the link is in a LAG). That
is not configurable behavior.
> Yes, I noticed their site was running awfully slowly. Embarrassing, but I don’t see what it has to do with the quality of their FreeNAS boxes.
Mainly just more anecdotal evidence about the company and their general
reliability.
I know there are fans of iXsystems and FreeNAS; I am not one of them
(nor is anyone in my office). We also sold a TrueNAS system to a
customer, they had trouble (different problems from us), and we just
about lost the customer.
--
Chris Adams <linux@xxxxxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
