From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 27 15:37:40 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8702EBBE for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 15:37:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from mx01.qsc.de (mx01.qsc.de [213.148.129.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B1122D38 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 15:37:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from r56.edvax.de (port-92-195-117-74.dynamic.qsc.de [92.195.117.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx01.qsc.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BD4C3C6A8; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 16:37:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from r56.edvax.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by r56.edvax.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id r9RFbOF9002220; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 16:37:24 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 16:37:24 +0100 From: Polytropon To: "C. P. Ghost" Subject: Re: FreeNAS vs. FreeBSD? Message-Id: <20131027163724.3c99002f.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: References: Organization: EDVAX X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.1 (GTK+ 2.24.5; i386-portbld-freebsd8.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: Polytropon List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 15:37:40 -0000 On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 15:16:00 +0100, C. P. Ghost wrote: > Hello, > > up until now, I'm used to run FreeBSD on SuperMicro servers > with ZFS-over-GELI. Works like a charm, and I'm comfortable > with it w.r.t. administration and so on. > > Now I'm wondering what's the difference to FreeNAS. The _primary_ difference, in my opinion, is the addition and integration of web-based management tools. If this kind of interface is a requirement for you, using FreeNAS usually is the better solution. It's properly tested and well docu- mented. (Still, it's FreeBSD "under the hoos", so you can relapse to your FreeBSD operations knowledge in worst case scenarios.) It's easy to install and to use, that's why it appeals also to beginners. A personal note: I prefer "bare" FreeBSD. This is primarily because avoiding the web interface gives you the chance to automate tasks more easily. I don't like to do manual work, that's what computers are _made for_. With a normal FreeBSD installation, you can use all your scripting and remoting skills without having the need to pay attention to possible side effects to the additional parts that FreeNAS introduces, for example damages of the web interface. Also some pre- configured defaults or "hardcoded settings" might not fit particular needs, and it's often easier to access and change those with the known CLI tools, instead of investing time to find out the corresponding settings in the web GUI (maybe even with the result of acknowledging that there is no way to tweak that _specific_ setting through the web interface). If low-power devices as "storage applicances" are your goal, probably FreeBSD is easier to strip of any unneccessary over- head than trying to remove things like e. g. the web server and the web admin GUI from FreeNAS, with the imaginable result of making it unusable... -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...