back to article Debian-based TrueNAS Scale updated – and iXsystems wins a gong

Enterprise NAS vendor iXsystems has updated its Kubernetes-capable Debian-based NAS OS, and scored Digital Public Good status too. iXsystems now has a family of dedicated storage-server OSes, and the new release of TrueNAS Scale, version 22.12.1. The company has a very cautious, slow-moving lifecycle – which is what you want …

  1. chuckufarley Silver badge

    Looking at the specs...

    ...And it seems this version only supports IPv6. That's going to put off a lot would be SOHO users.

    1. AVee

      Re: Looking at the specs...

      I think that's just worded rather dumbly on the specs page. This blog post says: "Bluefin will also allow IPv6-only deployments" (emphasis mine). So I guess the specs page intents to say that being capable of running in a IPv6-only network is one of the notable new network features, not some new requirement.

      But I'll grant you that's not how the spec page reads.

      1. iXTrueNAS

        Re: Looking at the specs...

        We agree that wasn't worded correctly and edited it to say "Full IPv4 and IPv6" on the TrueNAS SCALE specs page. We appreciate you interpreting correctly and the OP for initially pointing it out. Thanks for the support!

    2. Belperite

      Re: Looking at the specs...

      I use TN Scale and it definitely supports IPv4.

  2. NullDev

    BUG - Edit Replication Task

    Just an FYI, the 22.12.1 release has an issue with editing replication tasks. New replication tasks can be created, but attempting to save an edit results in a "[EINVAL] replication_update.sudo: null not allowed" error. This has been reported here ( ) and it looks like it has been fixed here ( ), but not yet released.

  3. Belperite


    I've been using it for the last couple of months as my home NAS on generic PC hardware - it's really very good IMHO. The only thing to note is that with 22.12.1, "host path validation" has been fully locked down for security / file integrity purposes - i.e. it is not possible to directly pass a host path through to docker containers and at the same time share it via SMB on the host.

    The two options are:

    1) Share the host paths as NFS and mount them as NFS in the containers (the standard Truecharts apps makes this easy as a GUI option).

    2) Uncheck the (global) host path validation box (not recommended or supported). There are plans to make this option available on a per-container/app basis in a future release, however.

    1. Belperite

      Re: SCALE

      Just to add for 1) - the host path is also still sharable via SMB in this case.

  4. Down not across


    After the split, I stayed with NAS4free (now called XigmaNAS) mostly due to painless upgrade from old, no longer supported FreeNAS installation. N4F has been utterly rock solid (now that I said that, I better ensure backups are good) on old N54L microservers.

    FreeNAS (iXsystems branch) seems a solid product too, just slightly different direction/priorities than XigmaNAS. Admittedly my personal preference is to stick with FreeBSD as I do with most servers unless there is compelling need to use Linux.

    1. Liam Proven (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      Re: NAS4free^WXigmaNAS

      [Author here]

      > After the split, I stayed with NAS4free (now called XigmaNAS) mostly due to painless upgrade from old, no longer supported FreeNAS installation.

      You know what, that is a good point, and I think I should have a proper look at XigmaNAS.

      I tried it briefly in a VM and I found its setup procedure not merely difficult but inscrutable, but TBH, I never looked at FreeNAS back in the day.

      I have told iXsystems that by not supporting installation directly onto a USB key, they are alienating their old FreeNAS users. *Everyone* I know who used FreeNAS ran this way. But iXsystems do not seem to get it or understand that it's important.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: NAS4free^WXigmaNAS

        Wrt USB sysdisks, I suspect part of IXsystems' motivation is selling their own hardware, which doesn't run that way (though it likely could).

        Another possible and related reason is they want the sysdisk (OS image, really) to have the same zfs protection and resiliency as the user data -- it's somewhat the same model that the bigger "enterprise" storage vendors like NetApp et al use, i.e. the OS image is kept in the storage array, not on a separate sysdisk (or USB, like we're talking about).

        Still, especially for the home consumer market, it seems like a needless omission.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like