FreeNAS vs OpenFiler

http://www.freenas.org/freenas-vs-openfiler/

由上面這篇文章來看FreeNAS在大多個比較項目都勝過OpenFiler, 特別是在開發者人數及多國語言支援上.

http://www.freenas.org/freenas-vs-nas4free/

最大的不同應該是freenas的開發語言是Python, nas4free是PHP.

整體來看freenas還是優於nas4free.

http://www.smbitjournal.com/2012/04/choosing-an-open-storage-operating-system/

這篇文章提到如何選擇一個file server.

...

FreeNAS, outside of clustering, is the storage platform of choice in an appliancized package. It has the much touted ZFS filesystem which gives it flexibility and ease of use lacking in OpenFiler and other Linux-based alternatives. It also has a working iSCSI implementation so you can use FreeNAS safely as either a NAS or a SAN. Support for FreeNAS appears to be increasing with new developments being made regularly and features being retained. FreeNAS offers a large range of features and supported protocols. It is believed that clustering will be coming to FreeNAS in the future as well as this has recently been added to the underlying FreeBSD operating system. If so, FreeNAS will completely eliminate the need for OpenFiler in the marketplace. FreeNAS is completely free.

OpenFiler lacks a reliable iSCSI SAN implementation (unless you pay a fortune to have that part of the system replaced with a working component ) and is far more out of date than its competitors but does offer full block-level real-time replication allowing it to operate in a clustered mode for reliability . The issue here being that the handy web interface of the NAS appliance does not address this scenario and if you want to do this you will need to get your hands dirty on the command line, very dirty indeed. This is expert level stuff and anyone capable of even considering a project to make OpenFiler into a reliable cluster will be just as comfortable, and likely far more comfortable, building the entire cluster from scratch on their Linux distribution of choice. OpenFiler is built on the rather unpopular, and now completely discontinued, rPath Linux using the Conary packaging system both which are niche players, to say the least, in the Linux world. You’ll find little rPath support from other administrators and many packages and features that you may wish access to are unavailable. OpenFiler’s singular advantage of any significance is the availability of DRBD for clustering, which as stated above, in nonsensical. Support for OpenFiler appears to be waning with new features being non-existant and, in fact, key features like the AFP have been dropped rather than new features having been added. OpenFiler is free but key features, like reliable iSCSI, are not. Recent reports from OpenFiler users are that even non-iSCSI storage has become unstable in the latest release and losing data is a regular occurrence. OpenFiler remains very popular in the mindshare of this industry segment but should be avoided completely.

...

The first decision is whether or not Windows only features, notably NTFS ACLs, are needed. It is common for new NAS users to be surprised when the SMB protocol does not provide all of the granular filesystem control that they are used to in Windows. This is because those controls are actually handled by the filesystem, not the network protocol, and Windows alone provides these via NTFS. So if that granular Windows file control is needed, Windows is your only option.

The other three entrants, Linux, Solaris and FreeBSD, all share basic capabilities with the notable exception of clustering. All have good software RAID, all have powerful and robust filesystems, all have powerful logical volume management and all provide a variety of NAS and SAN connection options. Many versions of Linux and FreeBSD are available completely freely. Solaris, while free for testing, is not available for free for production use.

The biggest differentiator between these three OS options is clustering. Linux has had DRBD for a long time now and this is a robust filesystem clustering technology. FreeBSD has recently (as of 9.0) added HAST to serve the same purpose. So, in theory, FreeBSD has the same clustering options as Linux but this is much newer and much less well known. Solaris lacks filesystem clustering in the base OS and requires commercial add-ons to handle this at this time.

https://www.geekyprojects.com/general/openfiler-vs-freenas/

OpenFiler

Pros

1) Better hardware compatibility.

2) Better SMB transfer speed. Openfiler is built on Linux which has a better SMB implementation than FreeBSD.

3) Better Active Directory support. AD support is definitely more advanced in Linux than in FreeBSD.

4) DRBD Support.

Cons

1) Free version but commercially oriented. Some of the same features FreeNAS offers for free, Openfiler provides at a cost.

2) Does not support 4k Advanced Format Drives such as the Western Digital Green drives.

3) No ZFS filesystem support.

4) No RAID-Z support.

FreeNAS

Pros

1) Better performance with ZFS.

2) Better data security with ZFS, if you happen to use RAID-Z.

3) Completely free, not commercially oriented.

4) Can run on CF cards. CF cards are usually more reliable since they have no moving parts and are more energy efficient. It is basically one less hard drive that can heat up the rest.

5) Supports 4k advanced format drives such as the Western Digital Green drives.

Cons

1) If you decide to use ZFS as your file system you can’t use old hardware. The minimum recommended is a 64bit processor, with 4GB of ram and 4 hard drives.

2) Hardware compatibility. FreeNAS runs on FreeBSD, which does not offer the best compatibility with lesser popular chipset brands.

3) No DRBD support.