digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

OpenFiler: A Better Free NAS Than FreeNAS?

openfiler.com — A review of FreeNAS, which turns a PC into a Network Attached Storage device, was recently on the front page. There is another free NAS OS: OpenFiler. Based on CentOS Linux, it seems to have all the features of FreeNAS plus WebDAV, iSCSI, user/public/guest shares & more. But it does have a larger footprint. So which is best, FreeNAS or OpenFiler?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • luv2ride, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6While it isn't that big of a deal -- No AFP file shares. I didn't think i would ever use it, but I do now that I have several macs.... This looks great, but I'll stick with freenas which has worked wonders....
    • PimpinOnWelfare, on 10/12/2007, -20/+2hip hop is dead
    • slantyyz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I set up an Ubuntu + Webmin file server for my Macs. The white box I use has gigabit ethernet and AFP support. File copies go blindingly fast compared to the old 100mb Linksys NSLU2 I had. I found SMB shares to the NSLU2 clunky and unreliable at best.
    • cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Openfiler requires a central directory service running on the network such as Active Directory, LDAP, etc. This must be a separate box from the Openfiler machine. All users and groups must be created in that directory and not on the Openfiler machine. The clients also must be configured to use the directory."

      This isn't destined for home, or even SoHo or workgroup use. If you are running a 'Nix file box, why use Open Filer? Most companies will use the same distro they use on everything else. Standardization, don't you know...
    • BassJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@cliffzdude: I'm glad you raised that point, it's something I spotted earlier whilst reading part of the site which turned me right off it (only because I can't use it!) but it does also put it in a different league to Freenas, so a comparision is hardly fair!

      Both of these NAS OS's have their good points and their bad points, as for which one is best I think it's entirely down to how it will be used, for business Openfiler will be best, due to the user and group authentication and all the extra features, for sharing your music and photo's between the PC's on your home network it's Freenas!
  • MichaelKJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4OpenFiler is based on rPath Linux, not CentOS.
    • schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Relatives nonetheless. rPath is a Red Hat spinoff. CentOS is a Red Hat ripoff (just kidding, but it rhymes, so I couldn't resist ;-) ).
    • livestradamus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3MC schestowitz
    • kripkenstein, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Look at the screenshots, they say "Powered by CentOS" in them.
    • phlite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The documentation is falling behind as they have moved to rPath Linux since Centos. This is one of my problems with Openfiler in that they lack the appearance of stability. I setup Openfiler at work and the latest version is working quite well.
  • kenvandine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8rPath isn't a Red Hat spinoff, however it is pretty Red Hat compatible. The rPath founding engineers were all ex-red hat engineers, so this is a common misconception.
  • mrecks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Neither worked for me. I ended up using OpenSUSE and Samba, with my raid formatted with XFS. I couldn't use the others because they didn't support the size of my RAID, which is 2.3TB running off a cheesy RocketRAID 2320. Works great.
    • mpeg2tom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Ain't much of a NAS if it can't handle a few TB...
    • SammyJr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't know if it was the size of your array. I think it was more that the 2320 card doesn't have mainline kernel drivers.
  • matthewvelie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6No rsync, SSH or AFP support, no thanks.
    MIght have a little better authentication support, but I don't need that at home.
    Plus I've gotten FreeNas working.
    • vuke69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Although ssh isn't listed as a feature, I can't imagine it not working. And even if it doesn't support real rsync: shares, you should still be able to rsync over ssh (rsync -e ssh).

      FreeNAS however, is small enough to fit on a 32MB flash drive which most people (well, people like us anyhow) have laying around because they are nearly useless these days. And thats a BIG plus, at least in my book.

      Honestly I would probably never use either, but if I needed something in appliance form, I would pick whichever was more suited to the task at hand.
    • matthewvelie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I agree that ssh should be on there, I just hope it is (and they add to the feature list).
      The other nice thing for me is AFP support/ Bonjour so drives are automagically working with OSX. I know a lot of people don't have this, but its still a nice and easy thing to have that apple's new airport will do automatically also.

      The 32mb is nice, just grab one of those old cards, and get an ide to cf adapter and put it in a machine and your good to go. Same with monowall.
    • coditza, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Being both based on FreeBSD and Linux and can't see why they can't run rsync, SSH or any other piece of software that runs on FreeBSD and Linux. They can do it, they won't run it out of the box probably.
  • Goosemaster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The interface is definitely snazzy:D

    Kind of bummed out that it is lacking certain features:(
  • darigaaz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2http://thaiopensource.org/development/suriyan/
    Another NAS Linux Distribution, Suriyan.

    BTW, about Openfiler: With some knowledge about Linux you can manually configure SSH, Rsync and whatever you want, after all, it's Linux.
    • BrainInAJar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3the same is true of freebsd/freenas
  • ramsinks.com, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1eBox>

    However this does look good. I'll add it to the list.

  • Zuhaib, on 10/22/2007, -3/+6I am currently thinking about building a NAS out of my old PC and i am debating between FreeNAS and OpenFiler. I really like FreeNAS, there setup, small footprint, and the stability of BSD makes me want to jump on that. But the problem goes back to being BSD.
    Ok i know i am going to get digg down for this, but Linux has a lot more support and a wave then BSD does for software. So then you are forced to use Linux Compatibility add on on BSD and in the past i have found not everything works that is made for Linux. One thing i was looking at running was VMware on this server with Windows to act as a Media Server for my 360 and there is no native build for BSD. Yes i have seen some people have VMWare works, but thats just a single example i can think of.
    So if you are looking at running a simple, fast NAS (a cheap system, out of date and etc) FreeNAS is the best and i would use it. But if you plan to add a few extras stuff, i would go with a Linux based solution just because of the support.
    • mancat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I want to ask you, why you are planning on running applications on a NAS server? Maybe I'm having a hard time understanding you, but you sound like you are worried about being able to run some strange Linux-only binary on the FreeBSD-based NAS system.

      As for hardware, no matter whether you decide to use the Linux or BSD solution, you are going to have to pick and choose your hardware carefully.
    • MinorLemming, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I think you're confusing 'SoHo server' with NAS device. A NAS device is _just_ for storage. A SoHo server might also be your firewall, webserver, etc.

      If you want VMware, you're pretty much stuck with Linux, but if you're prepared to look at Qemu, many of the other free Unixes might suit your needs.
  • aaje, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4FreeNAS and Openfiler are two different beasts. FreeNAS is cool for home use as it does file sharing in a small package. But for large companies Openfiler is a nice alternative to having a real SAN/NAS. it has iSCSI support, so you can give different server it's own partition and have the server see it as it's own disk. This way you can create Windows clusters, install SQL and Exchange. They usually require a fixed disk, not a share. I've got a VMWare setup running with Openfiler and a Windows cluster setup. Very nice to do cluster tests with.
  • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6What I would really like to see in openfiler is AOE(ATA over ethernet). Most people don't need the overhead of iSCSI which is a) tcp- based and b) scsi based. That is a lot of overhead. AOE just sends over ATA blocks over ethernet. Sure you can't route the packets like you can w/ IP but who needs a SAN on different networks? 9 times out of 10 you just want all your disks on the same network.

    I'm kinda waiting for AOE and more usage of openfiler then I'll use it in production.
    • GameDNA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2agree... most datacenters I have worked with have been segregated onto their own network for storage. Having the extra TCP/IP headers are just a waste for most small and medium size companies that have no need for routing their backend storage.

      The one major thing holding back AOE is the drives. Until there is a small, reliable & inexpensive device that coverts SATA or SCSI to an ethernet port w/ AOE... i cant see AOE becoming super popular. There are companies working on these devices, i just hope they come out soon (i could definitely use them)..
  • jbond, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Note here: Linksys NSLU-2 distros. Unslung, OpenSlug
  • Altotus, on 10/22/2007, -0/+4While FreeNAS and OpenFiler are great NAS / SAN solutions and all, they both have one drawback for the in-home filer -- and it's not ease of use (both are actually quite simple, once you get over the hurdle of knowing to look for and download them). Actually, the big drawback is that you actually need to run them on a PC, which uses way too much power (electricity) for such a simple application. For home use, a low-power dedicated NAS device makes a lot more sense.

    Ideally, getting something like OpenFiler running on a dedicated low-power unit like a DNS-323 would be best.
    • Firehed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, but people don't do long-term cost-analysis. They have an old PC sitting around. They don't have a spare half-grand or so around to get the little NAS appliance box, even if it would do everything better (and if you find a 4-slot driveless SATA NAS unit around much cheaper, do let me know, because I'm looking). I'd much rather have a compact little box that was designed for exactly this purpose, but I had an unused box sitting around that would otherwise fill my needs. Mind you it's running standard Windows filesharing (eww), but it does have the advantage that it can act as a headless iPod-syncing device with Remote Desktop and can also do some DVD transcoding from time to time. Given a free switch, I would replace it with a little appliance box and deal with my iTunes and transcoding otherwise, but I don't have the money upfront now and my school is footing the power bill for the moment.

      That, and FreeNAS hated my NIC. I haven't tried this OpenFiler, but I really liked the idea of being able to run FreeNAS from this old 16MB USB stick I had around and not burn an existing hard drive for the OS or buy any new hardware to act as a suitable substitute (such as a little CF->ATA bridge and a suitably sized card).
  • Stonekeeper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I tried openfiler about 7 months ago and the one limitation I found was that you couldn't create shares that some people could write to whilst others had read/write access. It was more group based. Does anyone know if this has changed?

    Also, it didn't act as a samba domain controller last i saw. Shame, that'd be a cool all-in-one solution.
    • byronm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What type of share was it? a CIFS should tie into your NT security without issue and do what you want?
    • phlite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, AFAIK you can only control access to shares on a group level. This is one problem I've run into ...
    • Stonekeeper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1byronm, it's how phlite describes.
  • aitf311, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2UnRaid is all Ive ever needed: http://www.lime-technology.com/

    Software based raid. Uses 1 parity drive for up to 11 other drives. rsync supported.
  • 1911, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My employer uses openfiler. We aIso use AoE under Linux (subterabyte with XFS) and FreeBSD (multiterabyte UFS2) with Coraid hardware in a production environment. Sure I had to write a little driver code, but Coraid SATA Raid AoE works and works well.
  • jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2i was going to set up and evaluate one of these boxes, but then my company misunderstood what i asked for and bought a pre-built NAS running ***** windows... one of those buffalo boxes, which ive decided isnt worth trying to ***** about with and installing linux instead (bloody near impossible to open it up without breaking anything)
  • slantyyz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I tried a bunch of tools like FreeNas, OpenFiler, ClarkConnect and SMB server to run my home-made RAID NAS. The problem was that I chose an AMD/nForce based system (cheapest I could find) -- HUGE mistake. For a Linux n00b, getting one of those NAS Appliance distros to work on the nForce system was a nightmare. I ended up opting for Ubuntu Server + Webmin. Driver support for the video card and nic were dodgy at the time (summer 06).

    To any other n00bs out there, expect to encounter more issues with drivers when building a Linux/BSD based NAS around an AMD/nForce system.

    Having said that, OpenFiler is pretty nice.
  • HashPipeK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1unRAID looks interesting. What are other options for RAID-4 or 5 in software?
  • krokodil, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I recently tried both.

    FreeNAS: Pros: super clean UI, fast. Cons: Does not support WebDav. Less sophisticated volume management. Unix shell is too stripped - why on earth remove 'more' command?!! Using modern hard drive sizes I do not mind spending extra 100Mb to get better shell tools.

    OpenFiler: Pros: suppors WebDav. Cons: Much slower on the same hardware. Local user managemen (local LDAP) is new and plain and simple does not work for me (check their forums for compalints/questions). Really confusing and ugly UI.

  • mike503, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1first one to support ZFS is a winner in my book.
  • AlmostAGhost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I looked at both FreeNAS and OpenFiler for an iSCSI setup.

    FreeNAS: Syncing setup was easier to setup than OpenFiler, but iSCSI volumes are auto assigned names, so if you have two FreeNAS Boxes running iSCSI the targets have the same name and my Windows box couldn't differ between the two. Only supports one NIC at a time, so you can't admin on NIC and run iSCSI through another. Also, this emulates iSCSI, so if you setup ISCSI you are configuring a BSD volume, and then creating an iSCSI volume on top of that. It does support mounting iSCSI targets automaticly, so if you were inclined to do so, you could SMB share, or what-have-you, iSCSI volumes from other machines

    OpenFiler: You really don't need a central directory for control, you can use built in users and groups. OpenFiler support iSCSI natively, so you can create an iSCSI volume right off the bat. It also supports multiple NICs, and can be configuring has a HAC if you are willing to put the work into it. Also the volume and target names are not named automatically. So you can have two boxes both running iSCSI and the targets can have completely different names, which we are looking to do at my office and have a Windows Server box and software RAID the targets together.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.