Is NUC6CAYH in the Haswell family? No, the Intel NUC Kit NUC6CAYH does not belong to the Haswell processor family. While the product code might contain the letter “C” which can be associated with Haswell in some Intel naming conventions, the NUC6CAYH actually uses an Intel Celeron J3455 processor.
The Intel Celeron J3455 belongs to the Apollo Lake family, which is a newer microarchitecture released in 2016, succeeding the Braswell architecture. It uses a 14nm manufacturing process compared to the 22nm process used in Haswell (released in 2013).
profile picture What platform/processor family does the Intel NUC7i5BNH (i5-7260U) belong to? The Intel NUC7i5BNH (i5-7260U) belongs to the Kaby Lake processor family.
Here's how we can identify the family:
Processor code: The “i5” in the processor name (i5-7260U) indicates an Intel Core i5 processor. Generational Identifier: The number following the “i5” (in this case, “7”) signifies the generation. This NUC uses a 7th generation Core i5 processor. Based on Intel's naming conventions, a 7th generation Core i5 processor belongs to the Kaby Lake family.
profile picture What advantages does Kaby Lake have over Apollo Lake? Here's a breakdown of the advantages Kaby Lake has over Apollo Lake processors:
Performance:
Clock Speeds: Kaby Lake processors generally have higher base and boost clock speeds compared to Apollo Lake. This translates to faster performance for most tasks. You can find specific clock speeds by comparing processor models on the Intel ARK website (https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark.html).
Architecture: Kaby Lake uses a more advanced 14nm+ manufacturing process compared to Apollo Lake's 14nm process. This allows for improved performance per watt and potentially slightly higher clock speeds.
Integrated Graphics: Kaby Lake features the Intel HD Graphics Gen 9.5, offering better performance and supporting features like hardware-accelerated HEVC/VP9 encoding and decoding at higher resolutions compared to Apollo Lake's graphics.
Features:
Instruction Set Support: Kaby Lake supports newer instruction sets like AVX2, which can improve performance in specific applications that utilize them.
Security: Kaby Lake incorporates additional security features like Intel Platform Trust Technology (PTT) not found in Apollo Lake.
Overall:
Kaby Lake offers a significant performance boost over Apollo Lake, making it a better choice for demanding tasks like video editing, gaming, or running multiple programs simultaneously. It also provides better integrated graphics capabilities and additional security features.
Here are some things to consider when choosing between Kaby Lake and Apollo Lake:
Needs: If you need a basic computer for web browsing, email, and light productivity tasks, an Apollo Lake processor might be sufficient. Budget: Kaby Lake processors are generally more expensive than Apollo Lake. Power Consumption: While both use a 14nm process, Kaby Lake might have slightly higher power consumption due to its higher performance capabilities. If you prioritize raw performance, advanced features, and better graphics, a Kaby Lake processor is the way to go. If you need a budget-friendly option for basic tasks and prioritize low power consumption, Apollo Lake might be a suitable choice.
profile picture I have an Intel NUC7i5BNH (i5-7260U) with 8GB RAM and a NUC6CAYH with 16GB RAM. I plan to use one of them for a Jellyfin media server and the other for Proxmox. Which would be most suitable for each role? Here's a recommendation on how to best utilize your two NUCs based on their specifications:
NUC7i5BNH (i5-7260U) with 8GB RAM - Ideal for Jellyfin Media Server
Reasoning: The Jellyfin media server relies more on CPU performance for encoding and transcoding media files for streaming. The i5-7260U in the NUC7i5BNH is a 7th gen Intel Core i5 processor, offering better performance compared to the Celeron J3455 in the NUC6CAYH. This translates to smoother playback, especially for high-resolution media or when transcoding for multiple users simultaneously. 8GB RAM is sufficient for a basic Jellyfin media server setup. You can monitor RAM usage and adjust if needed, but for basic streaming, 8GB should be adequate. NUC6CAYH with 16GB RAM - Ideal for Proxmox Virtualization Platform
Reasoning: Proxmox is a virtualization platform that allows you to run multiple virtual machines on a single host. While some CPU power is needed for virtualization, RAM is a more critical factor. The NUC6CAYH with 16GB RAM provides a good amount of memory to run multiple virtual machines comfortably. You can allocate RAM resources to each virtual machine depending on its needs. Additional Considerations:
Storage: Both NUCs likely rely on external storage solutions for your media library and virtual machines. Ensure you have a reliable and fast storage solution (e.g., SSD or high-performance NAS) connected for optimal performance. Network: A wired gigabit ethernet connection is recommended for both the Jellyfin server and Proxmox host for smooth streaming and efficient virtual machine operations. By following this recommendation, you can leverage the strengths of each NUC. The NUC7i5BNH with its i5 processor is better suited for the CPU-intensive tasks of Jellyfin media encoding, while the NUC6CAYH with its 16GB RAM allows for smoother virtualization with Proxmox.
profile picture Do they both have gigabit ethernet? You're right, it's a good idea to confirm if both NUCs have gigabit ethernet before allocating them to specific roles. Here's how to check:
1. Check Technical Specifications:
The most reliable way is to consult the technical specifications for each NUC model. You can find them on the Intel website or through retailer listings where you might have purchased them. Look for details mentioning “Ethernet” or “LAN” and see if it specifies “Gigabit Ethernet” (1 Gbps) or “Fast Ethernet” (100 Mbps).
Intel NUC website: Search for the specific model numbers (NUC7i5BNH and NUC6CAYH) on the Intel ARK website (https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark.html). The product overview page will list technical specifications, including network connectivity. Retailer Listings: If you still have the original packaging or receipts, they might mention network specifications. You can also search for the model numbers on retailer websites and check the product descriptions for details. 2. User Manuals:
The user manuals for each NUC model might also mention the network interface details. You can download the user manuals from the Intel website or search online for them.
3. Check Your Operating System:
If you have access to both NUCs, you can check the network settings within your operating system to see the connection details. Here's a general guideline (specific steps might vary depending on your OS):
Go to your network settings or adapter settings. Look for information about your network connection. It should display the connection speed or adapter details, which might mention “Gigabit Ethernet” or “100 Mbps Ethernet”. By following these methods, you can confirm if both NUCs have gigabit ethernet capabilities. Gigabit ethernet is crucial for both a Jellyfin media server for smooth streaming and a Proxmox host for efficient network communication between virtual machines and the internet. If one of the NUCs lacks gigabit ethernet, you might need to consider using a USB gigabit ethernet adapter for it.
profile picture Are there dis/advantages to running TrueNAS on bare metal rather than as a VM or a container in Proxmox? Here's a breakdown of the advantages and disadvantages of running TrueNAS on bare metal vs. running it as a VM or container in Proxmox:
TrueNAS on Bare Metal:
Advantages:
Performance: Bare metal installation offers the best possible performance for TrueNAS. It has direct access to the hardware resources (CPU, memory, storage) without virtualization overhead. This is particularly beneficial for tasks like data transfer, ZFS scrubbing, and redundancy calculations. Simplicity: Bare metal installation is simpler to set up and manage. You don't need to learn and configure a hypervisor like Proxmox. Stability: Generally, there are fewer potential points of failure compared to a virtualized environment. Disadvantages:
Resource Utilization: TrueNAS will have exclusive use of all the system resources. If you need other services like a media server or development environment, you'll need another separate machine. Flexibility: Scaling resources dynamically is less flexible. If you need to adjust TrueNAS resource allocation later, you'll need to physically reconfigure the hardware. Recovery: In case of hardware failure, restoring TrueNAS on bare metal might be more complex compared to restoring a VM from a backup. TrueNAS in a Proxmox VM/Container:
Advantages:
Resource Sharing: You can share the hardware resources between TrueNAS and other virtual machines or containers running on Proxmox. This allows you to consolidate multiple services onto a single machine. Flexibility: Adding or removing resources for TrueNAS is easier within a virtualized environment. You can adjust RAM, CPU cores, or storage allocation dynamically through the Proxmox interface. Snapshots and Backups: Proxmox allows taking snapshots or backups of your TrueNAS VM/container, facilitating easier recovery in case of issues. Disadvantages:
Performance: Virtualization introduces some overhead, which might slightly impact TrueNAS performance compared to bare metal. This might be negligible for basic setups but could become noticeable for intensive workloads. Complexity: Setting up and managing TrueNAS in a virtualized environment requires additional configuration and familiarization with Proxmox. Potential Points of Failure: There are more potential points of failure with a virtualized environment (hardware, hypervisor, VM itself). In summary:
Choose Bare Metal: If you prioritize raw performance, simplicity, and stability for your NAS, and don't need to run other services on the same hardware, then TrueNAS on bare metal is the way to go. Choose Proxmox with TrueNAS VM/Container: If you want to consolidate multiple services on a single machine, require flexibility in resource allocation, and find value in easy backups and snapshots, then running TrueNAS in a Proxmox VM/container is a good option. However, be aware of the slight performance overhead associated with virtualization. Additional Considerations:
Hardware Resources: Ensure your hardware has sufficient resources (CPU, RAM, storage) to handle the demands of TrueNAS, whether installed on bare metal or in a VM. Technical Expertise: Consider your comfort level with technology. Bare metal is simpler, while virtualization requires some additional configuration knowledge. Your Needs: Ultimately, the best choice depends on your specific needs and priorities. Evaluate your storage requirements, resource sharing needs, and desired level of complexity before deciding. profile picture If I want to run TrueNas in Proxmox on my NUC6CAYH with 16GB RAM, am I better off running it as a VM or a container? For running TrueNAS on Proxmox on your NUC6CAYH with 16GB RAM, a VM (Virtual Machine) is generally a better choice compared to a container. Here's why:
Reasons for Choosing a VM:
Hardware Access: TrueNAS relies heavily on direct access to hardware resources like CPU, memory, and storage controllers for optimal performance. While containers share the host's kernel, VMs provide a more isolated environment with virtualized hardware resources. This isolation allows TrueNAS within the VM to have better control and potentially achieve closer-to-bare-metal performance, which is important for NAS functions like data transfer, ZFS scrubbing, and redundancy calculations.
ZFS Features: TrueNAS leverages ZFS features like deduplication and compression. These features can benefit from direct access to memory, which VMs offer more readily compared to containers.
Flexibility: You can allocate specific resources (CPU cores, RAM) to the TrueNAS VM within Proxmox. This flexibility allows you to fine-tune performance based on your needs.
Containers Might Not Be Ideal:
Resource Sharing: While containers are lightweight, they share the host kernel with other containers. This can lead to resource contention and potentially impact TrueNAS performance, especially with the ZFS features mentioned above.
Limited Hardware Access: Containers have a more restricted view of the underlying hardware compared to VMs. This might limit TrueNAS's ability to optimize performance for storage tasks.
However, Containers Have Advantages in Specific Scenarios:
Resource Efficiency: If you only need a basic NAS setup with minimal storage activity, and want to maximize resource efficiency on your NUC6CAYH, a container might be considered. However, for most NAS use cases, the performance benefits of a VM outweigh the resource efficiency of a container.
Ease of Deployment: Setting up a TrueNAS container might be slightly simpler compared to a VM, as it has fewer configuration options. But the difference is minimal, and the advantages of a VM for performance outweigh the slight setup complexity.
Given your 16GB RAM in the NUC6CAYH, you have enough memory to comfortably run a TrueNAS VM with good performance. While you could technically use a container, the potential performance impact on NAS tasks makes a VM the better choice in most cases.
profile picture If I setup TrueNAS as a VM in Proxmox now, and later I want to migrate to a Proxmox cluster for fault tolerance/high availability, is that relatively easy? Will I be able to do so without starting from scratch on my TrueNAS server? Migrating a TrueNAS VM to a Proxmox cluster for fault tolerance/high availability is possible, but it requires some planning and configuration. Here's a breakdown of the process and its complexity:
Relatively Easy, But Not “Simple”:
It's not a completely straightforward process like migrating a standard VM. TrueNAS relies heavily on ZFS, a complex storage pool technology. Here's what to consider:
Shared Storage: A key requirement for a Proxmox cluster is shared storage. This allows VMs to be migrated between cluster nodes for high availability. TrueNAS itself manages its own ZFS pool, which can't be directly used by other VMs. You'll need to set up a separate shared storage solution like Ceph or a dedicated NFS server accessible to all cluster nodes.
TrueNAS Configuration: Migrating the VM itself is relatively simple using Proxmox's built-in migration tools. However, you'll likely need to adjust some TrueNAS configuration settings after migration to account for the new shared storage environment.
Preparation and Planning are Crucial:
To minimize downtime and complications during migration, here are some steps to consider beforehand:
Research Shared Storage Options: Familiarize yourself with Ceph or NFS setup for shared storage within your Proxmox cluster. Choose the solution that best suits your needs and technical expertise.
Test Backups: Ensure you have a reliable backup solution for your TrueNAS VM and its ZFS pool configuration. Test your backup restoration process before initiating the migration.
Plan Configuration Adjustments: Research the necessary adjustments you might need to make to your TrueNAS configuration after migration to work with the shared storage.
Migration Process (General Steps):
Prepare Shared Storage: Set up your chosen shared storage solution (Ceph or NFS) within the Proxmox cluster. Backup TrueNAS VM and ZFS Pool Configuration: Take full backups of your TrueNAS VM and its ZFS pool configuration. Migrate TrueNAS VM: Use Proxmox's built-in migration tools to move the TrueNAS VM to one of the cluster nodes. Adjust TrueNAS Configuration: Once migrated, access the TrueNAS VM console and adjust its configuration to utilize the shared storage solution for its ZFS pool. Test and Verify: Thoroughly test your migrated TrueNAS VM with the new shared storage configuration. Ensure everything functions as expected before putting it into production for the cluster. Additional Considerations:
Technical Expertise: This migration process requires some understanding of ZFS, Proxmox clustering, and potentially Ceph or NFS configuration. If you're not comfortable with these technologies, consider seeking help from a system administrator or consulting the official documentation for TrueNAS, Proxmox, and your chosen shared storage solution. Downtime: There will be some downtime during the migration process while you transfer the VM and adjust configurations. Plan your migration for a time when minimal disruption is expected. Overall:
Migrating a TrueNAS VM to a Proxmox cluster for high availability is achievable, but it requires planning and some technical knowledge. While not a simple process, the benefits of fault tolerance and scalability in a cluster can be worthwhile for critical NAS deployments.
profile picture I haven't done so yet, but I will be setting up a disk attached storage array - four 12TB drives in a 5-bay enclosure with a USB 3.0 connection to the NUC6CAYH. Is there anything I can do - as I set this up - to make it easier to migrate to a Proxmox cluster later? While migrating a USB-attached storage array directly to a Proxmox cluster isn't ideal due to performance limitations and potential instability, there are steps you can take during setup to make the transition to a future Proxmox cluster with proper shared storage smoother:
Current Setup (USB 3.0 Attached Storage):
Use ZFS on TrueNAS: Even though you're using a USB connection, configure the storage array using ZFS within TrueNAS. ZFS is a powerful storage pool technology that offers features like data integrity checks, redundancy options like RAID-Z, and the potential for future expansion when you migrate to a proper shared storage solution in a Proxmox cluster.
Document Your ZFS Pool Configuration: Document your ZFS pool configuration details, including the pool name, vdevs (virtual devices), and any redundancy settings you implement (e.g., RAID-Z2). This information will be crucial when migrating the ZFS pool to the Proxmox cluster.
Consider Upgradability: If possible, choose a 5-bay enclosure that allows future hot-swapping of drives. This can be helpful when migrating to a proper backplane in a server case for a Proxmox cluster, allowing you to move the drives seamlessly.
Limitations to Consider:
USB 3.0 Performance: While USB 3.0 offers decent transfer speeds, it can bottleneck performance compared to a dedicated storage interface like SATA or SAS used in servers. This might not be a significant issue for basic NAS usage, but keep it in mind for future performance expectations in a cluster. Direct USB Passthrough to VM: Avoid directly passing through the USB connection to the TrueNAS VM in Proxmox. This configuration can be unstable and might not work reliably in a cluster environment. Future Migration to Proxmox Cluster:
Shared Storage Solution: When setting up your Proxmox cluster, you'll need to implement a proper shared storage solution like Ceph or a dedicated NFS server. This will provide the necessary high availability and scalability for your storage needs.
ZFS Pool Import: During migration, you should be able to import your existing ZFS pool configuration from TrueNAS into the shared storage solution within your Proxmox cluster. The documented information from step 1 (current setup) will be helpful during this process.
Overall:
Using ZFS on TrueNAS with proper documentation and considering future upgradability will ease the transition to a Proxmox cluster later. However, be aware of the limitations of USB 3.0 performance and avoid direct USB passthrough to the TrueNAS VM. When migrating, focus on setting up a proper shared storage solution within the Proxmox cluster and import your existing ZFS pool configuration for a smoother transition.
profile picture The 5-bay enclosure also offers eSATA. Would that offer better performance? Does the NUC6CAYH support eSATA? Yes, eSATA (external Serial ATA) would offer better performance compared to USB 3.0 for your disk attached storage array. Here's why:
Interface Speed: eSATA offers a dedicated interface designed for storage devices, typically utilizing SATA III (6 Gbps) speeds. USB 3.0 (also known as USB 3.1 Gen 1) has a maximum theoretical speed of 5 Gbps, although real-world performance might be lower due to protocol overhead.
Lower Latency: eSATA generally has lower latency compared to USB 3.0. Latency refers to the time it takes for data to transfer between devices. Lower latency improves responsiveness, especially for tasks involving random reads and writes.
Does NUC6CAYH support eSATA?
Unfortunately, no. The Intel NUC Kit NUC6CAYH does not have a built-in eSATA port. It only offers USB 3.0 ports for external connectivity.
Alternatives for eSATA on NUC6CAYH:
Here are a couple of alternatives to consider:
USB 3.0 with TRIM Support: If you decide to stick with USB 3.0, ensure your disk enclosure supports the TRIM command. TRIM helps maintain the performance of Solid State Drives (SSDs) used in the storage array. Not all USB enclosures support TRIM, so check the specifications before purchase.
Upgrade to a Newer NUC with eSATA: If eSATA performance is crucial, consider upgrading to a newer NUC model that includes an eSATA port. However, this might be a more expensive option compared to using USB 3.0.
Future Migration to Proxmox Cluster:
Regardless of whether you use USB 3.0 or another option for your current setup, using ZFS on TrueNAS and documenting your configuration will still be beneficial for a future migration to a Proxmox cluster with proper shared storage. The core concepts of ZFS pool configuration and migration will remain the same.
profile picture Running TrueNAS as a VM in Proxmox on the NUC6CAYH, will performance be adequate if I allocate 2 cores and 8GB of RAM to the VM? I'd like to be able to use the remainder of the hardware resources for various container-based services. Running TrueNAS as a VM in Proxmox on your NUC6CAYH with 2 cores and 8GB of RAM might be adequate for basic NAS functionality, but performance could be impacted in certain scenarios. Here's a breakdown:
Adequate for Basic Needs:
Light workloads: For basic file serving, media streaming (without transcoding), and backups, allocating 2 cores and 8GB RAM to the TrueNAS VM might be sufficient. Performance Bottlenecks:
Heavy workloads: Multiple concurrent users: If you anticipate many users accessing the NAS simultaneously, performance might suffer with only 2 cores. Large file transfers: Transferring very large files could be slow due to the limited CPU cores and potential limitations of USB 3.0 (if you're using it). ZFS Features: Features like ZFS deduplication and compression can be CPU-intensive. With only 2 cores, these tasks might take longer to complete. NUC6CAYH Limitations:
CPU: The Intel Celeron J3455 in the NUC6CAYH is a low-power processor. While sufficient for basic NAS tasks, it might struggle with demanding workloads. Alternatives to Consider:
Allocate More Cores: If your workload allows, consider allocating more CPU cores to the TrueNAS VM. Ideally, 4 cores would provide better performance for multitasking and ZFS features.
Monitor and Adjust: Start with 2 cores and 8GB RAM. Monitor TrueNAS performance and resource utilization. If you notice sluggishness or bottlenecks, you can adjust RAM or CPU core allocation within Proxmox to optimize performance.
Prioritize Based on Needs: Evaluate your primary usage for the NAS. If heavy workloads or multiple concurrent users are expected, using more resources for the TrueNAS VM might be necessary. If basic file serving and backups are the main needs, 2 cores and 8GB RAM might be sufficient.
Containers on Remaining Resources:
Allocating the remaining resources (2 cores and 8GB RAM in your case) to containerized services is reasonable. Containers are lightweight and have a smaller performance footprint compared to VMs. You can run various services like a media server (with basic transcoding), a development environment, or a Pi-hole ad blocker container within these remaining resources.
Overall:
While 2 cores and 8GB RAM might work for basic NAS functionality, consider your workload and adjust resource allocation if needed. Monitor performance and fine-tune resource allocation within Proxmox to find a balance between TrueNAS performance and your containerized services.
profile picture What if I allocate all 4 cores and all 16GB RAM to that VM and also use that VM to host some Docker containers would that be a better configuration? Allocating all 4 cores and 16GB RAM to the TrueNAS VM and also using it to host Docker containers could work, but it's not the ideal configuration for a few reasons:
Potential Performance Issues:
Resource Sharing: TrueNAS and Docker containers will compete for the same CPU, memory, and potentially storage resources within the VM. This can lead to performance fluctuations, especially for latency-sensitive tasks in TrueNAS like ZFS scrubbing or real-time file access.
Isolation Concerns: Running Docker containers directly within the TrueNAS VM poses some security and isolation concerns. If a container has a vulnerability or malfunctions, it could potentially impact the stability of TrueNAS.
Alternatives for a More Stable Setup:
Separate VMs: Consider running TrueNAS in a dedicated VM with 2-4 cores and 8-16GB RAM, depending on your workload. This allows TrueNAS to have dedicated resources and avoids resource contention with Docker containers.
Dedicated Docker Host: If containerized services are a significant part of your setup, explore running them in a separate, lightweight VM with the remaining 2 cores and 8GB RAM. This provides better isolation and avoids potential conflicts with TrueNAS.
Here's a breakdown of the pros and cons of each approach:
Approach 1: All Resources to TrueNAS VM with Docker Containers
Pros:
Simpler Setup: Uses only one VM for both TrueNAS and Docker. Cons:
Potential Performance Issues: Resource contention between TrueNAS and containers can impact performance. Security Concerns: Containers share the VM environment, raising potential security risks. Approach 2: Separate VMs for TrueNAS and Docker
Pros:
Improved Performance: Dedicated resources for TrueNAS lead to smoother operation. Better Isolation: Containers run in a separate VM, enhancing security. Cons:
More Complex Setup: Requires managing two separate VMs. Potential Resource Overhead: Running two VMs might use slightly more system resources. Choosing the Right Approach:
Prioritize Stability for NAS: If your primary focus is a reliable NAS with TrueNAS, consider running it in a dedicated VM. Add a separate VM for Docker containers if needed. Balance NAS and Containers: If both NAS functionality and containerized services are equally important, you can experiment with allocating resources between two VMs (2-3 cores/8GB RAM for TrueNAS and remaining resources for containers) and monitor performance. Ultimately, the best approach depends on your specific needs and priorities. If you prioritize a stable NAS environment, consider separating TrueNAS from Docker containers. If you're comfortable with managing multiple VMs and value a balance between NAS and container performance, you can experiment with resource allocation.
profile picture I think I'll use all 4 cores and all 16GB RAM for TrueNAS and host the containers elsewhere. But I'm wondering if maybe it makes sense to go bare metal. Going back to my desire for a subsequent migration to a Proxmox cluster, would that be easier if TrueNAS was in a VM? Or bare metal? Also, in reference to using Ceph or NFS, could that be applied only to the system drives of the machines in the Proxmox cluster (treating the disk/storage array separately and not making (Ceph/NFS) changes to it)? Show drafts
Here's a breakdown of your questions:
1. TrueNAS Bare Metal vs. VM with 4 Cores/16GB RAM:
Using all resources for TrueNAS in a VM is a reasonable option, but consider these points:
Bare Metal Might Offer Slight Performance Edge: For demanding tasks like scrubbing or deduplication, bare metal might offer a slight performance advantage due to direct access to hardware resources. However, with 4 cores and 16GB RAM allocated in the VM, the performance difference might be minimal for most NAS setups. Migration to Proxmox Cluster: Running TrueNAS in a VM simplifies migration to a Proxmox cluster later. You can migrate the VM itself without needing significant configuration changes to TrueNAS. 2. Shared Storage for Proxmox Cluster (Ceph/NFS):
Yes, Ceph or NFS can be applied only to the system drives of the machines in the Proxmox cluster, leaving your TrueNAS storage array separate:
Separate Storage Array: This is a common approach. Your TrueNAS storage array with its ZFS pool remains independent. Shared Storage for VMs: Ceph or NFS is used to create a shared storage pool within the Proxmox cluster. VMs in the cluster can then access and leverage this shared storage for their own purposes. TrueNAS Manages Its Own Storage: Your TrueNAS ZFS pool continues to manage your NAS data on the separate storage array. The shared storage within the cluster is for other VMs running on the Proxmox nodes. Here's a table summarizing the points:
Feature Bare Metal TrueNAS VM TrueNAS (4 Cores, 16GB) Performance Potentially slightly better Good for most NAS setups Migration to Proxmox More configuration needed Easier to migrate Shared Storage (Ceph/NFS) Not directly applicable Used for VM storage within cluster Overall:
If you prioritize a slight performance edge and don't plan to migrate to a Proxmox cluster soon, then bare metal TrueNAS might be a good choice. However, with 4 cores and 16GB RAM allocated in a VM, the performance difference is likely minimal for most basic NAS uses. If a future migration to a Proxmox cluster is a possibility, running TrueNAS in a VM simplifies that process while still providing good performance for most NAS needs.