New to OMV, should I use v3 ?

  • so I'm new to OMV, I am not new to Linux or Debian... I have a need for a NAS, its a J1900, 4GB and 4x 4TB SATA drives (dedicated 4GB ssd boot). Right now it's running rockstor, rockstor is screwy, gui is buggy, stuff doesn't work alo, samba config is borked (had to fix config files and file permissions myself)... After the last update the newest kernel won't even boot... I'm sick of it having to dick with it. I'm either going to roll my own or try another NAS distro.


    So, I was looking around, I've installed OMV2 and 3 in a virtual machine and played with it, seems good. I have no need for plugins, just NFS and maybe some SMB shares. I might, at some point, try a syncthing plugin, but I really can't imagine using any other plugins.... this is my home fileserver only.


    Anyway, I'm just doing a sanity check... I am dropping rockstor due to it's screwyness, and now I'm thinking about using a beta release of OMV (yes I might have a personal issue, lol). Is OMV3 stable enough for daily use?

    • Offizieller Beitrag

    OMV3 core is stable in my opinion. I think you should use it.

    I agree with that.

    omv 7.0.4-2 sandworm | 64 bit | 6.5 proxmox kernel

    plugins :: omvextrasorg 7.0 | kvm 7.0.10 | compose 7.1.2 | k8s 7.0-6 | cputemp 7.0 | mergerfs 7.0.3


    omv-extras.org plugins source code and issue tracker - github


    Please try ctrl-shift-R and read this before posting a question.

    Please put your OMV system details in your signature.
    Please don't PM for support... Too many PMs!

  • thanks guys, I decided to go ahead with omv3... hate the idea of upgrading soon once it's declared stable :)


    I haven't seen any issues yet, transitioned 5TB of data so far. Honestly though, an md device with xfs is pretty stable, I really don't have a concern about losing data randomly.

Jetzt mitmachen!

Sie haben noch kein Benutzerkonto auf unserer Seite? Registrieren Sie sich kostenlos und nehmen Sie an unserer Community teil!