Well, you could use it for that (pfSense on pfSense), but there will be unnecessary overhead.
> On Jul 30, 2014, at 4:38 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sounds like the mikrotik metarouter feature. > > Josh Reynolds, CIO > SPITwSPOTS > www.spitwspots.com > > On 07/30/2014 01:34 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 3:21 PM, Stefan Baur <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Am 30.07.2014 um 22:09 schrieb Espen Johansen: >>>> ZFS = FS+LVM. Its efficient in many ways. Its highly resillient to >>>> things like silent data corruption ( disk FW bugs, power spikes). It has >>>> on the fly checking and repair. Copy on write, snapshoting, NFSv4 native >>>> acls and a few more nice things. I dont understand the bashing? >>> This is a firewall, not a fileserver, where such features do indeed make >>> sense. And no bashing, just saying "I don't care what filesystem >>> pfSense uses under the hood, as long as it works". The fact that it >>> spits out a warning seems to indicate that it does not work and there's >>> something wrong, so I came here to ask. >> tl;dr: I wouldn’t run ZFS… yet. >> >> I didn’t see the error message, you’re barking up a tree attempting to use >> it right now. >> >> That said, there are certain advantages to ZFS, and there are internal >> experiments underway looking to use it for a future (64-bit only) release of >> pfSense. >> >> The data integrity and resiliency (due to COW semantics & checksumming) >> (etc) is one thing. I’ve had pretty good results turning on LZJB >> compression and ‘copies=2”, which is nearly as good as a nanobsd image with >> 2 separate slices, and, since you have a live filesystem, >> has NONE of the drawbacks of the nanobsd approach. One could even >> ‘checkpoint’ (snapshot) the zvol prior to any change (pkg install, config >> change, etc), >> and, of course "zfs send | ssh foo; zfs receive” makes it entirely trivial >> to keep your entire firewall backed up, rather than (just) the config file. >> >> People who say, “I can’t fathom a sensible use care for using ZFS on >> pfSense” or “why use it to replace nanobsd?” are (likely) stuck in a >> system admin mindset/mentality(*). I get the same pushback about bhyve >> (“why would you use that on a firewall?”) from people stuck in the same >> headspace. I’m not going to reveal everything here, because it’s going to >> be post-2.2 before any of this comes about, and I’m keeping the focus on 2.2. >> >> In short: ZFS is not just about building a NAS. >> >> Jim >> >> (*) If there isn’t an O’Reilly book out about it, it seems to not exist to >> these people. >> _______________________________________________ >> List mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > > _______________________________________________ > List mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list _______________________________________________ List mailing list [email protected] https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
