On Jul 30, 2014, at 4:34 PM, Espen Johansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> As a allways on device it would make sense to have a highly integral self- > repairing FS don't you think? Remeber pfs started in 2005 not yesteryear. A > lot of decisions where made by devs (myself included) based on what was the > greatest thing/best choice at the time. And over time a lot of things stay > like it "allways" has untill there is a need for change. As an enthusiastic early adopter of ZFS on FreeBSD, I'm probably one of the last people you'll need to convince to use it. :-) In fact, this week I just installed a server with ZFS-on-root over gmultipath'ed drives, combined with beadm-style boot environments that allow me to do complete system rollbacks to known configurations. (I've used ZFS+beadm in the past to build a cloner KVM VM image that has both bootable FreeBSD 9 and FreeBSD 10 installations on the same ZFS pool. When I deploy it I just "beadm destroy" the version of FreeBSD I'm not using.) Despite all that FreeBSD ZFS love, I still would not recommend it on FreeBSD/i386-based installations (as the OP said he was using). It is much more of a headache to use in that milieu, and, IMHO, doesn't get the testing and general care and feeding that the FreeBSD/amd64 version gets. (And this is as someone who used ZFS-on-root on FreeBSD/i386 literally for years over several major FreeBSD versions.) Also, ZFS would not be a good fit on low-memory embedded hardware. There are enough problems getting ARC to play nicely on high-memory systems under memory pressure... :-) > To OP; Set it to 640MB and be a happy camper. > Well, at least that will make that message go away, which seems to be the main concern. :-) Cheers, Paul. > -lsf > > 30. juli 2014 22:24 skrev "Paul Mather" <[email protected]> følgende: > On Jul 30, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Espen Johansen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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? > > > > I swear by ZFS on my regular FreeBSD systems (though I was having > trouble with it on FreeBSD/i386 latterly). I don't think there's any > "bashing" of ZFS per se, just a wondering why you'd use it on a > firewall appliance that's basically a nanobsd setup at heart... > > Cheers, > > Paul. > > > -lsf > > > > 30. juli 2014 21:44 skrev "Stefan Baur" <[email protected]> > > følgende: > > Am 30.07.2014 um 16:43 schrieb Vick Khera: > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Paul Mather <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > >> Personally, I think ZFS on i386 has become a losing proposition as of > > >> late. I ran a ZFS-on-root FreeBSD/i386 10-STABLE system with 2 GB of > > >> RAM and it appeared to become very flaky with ZFS in its latter months > > >> (I eventually switched it out for a FreeBSD/amd64 system). > > > > > > I cannot fathom a sensible use case for using ZFS on pfSense at all. > > > > I'm not consciously using ZFS for anything on pfSense, I *think* I > > performed the default install, but it could be using ntfs or vfat for > > all that I care. ;-) So I don't know why it's trying to use that - is it > > normal for a default pfSense install or not? > > > > I just saw the warning message and was wondering what to do about it. > > > > -Stefan > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > List mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list _______________________________________________ List mailing list [email protected] https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
