Am 31.07.2014 um 03:31 schrieb Dave Warren <[email protected]>: > On 2014-07-30 13:23, Paul Mather wrote: >> 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... > > Maybe it's just me, but I want my firewall to "just work" after power > failures, on failing drives, etc is a big plus. Having a self-repairing, > snapshotting file system sounds like a huge benefit, but I don't know what > the drawbacks are in this context, so I can't make an actual recommendation. > > Imagine having snapshots before updates or major changes so that things can > be reverted to a working state, rather than relying on the piecemeal XML > backups which, at best, brings you a "moderately similar to the previous > state" configuration. > > Being immune to corruption due to power-failures would be nice too; when I > was running squid on pfSense, an unexpected power failure virtually always > resulted in file system corruption being repaired, still resulting in a > broken squid cache -- I have the impression that zfs would give me a lot more > resiliency here (but possibly not, perhaps squid simply can't ever recover > gracefully)
From my point of view ZFS needs to much RAM for a Firewall and It should not be installed on i386. So pfSense would only run on amd64 mit > 2GB RAM. UFS is a fast, reliable and economical filesystem which worked perfect for years. BTW: ZFS ist not immune to corruption due to power-failures! Your hardware needs a BBU to be safe! Maybe you should put your cache-dir on e special volume using UFS+J? Just my 2ct Tom
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ List mailing list [email protected] https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
