> On Oct 30, 2014, at 3:06 PM, Jeppe Øland <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Jim Thompson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On the other hand, I tend to distrust manufacturers that shipped >>> completely unreliable drives without any thought. >>> Kingston/OCZ/Crucial are all in this boat for me. >> >> I’m sure I’ve been burned at least as badly by these, and others, and I >> still buy from them. > > What can you do? The speed increase from SSDs in a PC means its almost > impossible to go back to an HDD. > And in a firewall/appliance, the benefits from no moving parts/lower > power/heat/noise is hard to ignore. > >>> As for Nano, I thought it mounted almost everything as RO and only >>> changed settings to write down settings changes, and RRD databases etc >>> on reboots? >> >> I think I’ve already responded to this. >> >> nano is a > 10 year old “solution” to the problems that existed at the time. >> http://markmail.org/message/rxe4xfpmdwva7q3e >> >> That doesn’t mean it’s a bad solution, but though it’s author is a brilliant >> individual, he obviously didn’t envision SSD in 2004. > > Are you saying the "nano" release only covers the boot-slices?
See how the there are three partitions in the below? Observe the sizes (“922257 sectors”) of the first two. $ file pfSense-2.1.5-RELEASE-1g-amd64-nanobsd-20140825-0744.img pfSense-2.1.5-RELEASE-1g-amd64-nanobsd-20140825-0744.img: x86 boot sector; partition 1: ID=0xa5, active, starthead 1, startsector 63, 922257 sectors; partition 2: ID=0xa5, starthead 1, startsector 922383, 922257 sectors; partition 3: ID=0xa5, starthead 0, startsector 1844640, 102816 sectors, code offset 0x31 > I thought the nano/embedded versions also write less to the disk. > I don't have a full install handy to check, but the nano install > definitely mounts the drive RO, and all runtime stuff (/var, /tmp) is > run out of RAM disks. Yes, and I am aware of the differences with the “nano” builds. CF devices don’t have the same type of sophisticated wear-leveling and virtual block remapping that modern SSDs and eMMC devices have. Yes, I am saying that compression (which on a modern 64-bit Intel / AMD CPU is way faster than disk I/O (yes, even to a SSD)) and making those sectors available to the drive has potentially far greater impact than the crippled nature of the “nano/embedded” version. We’re not changing this for pfSense software version 2.2, but you can bet $CURRENCY to $SNACK_FOOD that it’s being evaluated and tested for something subsequent. _______________________________________________ List mailing list [email protected] https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
