Karl,
        There are numerous other similar answers to be found, but here’s mine:

Get away from CF if you can.  The modern performance and wear leveling work is 
in sata and DOM, those are better devices.  Abandon the nano-BSD and just find 
the miscellaneous checkbox to put /tmp and /var in ram.  That’s the bulk of the 
benefit without the separate distribution.  Although that is seldom necessary 
any more either.

My Soekris 6501 still doesn’t like the upgrade to PFSense 2.3 on mSata, but I’m 
running one from a Sata disk on 2.3 just fine.  This problem seems Soekris 
specific, but my summary is still that sata seems to be where the support is.  
And with SSD, I don’t see any benefit to staying away from sata even if you are 
allergic to spinning disks.  Market forces have made 100GB SSD’s available for 
less than $50, and that’s some wild over-provisioning for an install that is 
happy in < 4GB.  You can get a nice Intel or “pro” samsung for a little more if 
you want more insurance against having to visit those devices.  I’m generally a 
fan of the SSDs with metal cases for heat dissipation.

        ED.





> On 2016, May 17, at 6:09 PM, Karl Fife <karlf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I have about 15 Net5501's OR Lanner FW-7541D's in the field running 
> embedded/Nano on CF cards.  There's not enough space on a 1GB  CF to upgrade 
> to v2.3.  Of course I can upgrade to larger CF cards, however the eventual 
> phase-out of NanoBSD makes me wonder if it's better to install a SATA SSD (or 
> SATA DOM) which would possibly eliminate the need to re-re-factor storage in 
> the near future (e.g with the release of v 2.4, and the phase-out of NanoBSD: 
> https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Upgrade_Guide#Planning_for_the_Future )
> 
> Question:
> I'd like to ask what solid-state storage others are using on non-NanoBSD 
> installs.  If running the "full" version of pfSense, Is it sufficient 
> 'simply' to use a quality wear-leveling SATA DOM, or is it recommended to use 
> something with even better write endurance?  I wouldn't have thought the 
> pfSense write load is high, but blog posts from early adopters of SSD's + 
> pfSense seem to have run into write endurance problems.   SSD's have improved 
> greatly especially in terms of wear-leveling, over-provisioning etc.. What's 
> a recommended non-disk drive for full pfSense these days?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pfSense mailing list
> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
> Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold

_______________________________________________
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold

Reply via email to