On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Jim Pingle <li...@pingle.org> wrote:

> On 8/5/2017 8:59 AM, Arthur Wiebe wrote:
> > This is more out of curiosity to verify that I'm correct, with pfSense
> 2.4
> > using ZFS will that solve the issue where an SG appliance will stop
> booting
> > because of a corrupt filesystem and require a reinstall?
> >

ZFS can only protect you from on-disk corruption if you have multiple
copies of your data. So you either need mirror or raidz with multiple
drives, or set the number of copies per block to a number higher than 1 on
a single disk.

> > I've had too many cases where for whatever reason a box was shutdown
> > improperly (could be the client unplugging it for example) and the system
> > became corrupt and worked fine after re-installing the OS.
ZFS is very robust against this particular scenario, because the on-disk
state is always consistent.

The UFS file system journaling is also very robust against this, but does
on occasion need a manual fsck to clean up. I've never had a system corrupt
itself so bad that I had to re-install (running FreeBSD for 18+ years on
dozens of machines).

> >
> > I'm hoping that ZFS with it's data integrity and rollback features will
> > solve this issue.
> >
> > Am I right? And if so we should consider re-installing existing
> > installations with pfSense 2.4 so that it installs using ZFS?
> ZFS is self-healing and though we have not been able to reproduce the
> corruption issues seen by some with UFS, all evidence points to ZFS not
> being susceptible to those problems.
Will pfSense on a single-disk install set the copies per block to > 1 to
afford additional protection against corruption? Seems like a small price
to pay given how little disk pfSense needs and how big SSDs are these days.
pfSense mailing list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold

Reply via email to