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