Is setting the copies=2 option slated to be part of the regular
installer? I recall copies=2 must enabled after-the-fact from the CLI.
Enabling after-the-fact is slightly problematic, because ZFS will only
make multiple copies of NEW blocks written, so in effect the system has
is without redundancy of most blocks until, say, after a major update.
I'm running several of these APU2's with discrete drives.
https://twitter.com/karlfife/status/878833005426561024
On 8/6/2017 1:18 PM, Vick Khera wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
