ZFS and the upcomming 2.6
-
@bingo600 This is on an APU2E4 running the latest 2.6.0-RC.
[2.6.0-RC][root@]/root: zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT pfSense 3.67G 22.0G 96K /pfSense pfSense/ROOT 910M 22.0G 96K none pfSense/ROOT/default 910M 22.0G 910M / pfSense/cf 560K 22.0G 96K /cf pfSense/cf/conf 464K 22.0G 464K /cf/conf pfSense/home 108K 22.0G 108K /home pfSense/reservation 96K 24.6G 96K /pfSense/reservation pfSense/tmp 212K 22.0G 212K /tmp pfSense/var 214M 22.0G 3.23M /var pfSense/var/cache 205M 22.0G 205M /var/cache pfSense/var/db 4.26M 22.0G 4.26M /var/db pfSense/var/empty 96K 22.0G 96K /var/empty pfSense/var/log 452K 22.0G 452K /var/log pfSense/var/tmp 104K 22.0G 104K /var/tmp [2.6.0-RC][root@]/root: -
@bigsy
Thank you looks as the same layout as on 2.5.2
It's NOT , see below -
@bingo600 said in ZFS and the upcomming 2.6:
Thank you looks as the same layout as on 2.5.2
really... I will need to update my 21.05.2 since the layout is like this
[21.05.2-RELEASE][admin@sg4860.local.lan]/root: zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT zroot 957M 24.3G 96K /zroot zroot/ROOT 921M 24.3G 96K none zroot/ROOT/default 921M 24.3G 921M / zroot/tmp 516K 24.3G 516K /tmp zroot/var 28.5M 24.3G 28.5M /var [21.05.2-RELEASE][admin@sg4860.local.lan]/root:I had skipped the last update clean install, was waiting for 21.09 which didn't happen so I take it that is why.. Now that 22.01 has been released I will be doing clean install of that most likely today. I have ticket open already for install for my sg4860
I do not believe just upgrade will change the zfs layout - maybe I am wrong?
An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11 -
See here , has both "your layout" 2.4.x in first post.
And 2.5.2 in 2'ndhttps://forum.netgate.com/post/1025072
I do not believe just upgrade will change the zfs layout - maybe I am wrong?
I doubt they can change the layout on an update, since they're running from the "same disk".
-
B bingo600 referenced this topic on
-
B bingo600 referenced this topic on
-
The upgrade won't change the layout, it would require a reinstall.
At this point the new layout is primarily for disk optimization (different ZFS capabilities enabled/disabled on different datasets) but in the future, who knows.
No plans to deprecate the existing upgrade process as far as I'm aware, but if you have the time and the ability, it's a good time to reinstall+restore.
Remember: Upvote with the š button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!
Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!
Do not Chat/PM for help!
-
@jimp said in ZFS and the upcomming 2.6:
it's a good time to reinstall+restore.
Yeah that is the plan, just waiting for the install image from support. This for sure has been longer than normal.. But with the release just coming, I take it they are pretty swamped.. I can wait ;)
-
@jimp said in ZFS and the upcomming 2.6:
The upgrade won't change the layout, it would require a reinstall.
At this point the new layout is primarily for disk optimization (different ZFS capabilities enabled/disabled on different datasets) but in the future, who knows.
No plans to deprecate the existing upgrade process as far as I'm aware, but if you have the time and the ability, it's a good time to reinstall+restore.
If i'm on 2.5.2 would an upgrade to 2.6.0 be possible (as in not reinstall) , as i already have the "new layout" ?
I'm a bit confused about the above answer
-
There were more changes to the layout in 2.6.0
The layout on 2.6.0 looks like this:
: zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT pfSense 4.14G 24.4G 96K /pfSense pfSense/ROOT 1.01G 24.4G 96K none pfSense/ROOT/default 1.01G 24.4G 1.01G / pfSense/cf 6.63M 24.4G 96K /cf pfSense/cf/conf 6.54M 24.4G 6.54M /cf/conf pfSense/home 196K 24.4G 196K /home pfSense/reservation 96K 27.3G 96K /pfSense/reservation pfSense/tmp 500K 24.4G 500K /tmp pfSense/var 260M 24.4G 3.45M /var pfSense/var/cache 244M 24.4G 244M /var/cache pfSense/var/db 6.64M 24.4G 6.64M /var/db pfSense/var/empty 96K 24.4G 96K /var/empty pfSense/var/log 5.16M 24.4G 5.16M /var/log pfSense/var/tmp 148K 24.4G 148K /var/tmpYou might have some of those changes, but not all of them.
-
@johnpoz said in ZFS and the upcomming 2.6:
@jimp said in ZFS and the upcomming 2.6:
it's a good time to reinstall+restore.
Yeah that is the plan, just waiting for the install image from support. This for sure has been longer than normal.. But with the release just coming, I take it they are pretty swamped.. I can wait ;)
I'm on the same boat :) Already opened the ticket and now just waiting... Today is going to be that day you know, install, configure, test and a lot of coffee hehe
dead on arrival, nowhere to be found.
-
@johnpoz said in ZFS and the upcomming 2.6:
@bingo600 said in ZFS and the upcomming 2.6:
Thank you looks as the same layout as on 2.5.2
really... I will need to update my 21.05.2 since the layout is like this
[21.05.2-RELEASE][admin@sg4860.local.lan]/root: zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT zroot 957M 24.3G 96K /zroot zroot/ROOT 921M 24.3G 96K none zroot/ROOT/default 921M 24.3G 921M / zroot/tmp 516K 24.3G 516K /tmp zroot/var 28.5M 24.3G 28.5M /var [21.05.2-RELEASE][admin@sg4860.local.lan]/root:My 2.5.2 CE looks the same. So is it safe to upgrade to 2.6.0? Or is a fresh install really required? If I can save the hassle and not cause instability I'd prefer not to...
-
@mcury This is has been the longest it has ever taken them to get back.. I can only assume they are swamped with bigger issues than asking for the install media ;)
-
@johnpoz said in ZFS and the upcomming 2.6:
@mcury This is has been the longest it has ever taken them to get back.. I can only assume they are swamped with bigger issues than asking for the install media ;)
Indeed, its nice to see that Netgate is getting bigger.. If things were better for me, I would be getting a SG-6100.. Maybe later this year or next year, who knows? :)
-
@mcury Just got my link to download ;) With all that is to be expected on release day.. I am very happy and pleased with a 2.5 hour response to a "request" for something that is by any means at all urgent or any sort of issue.
-
@johnpoz Hm nice, I also opened the ticket 2.5 hours ago, at 10:44am LT (GMT -3)
But I'm not in a rush, if I install it now the users here will attack me with their bare hands.. :) -
@mcury yeah while don't have any users currently that would complain if internet went down for a few minutes.. Wife is out for the day ;)
I am in the middle of some escalations for real life work, and loosing internet would not be a good thing ;)
But hope to for sure get to this sometime this afternoon. If you get to it first, let us know how it went.. I will post when I have it completed ;)
-
I'm on vacations , and I'll be traveling on Friday, one week on the beach.. :) So everything must be ready before I go.. I'll try to do it after 17:00, maybe after 22:00, not sure yet
@johnpoz said in ZFS and the upcomming 2.6:
But hope to for sure get to this sometime this afternoon. If you get to it first, let us know how it went.. I will post when I have it completed ;)
I'll do it, everything is ready, even the certificates are store in a .txt file.. Wireguard keys and all..
Just waiting for the time window, I can't take the risk of being killed by the users :)dead on arrival, nowhere to be found.
-
@mcury said in ZFS and the upcomming 2.6:
I can't take the risk of being killed by the users :)
I hear ya brother ;)
-
@mcury well I pulled the trigger.. Some oddness with packages being reinstalled. Was told they didn't exist in plus.
But guess there is a redmine about it already or was, should of looked before pulling the trigger I guess ;)
https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/12766
I do believe I got it all sorted out, those packages have been installed, and my previous configs for them were still there.
And have the new zfs layout now.
[22.01-RELEASE][admin@sg4860.local.lan]/root: zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT pfSense 3.60G 22.6G 96K /pfSense pfSense/ROOT 915M 22.6G 96K none pfSense/ROOT/default 915M 22.6G 915M / pfSense/cf 12.4M 22.6G 12.4M /cf pfSense/home 120K 22.6G 120K /home pfSense/reservation 96K 25.2G 96K /pfSense/reservation pfSense/tmp 448K 22.6G 448K /tmp pfSense/var 76.0M 22.6G 4.42M /var pfSense/var/cache 59.5M 22.6G 59.5M /var/cache pfSense/var/db 11.5M 22.6G 11.5M /var/db pfSense/var/log 480K 22.6G 480K /var/log pfSense/var/tmp 104K 22.6G 104K /var/tmp [22.01-RELEASE][admin@sg4860.local.lan]/root:Total time without internet a few minutes.
-
@johnpoz Soon its going to be my turn, just got the download link. :)
I'll check now the hash to make sure everything is correct, burn the iso to the pendrive and just wait for the better time to proceed..
I won't restore the config, will configure it from scratch.. This will be my opportunity to clean my aliases and rules, its currently a mess.. Aliases not in use, aliases that the IPs already changed and etc.. -
@mcury said in ZFS and the upcomming 2.6:
This will be my opportunity to clean my aliases and rules
Never a bad idea to take the down time as time to clean up..
I wanted to test the recovery process of the config, which worked pretty freaking good if you ask me.. Other than some oddness with a couple of packages, which was no biggy and could of expected that if done my due diligence and looked over any recent redmines reported ;)
If you take that out of the picture went as smooth as you would expect.. Literally a reboot and back up and running.
edit: If I was going to nitpick - the longer than normal time to get a link to the media for install. In the past its been as fast as like 4 minutes or something. But hey make such a request a few minutes after the release announced - I am more than happy with the couple of hours it took.. I would expect they got bombed..
An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11
