Snapshots are back!

marcelloc · Mar 23, 2012, 1:17 AM

Great! :D

bmah · Mar 23, 2012, 3:00 PM

Title says it all… 2.1 snapshots are going again.

http://snapshots.pfsense.org/

Nice! Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but there appear to be nanobsd upgrade images for 512MB, 2GB, and 4GB, which are all of the common sizes except for the one I use (which is 1GB). :-) Does the snapshot process normally generate these, or should I just reimage my (4GB) CF card with one of the other sizes?

Thanks,

Bruce.

jimp · Mar 23, 2012, 3:08 PM

I didn't notice those were missing. They should all be there, I'll see if I can track down why.

Supermule · Mar 23, 2012, 4:03 PM

Whats the difference between build 1115 and 2145 since the first is 83mb and the second is 97mb?

jimp · Mar 23, 2012, 4:19 PM

@Supermule:

Whats the difference between build 1115 and 2145 since the first is 83mb and the second is 97mb?

1. Always specify the full path to the one you're asking about, the number is a timestamp and has little relevance to the rest of the filename.

2. Check the filename, you can see the larger one is not gzipped. (still shaking out some bugs on the builder)

The md5/sha256 files are also still blank, next run after the one building now should have them.

~~Not seeing why the 1G nano images aren't uploading, I see them in the staging area waiting to upload.~~
I see the problem now, will find a fix shortly.

Supermule · Mar 23, 2012, 4:39 PM

Thx Jim!

jimp · Mar 23, 2012, 4:47 PM

@bmah:

@jimp:

Title says it all… 2.1 snapshots are going again.

http://snapshots.pfsense.org/

Nice! Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but there appear to be nanobsd upgrade images for 512MB, 2GB, and 4GB, which are all of the common sizes except for the one I use (which is 1GB). :-) Does the snapshot process normally generate these, or should I just reimage my (4GB) CF card with one of the other sizes?

Hopefully this will be better after the current run. For this run I moved them manually to the right place, they'll upload when the rest of the run finishes.

For the next run I'm hoping it will get them automatically. Have to wait and see though. I committed a fix to the builder code, time will tell if it's good :-)

bmah · Mar 25, 2012, 5:11 AM

@jimp:

Hopefully this will be better after the current run. For this run I moved them manually to the right place, they'll upload when the rest of the run finishes.

For the next run I'm hoping it will get them automatically. Have to wait and see though. I committed a fix to the builder code, time will tell if it's good :-)

Hrm, I still haven't seen them yet (1GB i386 nanobsd). No pressure…just letting you know in case you didn't get a chance to check.

Thanks,

Bruce.

jimp · Mar 26, 2012, 11:32 PM

My previous attempt to fix the bug left it not uploading any nanobsd snapshots at all. So I fixed that fix and now a full set is up for i386, amd64 should be coming shortly. Though I noticed it renamed them to be .gz and yet they aren't compressed. So one more fix is needed.

iFloris · Mar 27, 2012, 1:54 PM

Are the ova snapshots also working already?
If they are, I must be doing something wrong as I am getting a 403 'forbidden' error.

Also, awesome that you are even offering ova snapshots.

jimp · Mar 27, 2012, 2:20 PM

The permissions were wrong on the files that were uploaded. I fixed the ones up now and added a fix to the builder code so they'll be right in the future (and should get a sha256 checksum file also)

Looks like a full set of nanobsd files is being uploaded also so things are looking pretty good.

iFloris · Mar 27, 2012, 2:21 PM

Jim, thanks! This is great.

bmah · Mar 27, 2012, 2:34 PM

Thank you Jim, I see the files now. Now need to schedule some downtime for my firewall box so I can check them out (and hopefully report back on a couple of bug fixes that went in the tree recently).

Bruce.

Supermule · Mar 27, 2012, 2:39 PM

Jim….any timeframe of 2.1 release version???

jimp · Mar 27, 2012, 2:49 PM

Not sure on the time frame. We had been shooting for March but that isn't happening ;-)

Safe to say we want it out in advance of World IPv6 Launch - http://www.worldipv6launch.org/

Supermule · Mar 27, 2012, 2:52 PM

Thx :)

JackL · Mar 27, 2012, 4:07 PM

jimp,

We already know that pfSense 2.1 is based on FreeBSD 8.3. This means that only a future pfSense 2.2 are likely to be based on FreeBSD 9.0?

[]'s
Jack

jimp · Mar 27, 2012, 4:12 PM

@JackL:

We already know that pfSense 2.1 is based on FreeBSD 8.3. This means that only a future pfSense 2.2 are likely to be based on FreeBSD 9.0?

Correct. Though it may be 9.1 or whatever is out when we get there. There were far too many issues with 9 to allow us to release in a timely manner. Not all bad things, just things that changed that we'd have to account for. (one thing was that we would have needed to use 9-STABLE to resolve many issues, but that included the new CARP bits and pf which would have required major overhauls to happen). It's work that can be done, but it's work we'd prefer not to have to debug on top of IPv6 issues.

JackL · Mar 27, 2012, 4:37 PM

All right jimp! ;)

jimp · Mar 27, 2012, 7:29 PM

Latest i386 run is up and it looks like the ova permissions and sha256 are up ok. Hopefully that's the last of the little random issues… :-)