HEADS UP: 2.4 does not support i386 or NanoBSD
-
In case you haven't been watching other sources of information about pfSense 2.4, a couple key points need stated:
-
NanoBSD is no longer supported. There will be no install images for NanoBSD. There is a method to convert NanoBSD to a full install, but it requires some manual steps. See https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Upgrading_64-bit_NanoBSD_2.3_to_2.4
-
i386 is no longer supported, so 32-bit x86 hardware can not run pfSense 2.4. 64-bit hardware is required. This decision was made so we could focus on other platforms such as the SG-1000 which uses ARM.
More info at https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/2.4_New_Features_and_Changes
-
-
- NanoBSD is no longer supported. There will be no install images for NanoBSD. We are investigating the possibility of in-place upgrades that convert NanoBSD to a full install, but that isn't ready yet.
Any news about this ? thanks
-
None yet
-
So would you say D2700 falls into the supported or unsupported category.
That cpu seems to be called 64 bit but maybe has some issues with 64 bit OSs?
I don't have one physically handy to test. I do have 1 running on the other side of the pacific, so thought I'd ask.
-
It might depend on the mainboard. Intel says it has the 64-bit instruction set, so I'd expect it to work so long as the mainboard isn't crap.
-
Guess I'll be finding out if the main board is crap the hard way then.
Thanks for the answer.
-
So all of my Alix 2d13 will not work anymore?
What will be the alternative? This was perfect for us.. :/ -
So all of my Alix 2d13 will not work anymore?
What will be the alternative? This was perfect for us.. :/The ALIX as a platform has had it's day. It's EOL and deservedly so. You can keep using 2.3.x, which we will support for another year or so after 2.4 releases.
The SG-1000 is a great potential replacement in terms of cost, and would outperform the ALIX in every way. The only downside is that it has one less physical port.
For a more in-depth discussion, please start a new thread.
-
Don't quite understand why a 32-bit x86 platform is dropped in favor of a 32-bit ARM platform.
It would be more meaningful to dump 32-bit altogether, and support both 64-bit ARM and 64-bit x86 CPUs.
After all, 32-bit vs. 64-bit is one set of issues, ARM vs. x86 is another set of issues.
So if one wants to toss the 32 vs. 64 issue in favor of ARM vs. x86, that makes sense; but as it stands, 32-bit vs. 64-bit is retained, but being complicated by being a 32-bit-ARM vs. 64-bit-x86 vs. 64-bit-ARM (if that's even supported?!?), instead of either simply having 64-bit ARM and x86 builds, or then having a build matrix where 32-bit vs. 64-bit and ARM vs x86 are two independent axis…Kind of odd that the SG-1000 is based on a Cortex-A8 CPU, rather than on some Cortex-A53, A57, A72, A35, or A73 based CPU, something along the lines of this thing:
https://blog.hypriot.com/post/the-pine-a64-is-about-to-become=the-cheapest-ARM-64-bit-platform-to-run-Docker/
https://www.pine64.org/
-
Bits don't matter. Age and availability of hardware matter. You're comparing apples and oranges.
That's all fodder for another thread, though.
Locking this as it's only attracting tangents, it was meant as an announcement only.
