• Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login
Netgate Discussion Forum
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login

Here is why NAS functionality on pfsense can make a hell lot of sense.

General pfSense Questions
19
62
40.6k
Loading More Posts
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • N
    NopIt
    last edited by Nov 20, 2015, 11:38 PM Nov 20, 2015, 11:34 PM

    I think I've got some very good arguments for why it would actually make a lot of sense to have a router/firewall and a NAS on the same machine.

    Let me make some things clear before I start:
    Who would actually benefit from this?
    Big companies with a lot of sensitive data? NO. They could EASILY effort running separate devices.
    It's private home users that would benefit from this. I would legitimately save more than a 100 bucks and don't get me started on how much I would reduce power consumption and the related costs. 
    As a private user I don't store extremely sensitive data at all. More importantly my data is of almost no interest for a random hacker.

    And now let me eliminate the the common arguments against merging NAS with firewalls/routers:

    It's a security risk to store your files on the same machine as the firewall. If your firewall machine gets hacked the hacker could gain access to your data.

    • Let's be honest, how likely do you think it is that someone actually finds a vulnerability that serious in time before it gets fixed?

    • If someone actually manages to take over your router/firewall machine.. then how likely would it be that he couldn't just access your NAS through your LAN to which he should have full access by then?

    • So honestly, if you personally think that there is a realistic risk that your pfsense machine is going to be hacked in such a serious way, then why are you even using it at all? It's not like an optional package per se would change anything.

    As soon as this gets implemented everyone will use it. But everyone is stupid and we know better. So to protect them, this feature won't get implemented.

    When I posts like that I was shocked. I personally live in a thing called democracy. If I want to buy and eat something that makes me fat, then I can do so. Imagine that wasn't possible anymore. If I don't care about security or informing myself about it, then this is my own business. Instead of forcing everyone to do the thing that one person thinks is right, it would be way smarter to simply warn everyone and then let them decide for themselves what they want.

    And honestly, it's not like we don't have encryption in 2015.

    Now let me give you some good arguments for implementing that feature:

    • We can save a whole computer worth of a cpu, mobo, psu, ram, case and cabling. That is a significant amount of money for a private person.

    • Power consumption: Only having to power one kernel/OS and only having to run one set of hardware components is a significant power saver. (In a lot of countries power is getting soo crazy expensive atm. This would allow saving a lot of money over time.)

    • Speed! You could easily serve all clients with full gigabit speeds at the same time. That is straight up not possible with a normal perfectly configured NAS that has a gigabit Ethernet port.

    And here are some more (minor ones):

    • Noise. One big machine usually makes less noise than two small machines. (It's the fan size.)

    • Portability. Say you want to take your router and NAS with you to a LAN party. Carrying 3 machines (router, NAS and PC) is a lot of stuff.

    • Cable clutter. You can save at least 2 cables.

    • Space. One machine will take less physical room.

    And before I forget: Running either pfsense or FreeNAS in a vm isn't really an option because it would increase CPU usage and thus power consumption significantly and don't get me started on the limitations…

    This is obviously not really a question. It's more of a discussion. And I'd like to find out if there is any way we could make this happen.

    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
    • D
      Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
      last edited by Nov 20, 2015, 11:59 PM

      You concentrate on the "if someone compromises your firewall, they can get your data." Which is likely true whether they are one node or separate nodes.

      How about "if someone compromises one of the 1001 things running on your NAS, they can make changes to your firewall." ???

      FreeNAS and pfSense are both available to fork.  Have at it.

      Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
      A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
      DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
      Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • C
        cmb
        last edited by Nov 21, 2015, 12:28 AM

        Virtualization is the answer to this, not trying to jam a billion services onto a single OS. Beyond the security considerations, there are tons of potential functionality complications as you increase the number of services you're trying to run.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • N
          NopIt
          last edited by Nov 21, 2015, 9:44 AM Nov 21, 2015, 9:35 AM

          @cmb
          I already mentioned it in the first post. Virtualization is not the solution. Virtualization would waste a huge amount of resources, way more than a few extra services. It is also problematic because you have to statically assign the computer resources such as CPU cores and RAM. Now if multiple clients would move files through the network with full speed, the router may not have enough resources to do it. So you basically have to buy a much more expensive CPU.

          I really don't see how the services for NAS functionality would be problematic. 
          Almost every consumer grade router has built-in NAS functionality nowadays and it works just fine (besides the fact that it always runs over usb and is terribly slow).
          But if you really think that there are realistic problems, please be more specific, I'd like to hear it.

          @Derelict
          I'm not exactly sure what you are implying. Sounds like you are on my side?
          But anyway, if someone has access to my NAS he is in my LAN and thus a trusted person. But I would encrypt the files on my NAS anyway, so there is that…

          I would love to do this on my own, but I don't have the time. I'm also unsure if I could still get the official security updates if I did that.
          So I'd like to convince an official pfsense developer of this being not a bad idea and then find some people who also wanted this feature and pay the developer to do it.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • P
            pfSense4ME
            last edited by Nov 21, 2015, 1:29 PM

            @NopIt:

            Almost every consumer grade router has built-in NAS functionality nowadays

            Examples please.

            I did a cursory checked on SonicWall, Cisco, NetGear, Linksys, and I could find none that offered NAS as part of a total package.  These were of their consumer grade or SOHO grade offerings.  If I stand corrected my apologies in advance.

            @NopIt:

            I would love to do this on my own, but I don't have the time.

            Ahh yes, but everyone else does have the time to accomplish something for my needs (for free).  Sorry if a bit harsh but… to me your wanting to eat your cake too.  It's my belief your requirements are to tight.  I believe CMB to be correct in offering virtualization.  Granted the more you request of VM, the more you make demands of it, the more power, will be needed etc.  You show/offer me where that's not the case.  VM definitely uses less resources than two (or more) separate boxes, so I believe your request is doomed from the onset as nothing fits any of the criteria you outlined.  That's just my opinion, but I'm open to you providing suggestions which fit your criteria, power demands, equipment, etc.  Remember any additional workload put on the system CPU, memory, etc. (even on one box) raises power demands, lessens idle time, etc. cost more in power, cost more in equipment (going to need a better CPU, more memory, etc.) to make it be able to handle ALL request.

            Just my opinion.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • N
              NopIt
              last edited by Nov 21, 2015, 2:10 PM

              Just search for routers with usb ports. Every router that I owned that had USB allowed me to share usb storage and usb printers through it. "Almost every consumer grade router" may not be true, I honestly don't really know, but there are definitely a lot of routers that that already do it and this is my point.

              And about your second comment. Are you kidding me? I legitimately do not have the time to do it! Just like you don't have the time to build a car and your house. And you know what? That is completely normal and there is a simple solution: You pay someone who does it for you. And that is exactly what I meant, when I said "I don't have the time to do it […] So I would like to […] pay the developer to do it.". I NEVER said I would want it for free!

              And sure let's say a vm uses less power than a complete additional computer; it definitely still consumes way more power and resources than running both in the same "environment". And thus you would need more expensive hardware. Seriously, read my whole last post again please!

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • D
                doktornotor Banned
                last edited by Nov 21, 2015, 2:33 PM

                @NopIt:

                Virtualization would waste a huge amount of resources, way more than a few extra services. It is also problematic because you have to statically assign the computer resources such as CPU cores and RAM.

                Not with any decent virtualization solution.

                Overall summary = this thread is a waste of DB space.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • johnpozJ
                  johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
                  last edited by Nov 21, 2015, 2:36 PM

                  This horse has been beat to freaking death already..

                  VM is the best answer if you ask me.. I have 1 box, it provides lots of different services and OSes for my home.  One of them is NAS/File server functionality.  It was NOT expense at all, $400 total that was with extra ram, extra nic and extra disk..  HP N40L microserver.

                  If you want to run it on your firewall OS, and you don't have time - where is your bounty post, all the people that agree with wanting this feature I am sure will chime in.. Once it gets high enough someone will do it I am sure..

                  As to the soho routers having ability to share usb stick/disk. Yeah many of them do - lets keep in mind who these are geared for.. People that have graduated to running something like pfsense vs some linksys/netgear/asus $20-$200 all in one soho router more than likely understand that not really a good idea to run services other than network requirements, dhcp, dns, auth on your firewall/router device.

                  To be honest I sure and the hell wouldn't call those a power user level NAS..  The performance on them all pretty much suck, have very limited auth methods and or feature sets in general.  If that is the sort of sharing you want - pick up a pogoplug or raspberry pi and connect your usb disk/stick and there you go NAS for $25 price range.  Which is going to give you way more power than the sharing of a usb port on a soho router.  Shoot my $25 pogoplug I can connect a 2.5" sata disk if I want.

                  People that want a real nas or going to buy the appropriate hardware..  People that want nas on pfsense don't seem to understand the goal of psfsense if you ask me..  But since pfsense is opensource, if you want it - do it, if you don't have time pay someone to do it for you if you want it so bad..  Your points have all been gone over, and over and over multiple times before..

                  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 2.7.2, 24.11

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                  • P
                    pfSense4ME
                    last edited by Nov 21, 2015, 2:42 PM

                    @NopIt:

                    Just search for routers with usb ports. Every router that I owned that had USB allowed me to share usb storage and usb printers through it.

                    Just because it has a USB doesn't make it a NAS.  Plus you're limited to the speed of the USB port, vs. a true NAS limited to speed of the network.

                    @NopIt:

                    And about your second comment. Are you kidding me? I legitimately do not have the time to do it! Just like you don't have the time to build a car and your house. And you know what? That is completely normal and there is a simple solution: You pay someone who does it for you. And that is exactly what I meant, when I said "I don't have the time to do it […] So I would like to […] pay the developer to do it.". I NEVER said I would want it for free!

                    Yeah, I'm serious.  If you want it so bad, you'll make the time.  We're not talking about making a car or building a house.  You're talking about a router with NAS.  There are open source projects that accomplish this individually and with ALL the time that has gone by, surely someone would have combined the two.  As such I believe your expectations are unrealistic, if they weren't, it would have been done by now.  Sometime it's best to keep things apart (or just go VM).

                    @NopIt:

                    I NEVER said I would want it for free!

                    Never said you wanted to pay for it either!

                    @NopIt:

                    And sure let's say a vm uses less power than a complete additional computer; it definitely still consumes way more power and resources than running both in the same "environment". And thus you would need more expensive hardware. Seriously, read my whole last post again please!

                    And this is where you and I disagree.  It's my belief you will need more powerful CPU, memory, bigger power supply, redundancy etc. on this wonder box you speak of and that in and of itself defeats your premise.  Because overall costs are going up it's just better to go VM or get lesser separate units so overall efficiency vs. cost are held at minimums.

                    Look, I don't want aflame war.  You indicated you wanted a discussion, I'm discussing.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • D
                      Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                      last edited by Nov 21, 2015, 3:43 PM

                      @Derelict
                      I'm not exactly sure what you are implying. Sounds like you are on my side?

                      Not in the slightest. I think the "pfSense should do everything on one node" perspective is a mental disorder.

                      But anyway, if someone has access to my NAS he is in my LAN and thus a trusted person.

                      Or someone who shouldn't be there.

                      But I would encrypt the files on my NAS anyway, so there is that…

                      Usually mounted with the key when the NAS is running and doesn't do a damn bit of good when someone is in your network.

                      Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                      A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                      DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                      Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • johnpozJ
                        johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
                        last edited by Nov 21, 2015, 4:07 PM

                        @Derelict:

                        I think the "pfSense should do everything on one node" perspective is a mental disorder.

                        hehehe - oh that is fantastic…  Completely agree, prob in the same family of disorders as WRS (Windows Reinstall Syndrome)

                        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 2.7.2, 24.11

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                        • N
                          NopIt
                          last edited by Nov 21, 2015, 4:39 PM Nov 21, 2015, 4:25 PM

                          @johnpoz
                          I can only repeat myself, if you run a vm, you have to physically assign CPU cores and RAM to it, even if the vm doesn't utilize it at all times, meaning that you potentially lose multiple CPU cores and gigs of RAM on your host machine. That is significant! You lose a lot of potential computing power on both the host and the guest OS. And to compensate for that you would have to buy additional or more expensive parts.

                          I don't think starting a bounty would be smart before I have convinced some people that it is a good idea. So I will wait with that.

                          And I'm not looking for this standard consumer stuff. I actually want a really fast router/switch and a really fast NAS and want to save as much money and power as possible.

                          It is really not nice of you to say that "This horse has been beat to freaking death already". I brought up some really good points that haven't been discussed yet.

                          @pfSense4ME
                          Calm down already! What the hell is wrong with you?
                          NAS = Network attached storage
                          There is no such thing as "True NAS". You are just arguing because you want to argue. My point was that the implementation of NAS capability is ubiquitous in consumer grade stuff.
                          And just so you know: Affordable consumer grade NAS does not reach full gigabit speeds.

                          How is building your car and house any different from writing/merging such an OS?
                          Have you ever thought about that fact that it would take me years to even learn the programming languages and understand the projects? I have a full time job, a family and a whole lot of other things to do.
                          Your argument is basically "If you want something, do it yourself and don't pay others to do it.". This is insane, ridiculous and pathetic.

                          Never said you wanted to pay for it either!

                          Wow, are you THAT blind? Really? Sorry, but I'm not gonna quote myself again here.

                          And this is where you and I disagree.

                          And this is where I tell you, that you straight up don't know enough about all this.

                          Sorry pfSense4ME, don't take this personally, but I would really like to just end the discussion with You now. If you really insist on wasting more of our time, at least be more calm, please.

                          @Derelict
                          If someone is in my LAN that shouldn't be there he would have hacked me. So it's back to square one. (He took over my router, so he has access to my LAN and thus my NAS.)
                          Btw I'm encrypting my files in a way that they can only be decrypted and encrypted on a client PC that has the required keys.

                          And here is one more thing:
                          Not every CPU supports virtualization. Especially on levels that would allow direct access to the hdd etc.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • johnpozJ
                            johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
                            last edited by Nov 21, 2015, 4:59 PM Nov 21, 2015, 4:47 PM

                            you have to physically assign CPU cores and RAM to it, even if the vm doesn't utilize it at all times, meaning that you potentially lose multiple CPU cores and gigs of RAM on your host machine

                            Clearly you don't have a clue how VM hypervisors work…

                            "Not every CPU supports virtualization"

                            WTF does that have to do with anything??  Why would you buy a rig for your vm host that does not support virtualization techs.. And what your using a CPU from 10 years ago?  I would highly suggest you read up on current VM tech..  Esxi which FREE runs on pretty much any old PC, there also multiple other type 1 and type 2 hypervisors for FREE

                            Yeah as you can see my file server (nas vm) is just sucking up all kinds of resources on my esxi host...  122MB of the boxes 8GB, I don't know maybe my pfsense vm won't have enough left over to function correctly  ;)  Before you go saying VM is not a valid option you might want to actually understand how it works..

                            Here is the power consumption..  This is the ups my esxi host is on, it also has 1 of my POE access points connected to it, my raspberry pi, my pogoplug, esxi host monitor (currently off) and a laptop currently charging.  The esxi host draws about 50-55w on its own total.  And that is with 4 hdd in it... So go saying running a vm host has to suck a lot of juice either..

                            nascpumemusage.png
                            nascpumemusage.png_thumb
                            enagerusage.png
                            enagerusage.png_thumb

                            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 2.7.2, 24.11

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                            • JailerJ
                              Jailer
                              last edited by Nov 21, 2015, 4:48 PM

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • N
                                NopIt
                                last edited by Nov 21, 2015, 5:26 PM

                                Well, maybe I'm gonna use older hardware that I already have lying around? I don't know, maybe I won't have to buy anything.

                                I'd be interested in seeing how much power the vm will draw when 3 clients copy files from it at the same time with full gbit speeds each. And I'd also like to see how much CPU power that would require.

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • johnpozJ
                                  johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
                                  last edited by Nov 21, 2015, 6:45 PM

                                  why would the power draw go up???  Because the cpu works a bit more???  Not going to do anything significant..  I would have to put my killawatt meter on it if you want to see if it changed by a watt or so..

                                  Here I just moved 10GB..  You can see the cpu of the vm spike up a bit.. still not sucking up what its been given even..  Here is my power graph from yesterday…  Was watching quite a few videos in the evening.. Don't see any spike in the power draw..

                                  movement10gig.png
                                  movement10gig.png_thumb
                                  powerdraw.png
                                  powerdraw.png_thumb

                                  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 2.7.2, 24.11

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • D
                                    divsys
                                    last edited by Nov 21, 2015, 7:23 PM

                                    The other way to look at this "problem" is that it has been already solved by others.

                                    Look at other open source alternatives, DD-WRT, OpenWRT, etc.
                                    They have Samba built-in for those who desire to go down that path.

                                    pfSense has built itself on a different philosophy and IMHO has been very successful because of it.

                                    As mentioned, in this and many other threads on this site, the consensus of opinion is:

                                    The potential risks don't justify the possible rewards.

                                    As also said, (I paraphrase)  "The horse is dead Jim…."

                                    -jfp

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • N
                                      NopIt
                                      last edited by Nov 21, 2015, 7:59 PM

                                      @johnpoz
                                      I find it very hard to believe that there wouldn't be a significant difference in CPU usage and power consumption when transfering data to clients with a total of 3Gbit/s.
                                      After all 10GbE requires "i7 or Xeon CPUs", according to the forums.

                                      I mean I don't know what kind of a CPU would be required for 3Gbit/s, but let's stay at 10GbE for a second.
                                      Say I'd like to put a 10GbE card in that router. Now wouldn't both, the host machine and the vm need an "i7 or Xeon CPU"? (That's a serious question because I really don't know.)
                                      I mean I would guess that the data would have to be moved from the vm to the host and then from the host to the client. And that first transfer from the vm to the host would waste a lot of resources. (As I said correct me if I'm wrong.)

                                      But okay sure I won't need 10GbE. So let's say the router would need at least the power of an "i3 CPU" for my 3Gbit/s. According to my theory the NAS would need it roughly two times the power then. So an i3 wouldn't be enough anymore and i5s or i7s are significantly more expensive.

                                      @divsys
                                      Well, I was told by multiple people that pfsense is basically by far the "best" router OS.
                                      And about the potential risks, I already made my comments in the first post. 
                                      Besides the fact that there would be no changes in security for people not using the feature, I doubt that there is a realistic chance of something like this creating new vulnerabilities; unless you were to implement it very poorly.
                                      And as a consumer, with no valuable data, it wouldn't even really care if my data got into the hands of a random hacker.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • D
                                        divsys
                                        last edited by Nov 21, 2015, 9:33 PM Nov 21, 2015, 8:27 PM

                                        @johnpoz
                                        I find it very hard to believe that there wouldn't be a significant difference in CPU usage and power consumption when transfering data to clients with a total of 3Gbit/s.
                                        After all 10GbE requires "i7 or Xeon CPUs", according to the forums.

                                        I grabbed this piece of your answer because I believe it underlies a little bit of spec's "cherry-picking" to prove your case (it was probably unintentional on your part).

                                        When you/I/others 'see' a comment like "you need i7 for 10GbE" in a pfSense thread, remember what pfSense is about - routing packets (or more precisely "filtering" them the pf in pfSense).
                                        That implies that pfSense is going to examine,analyze,and direct ALL the traffic it sees on any of it's interfaces.  Everyone of those operations takes CPU horsepower the faster the packets the more horsepower you need, that's the way pfSense was designed.

                                        When you talk about a Samba/NAS/File share device, it's job is much simpler from a "packets" POV - respond to the packets that have already been cleared for it (by pfSense and others).
                                        There's all sorts of stuff it may do about rights/permissions/etc, but as far as CPU Power required to move data across a NIC, it's pretty minimal compared to what you're asking pfSense to do.  The actual transfer of data is a matter of making sure (broadly speaking) the NIC buffers don't get empty. That takes some more HP as speeds increase, but no where near as much as for examining every packet you see.

                                        The net result is that I'm not surprised at all by johnpoz's results, they match every VM setup I've worked with.  They also explain why VM installations are becoming the norm more than less so.  Most modern hardware has tons of excess capacity and VM makes it easy to leverage that into more capabilities.

                                        …Well, I was told by multiple people that pfsense is basically by far the "best" router OS.
                                        And about the potential risks, I already made my comments in the first post.

                                        I would argue that the very reason it's by far the "best" router OS (I do agree largely BTW) is that they recognized very early on that being the "best" doesn't mean being "everything"

                                        Sorry, it's still dead Jim  :)

                                        -jfp

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • P
                                          pfSense4ME
                                          last edited by Nov 21, 2015, 10:16 PM Nov 21, 2015, 9:30 PM

                                          @NopIt
                                          I'm at a loss at to your responses.  I don't want a flame war but I won't run away from one as well.

                                          The way I see it you want it both ways and will jump to either side when it's convenient for you.  You want a system that gives the ability to run multiple OS but want to save on equipment cost and power cost.  What modern day equipment offers a single core CPU or SCO?  None come to my mind.  Even today's current Raspberry Pi 2 has multiple cores.  You want a system that has decent response time AND while answering ALL the demands of a router and a NAS.  Yes I know what a NAS is as well as a SAN, DASD, etc. further, I dare say most commercial NAS systems don't reach true gigabit speeds.  So shut off that smoke and mirrors.

                                          You then jump to the fact you'll just use one of your older equipment.  Great!  Exactly how is that going to save $?  I mean let's talk about energy efficiency. Today's equipment is way better than something of 5-10 years ago.  Also, don't forget to get that 486 or single core Pentium fully stocked on RAM so it can do all that you ask of it with decent response times.  And, don't forget to code tightly for CPU optimization, you don't want ANY memory leaks that will shut down/crash the ENTIRE system!

                                          Prior to me bringing up the software for free you NEVER mentioned paying for it.  Show where you did prior to my mention.  Again, both ways.

                                          You make mention you have a family, work, and a life and you don't have time to learn, etc.  Oh please get over yourself.  How does that make you any different from someone else with their lives?  You think someone else does? Rhetorical questions.  If you want it you'll invest the BST (Blood, Sweat, Trauma) to coding what you desire and you can offer it for free or charge for your efforts.  But remember, as of this post date no one has done it, and if they did you wouldn't be asking for it!

                                          CMB, responded with VM is best so that all the services of each OS really doesn't work well when combined together, doktornotor is right this is a complete was of DB space, johnpoz gave great examples of why this horse has been beaten to death along with you really not knowing about VM and how his VM is doing all that it does with modest power usage (IMO). (BTW your cheap shot of "that you straight up don't know enough about all this." Opinions vary, but run on with your bad self to johnpoz - Good luck.), and Jailer great pic of advise.

                                          Bottom line - there are some REALLY REALY smart people here giving their true opinion(s) and the reasons why, but you just keep your head in the sand.

                                          Stay there, but for me I'm moving on to things that make more sense than your flip flopping, or ignoring solid advice.

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          1 out of 62
                                          • First post
                                            1/62
                                            Last post
                                          Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.