ZFS and the upcomming 2.6
-
@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 24.03 | Lab VMs 2.7.2, 24.03 -
@johnpoz
Are you the first to take a ZFS Snapshot on 2.6.0 , and test "Rollback"
https://forum.netgate.com/topic/165335/fun-with-zfs-snapshots-and-rollback?_=1644864380266
-
@johnpoz Pendrive is ready.. :)
Now its going to be a painful wait..$ sudo dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdc bs=1M count=1 1+0 registros de entrada 1+0 registros de saída 1048576 bytes (1,0 MB, 1,0 MiB) copiados, 0,026902 s, 39,0 MB/s $ sudo dd if=pfSense-plus-Netgate-3100-recovery-22.01-RELEASE-armv7.img of=/dev/sdc bs=4M 332+1 registros de entrada 332+1 registros de saída 1392517632 bytes (1,4 GB, 1,3 GiB) copiados, 56,4994 s, 24,6 MB/s@johnpoz said in ZFS and the upcomming 2.6:
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..
Yes, previous releases were maximum of 30 minutes to get a response.. But this is a good sign, it means that they are getting more Plus customers, which is always good.
Also, around 4 hours for a response from the TAC is perfectly fine -
Upgraded from 2.5.2 to 2.6. Was already running ZFS with the "old" layout and did not do a fresh install to get the new layout. Everything working fine - I just mention in case anyone plans to do the same. I'd like to update ZFS at some point, but that will wait for another day.....
-
Installed from scratch, SG-3100 running perfectly with this release.
Packages tested so far, NUT, pfblockerng, wireguard, acme. -
-
@mcury yeah not sure - could be placebo.. But does seem a bit snappier on the interface..
-
@johnpoz said in ZFS and the upcomming 2.6:
@mcury yeah not sure - could be placebo.. But does seem a bit snappier on the interface..
The internet seems faster, I have asked a few users here to confirm what they think, and they all told me that things are opening faster.. So, this placebo virus got us all I guess hehe
-
@mcury well I have never had any issues with pegging my download/upload from isp.. I just tested and all still there like normal.
Never really had any issues with dns, etc. The overall internet seems same, but the pfsense webgui could be maybe a bit snappier.. Not anything significant where I could quantify it..
As long as they are not complaining it slower ;) We would normally never tell users when we were making anything that should make anything faster - because as soon as you mention anything about changing anything.. Something is slower or not working because of it ;)
I could say I changed the black toner in the printer, and they would say that broke the freaking internet ;)
