Proper File for Update 1.2.3 -> Snapshot Beta 2

  • I'd read the sticky Post but it answers not my Question: I'll update my ALIX based pfSense nanobsd installation to Beta 2. Which is the correct file … when i don't know which size the used 1.2.3 image has? Nothing on STATUS/SYSTEM tells me the installed image Size.

    On the Snapshot Servers are files like this:


    Which file should i use?

    The http://mypfsense.local/status.php shows me also this information:

    Filesystem        512-blocks  Used  Avail Capacity  Mounted on
    /dev/ufs/pfsense0    906655 166215 667908    20%    /
    devfs                      2      2      0  100%    /dev
    /dev/md0              78812      8  72500    0%    /var/tmp
    /dev/md1              118492  10468  98548    10%    /var
    /dev/ufs/cf          101055    251  92720    0%    /cf
    devfs                      2      2      0  100%    /var/dhcpd/dev

    Can i assume, that the red value is the size in bytes … which means i have a 1 Gig image ... and have to use the following:


  • Try running from
    Diagnostic –> Command Prompt:
    df -h

    This will return the same list as in status.php but in a readable form.

  • Thx GruenslFroeschli … now i got this output:

    $ df -h
    Filesystem          Size    Used  Avail Capacity  Mounted on
    /dev/ufs/pfsense0    443M    81M    326M    20%    /
    devfs                1.0K    1.0K      0B  100%    /dev
    /dev/md0              38M    4.0K    35M    0%    /var/tmp
    /dev/md1              58M    5.1M    48M    10%    /var
    /dev/ufs/cf          49M    126K    45M    0%    /cf
    devfs                1.0K    1.0K      0B  100%    /var/dhcpd/dev

    Looks like a 512MB image to me. I'll try to use the pfSense-2.0-BETA1-512mb-20100404-0948-nanobsd-upgrade.img.gz file.

    Does anybody know the reason, why there are different update files for different image sizes? For the first install it is clear to me cause of the initial write to the cf … but in case of an update? Would it not be easier to deploy only one update file (maybe one for pc and one for embedded) ... or is there a inherent necessity?

  • Embedded install creates two slices (slice is FreeBSD word for 'partition'), for holding installation files; one effectively acts as a backup. Hence you should probably use a 1GB image.

    The system startup output gives the size of a disk. You can use the shell command dmesg to isplay the startup output.

    Here's how my system reports a hard drive:

    ad0: 955MB <transcend 20071207="">at ata0-master UDMA33</transcend>

    If I was installing an embedded kit on this system I'd try the 1GB image.

    There are different image sizes to suit different sizes of flash disk. If I recall correctly, one of the pfSense developers aid in another post that it was too hard (or deemed not worth the effort) to make a "one size fits all" image.

  • oops … i'd thought i had understood, but you tell me different! Here's what DMESG tells me:

    ad0: 1923MB <cf card="" ver2.21="">at ata0-master PIO4</cf>

    I think i'd make a mistake now. I updated with a 512 MB image. It's not really worse, cause it's a test environment, and pfsense is running. Under these circumstances it would be the best if pfSense simply shows what imagesize it is installed …

    How does it normally works? If i installid with a 1GB image i have to use the 1GB update file. This sounds good for me. But if i dont know the image size ... what is the proper procedure to detect the installed image size to choose the accurate update file accordingly ...

  • I found the size of the image here in the GUI: Diagnostics -> NanoBSD

  • @EmL:

    oops … i'd thought i had understood, but you tell me different! Here's what DMESG tells me:

    ad0: 1923MB <cf card="" ver2.21="">at ata0-master PIO4</cf>

    Your CF card would probably be classified as a 2GB card, in which case you could install a 2GB image, or a 1GB image or a 512MB image, leaving increasing amounts of unused capacity.

Log in to reply