Verbatim "Tough-'n'-Tiny" flash drives. 2 GB and 4 GB. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA0SF0BP6305 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA0SF0BP6306
Most of the ones we have in production are under 1 year old, but we had a lot of SSDs fail before the 1-year mark. I didn't really pay attention to the speed, but I write an image to the 2 GB drive in about 8 minutes. (Not a scientific number!) -A On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Odhiambo Washington <odhia...@gmail.com>wrote: > @Aaron, > > Which brand of USB sticks are these you use? I've tried working with > Transcend and found the performance awful. I'll appreciate your > recommendation on USB sticks. > > > On 8 June 2013 21:17, Aaron C. de Bruyn <aa...@heyaaron.com> wrote: > >> Just a note of personal experience. I've deployed ~20 pfSense firewalls >> that had SSDs (both cheap and rated 'good' from Newegg) over the past 2 >> years. I am not convinced SSDs are more reliable. Nearly every one has >> had an SSD die or become corrupt. We switched them all to USB sticks and >> haven't had any more issues. Plus it's easier for us to ship a replacement >> USB stick to the client and have them plug it in than to have them pop open >> the case and replace the drive. >> >> Maybe we've just had bad luck with SSDs, but I'm not convinced they are >> ready. >> >> -A >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Eugen Leitl <eu...@leitl.org> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 12:40:34AM +0100, Chris Bagnall wrote: >>> >>> > Which brings me to the question: the last time I performed a pfSense >>> > 'full' install (i.e. not embedded) was several years, and many >>> > versions ago. What's the best practice when using an SSD? Use the >>> > CD-based installer to do a 'full' install, or continue to use the >>> > embedded NanoBSD image? >>> >>> Modern SSDs are at least as reliable as HDs. I've used SSDs >>> with pfSense for years (including IDE DoMs) with full install >>> and never had a failure yet. >>> >>> > As an aside, there are several options on the "Advanced" tab >>> > relating to NIC performance options: >>> > - Disable hardware checksum offload >>> > - Disable hardware TCP segmentation offload >>> > - Disable hardware large receive offload >>> > Has anyone done any tests / is there a list maintained anywhere with >>> >>> > details of which NICs are "problematic" with these, and hence should >>> > be disabled? The motherboard I'm using is a mix of Intel and Realtek >>> > gigabit NICs (em and re respectively). >>> >>> I've used Supermicro Atoms with 2 Intel NICs onboard and >>> with a dual-port Intel NIC added. I would be also interested in >>> suggested list of settings for Intel NICs. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> List mailing list >>> List@lists.pfsense.org >>> http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> List mailing list >> List@lists.pfsense.org >> http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list >> >> > > > -- > Best regards, > Odhiambo WASHINGTON, > Nairobi,KE > +254733744121/+254722743223 > "I can't hear you -- I'm using the scrambler." > > _______________________________________________ > List mailing list > List@lists.pfsense.org > http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > >
_______________________________________________ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
