Re: [pfSense] Alix Update 2.0.3 to 2.1 fails with 11 interfaces (/var full)
Hi again, >> So, if I have an ALIX that I would like to upgrade, how much would >> I have to increase /tmp and /var by to have the upgrade run to >> completion without filling the partitions? > How many Interfaces do you have. With 5 it is no problem with 11 it > is. Can't tell you where the exact separation is. The problem also > occurs when the RRD data is delete before the upgrade, so the empty > rrd files are to big, when 11 interfaces are used. I will try to > figure out where the limit is. I checked it tonight. The limit is 4 additional opt interfaces (6 all together). With more the /var on a normal NanoBSD installation will get full. Could someone confirm this and update the website? Thanks CU Jens ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Alix Update 2.0.3 to 2.1 fails with 11 interfaces (/var full)
Am 12.10.13 00:35, schrieb Walter Parker: Hi, > So, if I have an ALIX that I would like to upgrade, how much would I > have to increase /tmp and /var by to have the upgrade run to completion > without filling the partitions? How many Interfaces do you have. With 5 it is no problem with 11 it is. Can't tell you where the exact speperation is. The problem also occurs when the RRD data is delete before the upgrade, so the empty rrd files are to big, when 11 interfaces are used. I will try to figure out where the limit is. CU Jens ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Alix Update 2.0.3 to 2.1 fails with 11 interfaces (/var full)
Hi, >> On 2.1 you can adjust the /var and /tmp sizes under System > >> Advanced on the Miscellaneous tab. > Right! I had forgot about that. and would not help because it is needed to be done before (or during) the upgrade. > So following the original topic, could one more probably ensure a > successful upgrade to 2.1 by increasing the size of /var by some amount? > I have a nanoBSD system with 4G of RAM sitting at 10% usage. If I > dedicated 3G of that to /var and upgraded, will the RRD bug in question > still kill my upgrade? I kust did that. I increated it to 2*100MB and now it is enough for my upgrade on my virtual machine. I will do the real upgrade tomorrow, with deletion of the rrd Data before the update and a restore of the rrd-data after the upgrade with the already converted rrd backup. > On a related note, does this bug affect upgrades from older 2.1 betas > and RCs? This system happens to be running 2.1RC0 and I'd very much like > to upgrade it to 2.1 without going on site if I can avoid it. I have a identically setup with ony 4 networks and that works without problem. Only embedded setups with a large number of interface statistics has this kind of problem. CU Jens ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Alix Update 2.0.3 to 2.1 fails with 11 interfaces (/var full)
So, if I have an ALIX that I would like to upgrade, how much would I have to increase /tmp and /var by to have the upgrade run to completion without filling the partitions? Walter On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Jim Pingle wrote: > On 10/11/2013 4:58 PM, Jens Kühnel wrote: > > I'm not a FreeBSD expert, but /dev/md's are MemDiscs right? > > Is there a reason why only 60MB (/var) and 40MB(/tmp/) are used? > > and are where are possibilities to change that? It's not in the fstab! > > They are that small because ALIX is the usual NanoBSD target and it only > has 256MB of RAM so it's a safe low default. NanoBSD wasn't originally > intended to run on device with gobs of RAM, but times are a-changin' and > before long all of the viable new hardware will have >1GB of RAM. > > On 2.1 you can adjust the /var and /tmp sizes under System > Advanced on > the Miscellaneous tab. > > It might be possible to auto-scale the sizes with a bit of extra logic > in rc.embedded if someone wants to take a crack at it. > > Jim > ___ > List mailing list > List@lists.pfsense.org > http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > -- The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Alix Update 2.0.3 to 2.1 fails with 11 interfaces (/var full)
On 13-10-11 04:25 PM, Jim Pingle wrote:
They are that small because ALIX is the usual NanoBSD target and it only
has 256MB of RAM so it's a safe low default. NanoBSD wasn't originally
intended to run on device with gobs of RAM, but times are a-changin' and
before long all of the viable new hardware will have >1GB of RAM.
On 2.1 you can adjust the /var and /tmp sizes under System > Advanced on
the Miscellaneous tab.
It might be possible to auto-scale the sizes with a bit of extra logic
in rc.embedded if someone wants to take a crack at it.
Challenge accepted.
I have no idea how to clone the repo and do a pull request, so I'm just
attaching a simple diff instead.
I believe sysctl is available at this point in the boot process. If
not, then the solution will be quite a bit more difficult...
I'm not sure what the point would be in continuing if sysctl *failed*,
but what the heck, I just assume a 256MB machine.
Obviously a lot more special-casing could be done to ensure lower- and
upper-bound cases function correctly; I only handled one simplistic case.
The invocation to get $physmem ensures we don't needlessly fork()/exec()
on an embedded platform.
--
-Adam Thompson
athom...@athompso.net
--- rc.embedded.orig 2013-10-11 16:35:10.691385354 -0500
+++ rc.embedded 2013-10-11 17:26:55.779500598 -0500
@@ -8,7 +8,12 @@
if [ ! -z ${USE_MFS_TMP_SIZE} ] && [ ${USE_MFS_TMP_SIZE} -gt 0 ]; then
tmpsize="${USE_MFS_TMP_SIZE}m"
else
- tmpsize="40m"
+ physmem=${physmem:-$(/sbin/sysctl -n hw.physmem)}
+ # in case we can't execute /sbin/sysctl, assume 256MB machine
+ physmem=${physmem:-282563637}
+ tmpsize=$((physmem*15/104857600))
+ if [ $tmpsize -le 40 ]; then varsize=40; fi
+ tmpsize="${tmpsize}m"
fi
# Size of /var
@@ -16,7 +21,11 @@
if [ ! -z ${USE_MFS_VAR_SIZE} ] && [ ${USE_MFS_VAR_SIZE} -gt 0 ]; then
varsize="${USE_MFS_VAR_SIZE}m"
else
- varsize="60m"
+ physmem=${physmem:-$(/sbin/sysctl -n hw.physmem)}
+ physmem=${physmem:-282563637}
+ varsize=$((physmem*25/104857600))
+ if [ $varsize -lt 60 ]; then varsize=60; fi
+ varsize="${varsize}m"
fi
# Run some initialization routines
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Alix Update 2.0.3 to 2.1 fails with 11 interfaces (/var full)
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Jim Pingle wrote: > On 2.1 you can adjust the /var and /tmp sizes under System > Advanced on > the Miscellaneous tab. > Right! I had forgot about that. So following the original topic, could one more probably ensure a successful upgrade to 2.1 by increasing the size of /var by some amount? I have a nanoBSD system with 4G of RAM sitting at 10% usage. If I dedicated 3G of that to /var and upgraded, will the RRD bug in question still kill my upgrade? On a related note, does this bug affect upgrades from older 2.1 betas and RCs? This system happens to be running 2.1RC0 and I'd very much like to upgrade it to 2.1 without going on site if I can avoid it. db ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Alix Update 2.0.3 to 2.1 fails with 11 interfaces (/var full)
On 10/11/2013 4:58 PM, Jens Kühnel wrote: > I'm not a FreeBSD expert, but /dev/md's are MemDiscs right? > Is there a reason why only 60MB (/var) and 40MB(/tmp/) are used? > and are where are possibilities to change that? It's not in the fstab! They are that small because ALIX is the usual NanoBSD target and it only has 256MB of RAM so it's a safe low default. NanoBSD wasn't originally intended to run on device with gobs of RAM, but times are a-changin' and before long all of the viable new hardware will have >1GB of RAM. On 2.1 you can adjust the /var and /tmp sizes under System > Advanced on the Miscellaneous tab. It might be possible to auto-scale the sizes with a bit of extra logic in rc.embedded if someone wants to take a crack at it. Jim ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Alix Update 2.0.3 to 2.1 fails with 11 interfaces (/var full)
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Jens Kühnel wrote: > > and are where are possibilities to change that? It's not in the fstab! > /etc/rc.embedded ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Alix Update 2.0.3 to 2.1 fails with 11 interfaces (/var full)
Hi, I just tried it on an VMware based NanoBSD Version and it allways happens and it is not Memory based, because the VM has 1GB. I'm not a FreeBSD expert, but /dev/md's are MemDiscs right? Is there a reason why only 60MB (/var) and 40MB(/tmp/) are used? and are where are possibilities to change that? It's not in the fstab! I will next try to install a normal (non-NanoBSD) version and do a update there. I hope that will help. CU Jens ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Alix Update 2.0.3 to 2.1 fails with 11 interfaces (/var full)
On Oct 9, 2013 7:05 PM, "Jens Kühnel" wrote: > "NanoBSD", "update 2.1" and "embedded", but could not find anything. > I also checked the forum, but I could only find file system full when I too came up dry when researching this issue. I ended up grabbing a spare system and restoring my running config to it. This was after upgrading the spare from 2.0 to 2.1, and yes, it needed some repairs after the upgrade. db ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Alix Update 2.0.3 to 2.1 fails with 11 interfaces (/var full)
Hi, thanks for the fast help. Am 10.10.13 01:57, schrieb Walter Parker: > There is an issue with doing NanoBSD (the embedded image) upgrades from > 2.0.X to 2.1 that can cause /var to fill up. The fallout effect of this > causes the interfaces to not come up. If you search the mailing list > archives you will see that it has hit other people and that workarounds > are required to upgrade and save the RRD data. I have a local archive, but I can't find it. I searched for "/var", "NanoBSD", "update 2.1" and "embedded", but could not find anything. I also checked the forum, but I could only find file system full when packages are installed. The forum entry I found is this: http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,66588.msg364085.html#msg364085 but no sollution. Could you give me an hint where and what to search for? Or could you tell me what is needed to fix this? That would be great! CU Jens ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Alix Update 2.0.3 to 2.1 fails with 11 interfaces (/var full)
There is an issue with doing NanoBSD (the embedded image) upgrades from 2.0.X to 2.1 that can cause /var to fill up. The fallout effect of this causes the interfaces to not come up. If you search the mailing list archives you will see that it has hit other people and that workarounds are required to upgrade and save the RRD data. Walter On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Jens Kühnel wrote: > Hi, > > My questions: > > Has anyone successfully updated a PFSense on an Alix board with 10 or > more interfaces (2 phy, 8 VLANs, 1 WAN). > Or is running a PFSense 2.1 setup like this successfully? > > Reason: > > I just upgrade my home firewall from PFSense 2.0.3 to 2.1 (Nano 2G > Serial) running on a Alix board. Or tried to do it. > > The reboot after the update failed. I connected to the serial and > initiated another reboot only to see that during boot a message says > something like "/var is full". Another reboot later the rrd is > automatically cleaned up and the message disappeared, but the content of > the RRD files is gone as well. Because it is late (1 AM) I booted the > other slide (with 2.0.3) and restored the config backup from before the > update. Everything works fine now again. > > My next try: > I will create a virtual machine, restore my 2.0.3 config, update this > virtual machine from 2.0.3 to 2.1 and restore it into the updated 2.1 > version running on my Alix board. I hope the extended disc space is only > needed during upgrade. Or does anybody has a better idea? > > Thanks for any help. > > CU > Jens > ___ > List mailing list > List@lists.pfsense.org > http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > -- The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
