Re: [pfSense Support] pfSense 2.0 RC1 Nanobsd Problem
Op 6-3-2011 23:26, Bao Ha schreef: Hi Bart, Thanks for the note. According to the forum, it should not be a problem. :-( It is not. When we first got the reports of corrupted CFs, we just overnighted new ones. Then, those died shortly, within a week or two. We replaced a complete system: systemboard, memory and CF. Why are you shipping cheap CF cards without wear levelling? I have run a full install on a Lexar 1GB CF for over 4 years before the CF card died. I've also run into the CF without wear levelling issue. Get a proper CF card. Regards, Seth - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
Re: [pfSense Support] pfSense 2.0 RC1 Nanobsd Problem
Hi Seth, On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Seth Mos seth@dds.nl wrote: Op 6-3-2011 23:26, Bao Ha schreef: Hi Bart, Thanks for the note. According to the forum, it should not be a problem. :-( It is not. I have had three systems with corrupted flash memory: two with the Kingston 4GB Elite Pro, one with a 4GB flash drive. When we first got the reports of corrupted CFs, we just overnighted new ones. Then, those died shortly, within a week or two. We replaced a complete system: systemboard, memory and CF. Why are you shipping cheap CF cards without wear levelling? We used to offer a choice of CF or DOM.The DOM has industrial-strength wear-leveling. It was also better since in the early days, our systemboards choked on DMA with faster CF cards. Nobody wants DOM! I did not rule out that Kingston's quality may have dropped significantly. If that is the case, I'll switch to a different brand name. I have run a full install on a Lexar 1GB CF for over 4 years before the CF card died. I've also run into the CF without wear levelling issue. Get a proper CF card. We have been shipping more than a thousand systems with Kingston CF since 2006 with no corrupted flash memory. What ever killed the two Kingston Elite pro 4GB CFs within two weeks will also kill a DOM or industrial CF, maybe not in weeks or months, but probably within a year. Bao Regards, Seth - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org -- Best Regards. Bao C. Ha Hacom - Embedded Systems and Appliances http://www.hacom.net voice: (714) 564-9932
Re: [pfSense Support] pfSense 2.0 RC1 Nanobsd Problem
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Bao Ha b...@hacom.net wrote: Something happened in BETA5 and it was carried into RC1, up to today snapshot: 20110306-0859. I see this in my embedded BETA5 install at home (I should upgrade soon to RC1 I suppose...) I see no significant amount of writing to it. There are no extra packages installed and all it does is basic NAT + firewall + IPsec VPN. It is a fairly generic CF card too. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
RE: [pfSense Support] pfSense 2.0 RC1 Nanobsd Problem
Someone already made a bugreport http://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/1279 http://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/1279 ;) _ Van: Bao Ha [mailto:b...@hacom.net] Verzonden: zondag 6 maart 2011 23:06 Aan: customersupp...@pfsense.org CC: support@pfsense.com Onderwerp: [pfSense Support] pfSense 2.0 RC1 Nanobsd Problem Something happened in BETA5 and it was carried into RC1, up to today snapshot: 20110306-0859. The file system in nanobsd version is now mounted fully RW, see the following mount command: ... [2.0-RC1][admin@pfHacom.localdomain]/root(1): mount /dev/ufs/pfsense0 on / (ufs, local) devfs on /dev (devfs, local) /dev/md0 on /tmp (ufs, local) /dev/md1 on /var (ufs, local) /dev/ufs/cf on /cf (ufs, local) devfs on /var/dhcpd/dev (devfs, local) ... I believe they are supposed to be mounted read-only or at least RW with NOATIME. We have had at least two systems running pfSense 2.0 BETA5 and RC1 RMAed back with suspected hardware problems, causing corruption of compact flash memory. We think the root cause of this problem is due to the filesystems mounted fully RW in the compact flash. We plan to distribute the following temporary fix to our custmers who want to run pfSense 2.0: ... [2.0-RC1][admin@pfHacom.localdomain]/root(1): cat /usr/local/etc/rc.d/hacom.sh #!/bin/sh # hacom.sh - BCH 3/6/2011 # Temprorary fix to mount the filesystem Read-Only to avoid destroying flash memory PLATFORM=`/bin/cat /etc/platform` if [ $PLATFORM = nanobsd ]; then /sbin/mount -u -oro /; /sbin/mount -u -onoatime /cf fi ... Appreciate if someone look into this problem. I have also CCed this message to support@pfsense.com to notify others currently using pfSense 2.0 RC1 nanobsd version of the danger to flash memory. Thanks. Bao -- Best Regards. Bao C. Ha Hacom - Embedded Systems and Appliances http://www.hacom.net voice: (714) 564-9932
Re: [pfSense Support] pfSense 2.0 RC1 Nanobsd Problem
Hi Bart, Thanks for the note. According to the forum, it should not be a problem. :-( Unfortunately, mounting RW without NOATIME will pounce on the compact flash everytime a READ is made. It will kill the CF sooner or later. When we first got the reports of corrupted CFs, we just overnighted new ones. Then, those died shortly, within a week or two. We replaced a complete system: systemboard, memory and CF. I am loosing my hair and sleeps, thinking one of our most reliable systems being shipped since 2006 is having compatibility issues with pfSense 2.0. I am hoping that this is the real cause. And I can stop a flood of support issues. Bao On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Bart Grefte b...@ravenslair.nl wrote: Someone already made a bugreport http://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/1279 ;) -- *Van:* Bao Ha [mailto:b...@hacom.net] *Verzonden:* zondag 6 maart 2011 23:06 *Aan:* customersupp...@pfsense.org *CC:* support@pfsense.com *Onderwerp:* [pfSense Support] pfSense 2.0 RC1 Nanobsd Problem Something happened in BETA5 and it was carried into RC1, up to today snapshot: 20110306-0859. The file system in nanobsd version is now mounted fully RW, see the following mount command: ... [2.0-RC1][admin@pfHacom.localdomain]/root(1): mount /dev/ufs/pfsense0 on / (ufs, local) devfs on /dev (devfs, local) /dev/md0 on /tmp (ufs, local) /dev/md1 on /var (ufs, local) /dev/ufs/cf on /cf (ufs, local) devfs on /var/dhcpd/dev (devfs, local) ... I believe they are supposed to be mounted read-only or at least RW with NOATIME. We have had at least two systems running pfSense 2.0 BETA5 and RC1 RMAed back with suspected hardware problems, causing corruption of compact flash memory. We think the root cause of this problem is due to the filesystems mounted fully RW in the compact flash. We plan to distribute the following temporary fix to our custmers who want to run pfSense 2.0: ... [2.0-RC1][admin@pfHacom.localdomain]/root(1): cat /usr/local/etc/rc.d/hacom.sh #!/bin/sh # hacom.sh - BCH 3/6/2011 # Temprorary fix to mount the filesystem Read-Only to avoid destroying flash memory PLATFORM=`/bin/cat /etc/platform` if [ $PLATFORM = nanobsd ]; then /sbin/mount -u -oro /; /sbin/mount -u -onoatime /cf fi ... Appreciate if someone look into this problem. I have also CCed this message to support@pfsense.com to notify others currently using pfSense 2.0 RC1 nanobsd version of the danger to flash memory. Thanks. Bao -- Best Regards. Bao C. Ha Hacom - Embedded Systems and Appliances http://www.hacom.net voice: (714) 564-9932 -- Best Regards. Bao C. Ha Hacom - Embedded Systems and Appliances http://www.hacom.net voice: (714) 564-9932
RE: [pfSense Support] pfSense 2.0 RC1 Nanobsd Problem
Hi Bao, You're welcome :) I've read that, but not sure if that is actually true in all cases. Wow, that is fast! I doubt pfSense writes so much in that time the CF-cards start dieing, although I might be wrong. Could be the (lack of?) quality of the CF-cards combined with that problem that is causing them to fail so fast. (This is just me thinking out loud.) Out of curiosity, why ship systems with an OS that is still beta? Well, RC1 now, but still Not sure if this will help, but maybe adding /etc/rc.conf_mount_ro to a script that runs during boot-up will do some good. It's the command to mount read-only. I still have to add that one and /etc/rc.conf_mount_rw to the script that makes an IPv6 tunnel on my pfSense v1.2.3 system, since the script needs to write something during the boot of pfSense when the script is started but can't do that because of RO filesystem Hope this problem will be solved soon! With regards, Bart _ Van: Bao Ha [mailto:b...@hacom.net] Verzonden: zondag 6 maart 2011 23:26 Aan: support@pfsense.com Onderwerp: Re: [pfSense Support] pfSense 2.0 RC1 Nanobsd Problem Hi Bart, Thanks for the note. According to the forum, it should not be a problem. :-( Unfortunately, mounting RW without NOATIME will pounce on the compact flash everytime a READ is made. It will kill the CF sooner or later. When we first got the reports of corrupted CFs, we just overnighted new ones. Then, those died shortly, within a week or two. We replaced a complete system: systemboard, memory and CF. I am loosing my hair and sleeps, thinking one of our most reliable systems being shipped since 2006 is having compatibility issues with pfSense 2.0. I am hoping that this is the real cause. And I can stop a flood of support issues. Bao On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Bart Grefte b...@ravenslair.nl wrote: Someone already made a bugreport http://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/1279 http://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/1279 ;) _ Van: Bao Ha [mailto:b...@hacom.net] Verzonden: zondag 6 maart 2011 23:06 Aan: customersupp...@pfsense.org CC: support@pfsense.com Onderwerp: [pfSense Support] pfSense 2.0 RC1 Nanobsd Problem Something happened in BETA5 and it was carried into RC1, up to today snapshot: 20110306-0859. The file system in nanobsd version is now mounted fully RW, see the following mount command: ... [2.0-RC1][admin@pfHacom.localdomain]/root(1): mount /dev/ufs/pfsense0 on / (ufs, local) devfs on /dev (devfs, local) /dev/md0 on /tmp (ufs, local) /dev/md1 on /var (ufs, local) /dev/ufs/cf on /cf (ufs, local) devfs on /var/dhcpd/dev (devfs, local) ... I believe they are supposed to be mounted read-only or at least RW with NOATIME. We have had at least two systems running pfSense 2.0 BETA5 and RC1 RMAed back with suspected hardware problems, causing corruption of compact flash memory. We think the root cause of this problem is due to the filesystems mounted fully RW in the compact flash. We plan to distribute the following temporary fix to our custmers who want to run pfSense 2.0: ... [2.0-RC1][admin@pfHacom.localdomain]/root(1): cat /usr/local/etc/rc.d/hacom.sh #!/bin/sh # hacom.sh - BCH 3/6/2011 # Temprorary fix to mount the filesystem Read-Only to avoid destroying flash memory PLATFORM=`/bin/cat /etc/platform` if [ $PLATFORM = nanobsd ]; then /sbin/mount -u -oro /; /sbin/mount -u -onoatime /cf fi ... Appreciate if someone look into this problem. I have also CCed this message to support@pfsense.com to notify others currently using pfSense 2.0 RC1 nanobsd version of the danger to flash memory. Thanks. Bao -- Best Regards. Bao C. Ha Hacom - Embedded Systems and Appliances http://www.hacom.net voice: (714) 564-9932 -- Best Regards. Bao C. Ha Hacom - Embedded Systems and Appliances http://www.hacom.net voice: (714) 564-9932
Re: [pfSense Support] pfSense 2.0 RC1 Nanobsd Problem
On Sun, March 6, 2011 19:26, Bao Ha wrote: Hi Bart, Thanks for the note. According to the forum, it should not be a problem. :-( Unfortunately, mounting RW without NOATIME will pounce on the compact flash everytime a READ is made. It will kill the CF sooner or later. When we first got the reports of corrupted CFs, we just overnighted new ones. Then, those died shortly, within a week or two. We replaced a complete system: systemboard, memory and CF. I am loosing my hair and sleeps, thinking one of our most reliable systems being shipped since 2006 is having compatibility issues with pfSense 2.0. I am hoping that this is the real cause. And I can stop a flood of support issues. I see this in a 4g nano image, but is no problem as I use microdrive. so, in case when this be corrected, how can I make it this way ? is the nano image the best for a microdrive soekris ? I want the full pc install just using serial instead of vga. thanks, matheus -- We will call you cygnus, The God of balance you shall be A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
