The pfSense Store

Poll

Which size NanoBSD embedded would you like to see us ship for 1.2.3?

1GB
53 (26.6%)
2GB
35 (17.6%)
4GB
111 (55.8%)

Total Members Voted: 199

Author Topic: Which size NanoBSD embedded would you like to see us ship for 1.2.3?  (Read 20388 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sullrich

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5110
    • View Profile
    • pfSense
NanoBSD basically breaks the size into 3 partitions.   So if you have a 1GB card you would end up with 2 - 450 megabyte partitions + the configuration storage area.

We plan on support packages in NanoBSD so choose your size well!

Oh, you cannot even find anything smaller than 4GB at most stores such as wal-mart, best-buy, etc now.

Offline jimp

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14932
    • View Profile
Re: Which size NanoBSD embedded would you like to see us ship for 1.2.3?
« Reply #1 on: June 29, 2009, 01:07:31 pm »
There is some more discussion on NanoBSD in this thread as well:
http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,16792.0.html

4GB cards are reasonably cheap ($15-25) and easy to get ahold of.

Now would also be a good time to ensure that your CF card has good wear leveling.
Need help fast? Commercial Support!

Co-Author of pfSense: The Definitive Guide. - Check the Doc Wiki for FAQs.

Do not PM for help!

Offline zcline

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Which size NanoBSD embedded would you like to see us ship for 1.2.3?
« Reply #2 on: June 29, 2009, 01:25:10 pm »
So does this mean my little 512MB card won't be supported anymore? 

Offline ktims

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 300
    • View Profile
Re: Which size NanoBSD embedded would you like to see us ship for 1.2.3?
« Reply #3 on: June 29, 2009, 01:26:51 pm »
I voted 1GB. For proper industrial flash, I find that 4GB cards are about 3x more expensive than 1GB cards, at around $100 a piece. That's a little too rich for me when the rest of the hardware I'm likely to use has a similar combined cost, this will make my average install about 30% more expensive. The difference between 512MB and 1GB cards is relatively small, but jumping to 2GB almost doubles the 1GB price.

Besides, I see little use for lots of extra storage other than installing a few packages which are probably a few MB each at most. Running a Squid cache or such off CF just doesn't make sense to me.

Offline sandman06

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Re: Which size NanoBSD embedded would you like to see us ship for 1.2.3?
« Reply #4 on: June 29, 2009, 01:27:29 pm »
make it as big as you like. i have a 16gb cf card.
 
but out of choice from there, i would have to go with 4gb. so there is a degree of flexibility of packages to be installed.

memory cards have become really cheap. 1gb and 2gb are not really worth it tbh

Offline Briantist

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • p-p-p-purple!
    • LinkedIn
    • View Profile
    • briantist.com
Re: Which size NanoBSD embedded would you like to see us ship for 1.2.3?
« Reply #5 on: June 29, 2009, 01:28:11 pm »
When you guys say CF card do you specifically mean Compact Flash, or are you referring to any kind of flash memory? I have thought about using the embedded version of pfSense but I dont have a lot of experience with it because having it embedded was never more important than package support for me, so I apologize if this question is ignorant.

Offline ktims

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 300
    • View Profile
Re: Which size NanoBSD embedded would you like to see us ship for 1.2.3?
« Reply #6 on: June 29, 2009, 01:31:38 pm »
When you guys say CF card do you specifically mean Compact Flash, or are you referring to any kind of flash memory? I have thought about using the embedded version of pfSense but I dont have a lot of experience with it because having it embedded was never more important than package support for me, so I apologize if this question is ignorant.
The question applies to any embedded install, regardless of what media you install it on. We're mentioning CF because it's almost always the media you use on embedded platforms like ALIX, WRAP, Soekris, repurposed security appliances etc. But it applies to anyone wanting to use the nanoBSD embedded images.

Offline Briantist

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • p-p-p-purple!
    • LinkedIn
    • View Profile
    • briantist.com
Re: Which size NanoBSD embedded would you like to see us ship for 1.2.3?
« Reply #7 on: June 29, 2009, 01:34:13 pm »
Got it, thanks. I just wasn't sure if there was anything specific to CF that was important. After reading your previous post, I am also curious about what you mean by industrial CF. The price tag seems way up there, so I assume it must be very robust, reliable, etc.

Offline jimp

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14932
    • View Profile
Re: Which size NanoBSD embedded would you like to see us ship for 1.2.3?
« Reply #8 on: June 29, 2009, 01:34:48 pm »
I voted 1GB. For proper industrial flash, I find that 4GB cards are about 3x more expensive than 1GB cards, at around $100 a piece. That's a little too rich for me when the rest of the hardware I'm likely to use has a similar combined cost, this will make my average install about 30% more expensive. The difference between 512MB and 1GB cards is relatively small, but jumping to 2GB almost doubles the 1GB price.

Besides, I see little use for lots of extra storage other than installing a few packages which are probably a few MB each at most. Running a Squid cache or such off CF just doesn't make sense to me.

Since there won't be enough data on the drive to fill up 4GB or even 2GB (or 1GB...) Someone could probably alter the current embedded image resizing script to make whichever custom-size image you want. Of course the upgrade slices would also need to be resized, but if you're running industrial hardware you probably aren't upgrading them on a whim anyhow. :)
Need help fast? Commercial Support!

Co-Author of pfSense: The Definitive Guide. - Check the Doc Wiki for FAQs.

Do not PM for help!

Offline cmb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6295
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • View Profile
    • Chris Buechler
Re: Which size NanoBSD embedded would you like to see us ship for 1.2.3?
« Reply #9 on: June 29, 2009, 02:05:40 pm »
We're going to have to put out multiple sized images.  512 MB will be the minimum, and we'll need options for 1, 2, 4, and 8 GB. Embedded can't be one size fits all, especially with package support.

Offline sullrich

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5110
    • View Profile
    • pfSense
Re: Which size NanoBSD embedded would you like to see us ship for 1.2.3?
« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2009, 05:00:18 pm »
Kinda surprised to see 4GB winning so far

Offline Björn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Which size NanoBSD embedded would you like to see us ship for 1.2.3?
« Reply #11 on: June 29, 2009, 05:09:32 pm »
Still, it would be nice to have a 512MB version.

Offline sullrich

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5110
    • View Profile
    • pfSense
Re: Which size NanoBSD embedded would you like to see us ship for 1.2.3?
« Reply #12 on: June 29, 2009, 05:11:17 pm »
With 1 gig cards being so cheap these days...   Remember nanobsd takes the space and divides it into 2 partitions (3 if you count the config partition).  So you end up with 2 240 meg program areas.  Almost not even enough to accept the upgrade file and leave ample wiggle room.

EDIT: updated the correct space of each partition
« Last Edit: June 29, 2009, 05:22:01 pm by sullrich »

Offline danderemer

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Which size NanoBSD embedded would you like to see us ship for 1.2.3?
« Reply #13 on: June 29, 2009, 09:12:43 pm »
Would it be possible for some kind of installation mechanism that takes into account the type and capacity of media you are trying to use and partition accordingly?

Offline sullrich

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5110
    • View Profile
    • pfSense
Re: Which size NanoBSD embedded would you like to see us ship for 1.2.3?
« Reply #14 on: June 29, 2009, 09:21:56 pm »
Would it be possible for some kind of installation mechanism that takes into account the type and capacity of media you are trying to use and partition accordingly?

We have considered it but unlikely for the first version.  It's a lot of work and adds a lot of room for error on 1.2.3.