9.10 is now in Nightlies testing

[Rand]

Sorry for the OT - but ideally that would move away from single thread SSH in the first place to something multithreaded :)

 

[The Sim]

really stoked about this news!! thanks for the updates..

 

[aloisio mello]

Hi Guys,

I'm playing around with FreeNAS-9.10-MASTER-201603111830.

When tried to download from the link on the 1st post from jkh, was directed to a broken link. Had to go through the folders manually to download the iso (not a big).

Installed using my oracle VM on my CentOS 7 and the installation was fast and without incidents. Will play around to see if I can break it ;)

One thing though ... it has been some time I used the wizard, so can't remember exactly, but I think in the past it used to create a dataset under my raid and the user's dataset for the CIF under it. If I'm not mistaken it was raid/<raid name>/cifs/<user's cif>. This time is created raid/<raid name>/<user's cif>.

Sorry if I'm getting old and it has always been like that ;)

Regards,
Al

 

[nightshade00013]

The original post ISO has likely been superseded with a new version since they are pushed out on average at least once a day. For any future reference for others who are wondering just use http://download.freenas.org/9.10/MASTER/ and then select the latest version.

As far as CIFS location I don't think it will really matter all that much unless you have overlapping shares with NFS or you share the root of the drive along with all the jails. Mine has always been /mnt/{pool}/{dataset} and my jails are /mnt/{pool}/jails

One thing I that has been rather noticeable since I started using it a bit is that a slightly substandard system that worked fine before (test system not production) with 9.3.1 struggles with 9.10 I have to wonder if the change to FreeBSD 10 code will end up requiring a change in minimum requirements on both the 9 branch and the 10 branch compared to FreeBSD 9 code. On the 9.3.1 branch the same system was even able to run plex without a ton of trouble and now it seems to barely be able to run the UI. Most systems that are up to standards won't see much of an issue but anyone looking to upgrade with a system less than 8GB of ram that worked fine with 9.3.1 will probably not want to take the leap to 9.10, on top of that someone who has the bare minimum specs with a jail or two may want to hold off as well or at least have some good backups in place in case of issues and be prepared to roll back or do some upgrading.

 

[INCSlayer]

The original post ISO has likely been superseded with a new version since they are pushed out on average at least once a day. For any future reference for others who are wondering just use http://download.freenas.org/9.10/MASTER/ and then select the latest version.

As far as CIFS location I don't think it will really matter all that much unless you have overlapping shares with NFS or you share the root of the drive along with all the jails. Mine has always been /mnt/{pool}/{dataset} and my jails are /mnt/{pool}/jails

One thing I that has been rather noticeable since I started using it a bit is that a slightly substandard system that worked fine before (test system not production) with 9.3.1 struggles with 9.10 I have to wonder if the change to FreeBSD 10 code will end up requiring a change in minimum requirements on both the 9 branch and the 10 branch compared to FreeBSD 9 code. On the 9.3.1 branch the same system was even able to run plex without a ton of trouble and now it seems to barely be able to run the UI. Most systems that are up to standards won't see much of an issue but anyone looking to upgrade with a system less than 8GB of ram that worked fine with 9.3.1 will probably not want to take the leap to 9.10, on top of that someone who has the bare minimum specs with a jail or two may want to hold off as well or at least have some good backups in place in case of issues and be prepared to roll back or do some upgrading.

well anyone that is running a system with less than 8GB of ram has themselves to blame 8GB of ram is already the minimum requirement for freenas 9.3

 

[nightshade00013]

well anyone that is running a system with less than 8GB of ram has themselves to blame 8GB of ram is already the minimum requirement for freenas 9.3

For that I fully agree but I have the feeling that people who are running 8GB of ram will also end up hitting a wall that was not a problem with 9.3.1 or previous versions.

 

[NickF]

Hello FreeNAS!
I've been using FreeNAS for the better part of the past 5 years. This server has been up since November and I finally went to do an update today...Updated to latest 9.3.1...but then I saw this. My server is mainly a Plex server, and houses some photos/videos for personal use. I have a recent backup so I am giving this a whirl. Updated via web interface without a hitch. I am doing a scrub now and I'm going to hammer the thing tomorrow and report back :)

 

[nightshade00013]

Hello FreeNAS!
I've been using FreeNAS for the better part of the past 5 years. This server has been up since November and I finally went to do an update today...Updated to latest 9.3.2...but then I saw this. My server is mainly a Plex server, and houses some photos/videos for personal use. I have a recent backup so I am giving this a whirl. Updated via web interface without a hitch. I am doing a scrub now and I'm going to hammer the thing tomorrow and report back :)

So you went from a stable version to a nightly version on your production system... You sir are a much braver man than I am. I wish you luck in your endeavors and hope it doesn't eat your data and if it does I pray you have backups.

 

[NickF]

So you went from a stable version to a nightly version on your production system... You sir are a much braver man than I am. I wish you luck in your endeavors and hope it doesn't eat your data and if it does I pray you have backups.

Like I said I have recent backups of everything (actually in two different locations), So I am not really worried. I use the system mostly for Plex and archiving some personal videos and photos, and some video editing storage (editing 4k over 10Gig). I'll keep whatever new video footage on my main PC while testing :)

But what better way to test the new OS than on a live system that only affects me :p

Besides if jkh is running this on a few systems in production why shouldn't I give it a shot

 

[zambanini]

first impression on a small system: 9.3.10 is much faster than 9.3.2 (nfs, same dataset)

 

[Mattias Larsson]

Been trying this version out a couple of days and it seems to work fine. I made a simple jail-template based on a freebsd 10.3 archive too and it worked perfectly afaik.

However, I'm not sure I understand how the updates work. I have 5 upgrades available today, 4 of which is 20160314 -> 20160315 but the last one say it will go from 20160314 -> 20160311 ?? Is this normal on a nightly train?

 

[anodos]

Version 9.10 sounds funny. It reminds me of the joke
"Why was 6 afraid of 7?"
"Because 7 8 9"

 

[Steve Brown]

Any date in the foreseeable future for a release of stable version 9.10?

 

[jkh]

However, I'm not sure I understand how the updates work. I have 5 upgrades available today, 4 of which is 20160314 -> 20160315 but the last one say it will go from 20160314 -> 20160311 ?? Is this normal on a nightly train?

Are you sure you're reading the updates UI correctly? You should only ever have one update available (even if we release multiple updates in one day) and that update will have a version number which should always (hopefully) go forward. The Individual packages have their own version numbers which can be a little screwy since if nothing has changed in a given package, it can "inherit" from older ones, but again, are you looking at the update version # or the individual package ones?

 

[jkh]

Any date in the foreseeable future for a release of stable version 9.10?

Hopefully not too many more days now. We're just tying up some loose ends with directory services.

 

[Mattias Larsson]

Are you sure you're reading the updates UI correctly? You should only ever have one update available (even if we release multiple updates in one day) and that update will have a version number which should always (hopefully) go forward. The Individual packages have their own version numbers which can be a little screwy since if nothing has changed in a given package, it can "inherit" from older ones, but again, are you looking at the update version # or the individual package ones?

I was looking at the individual packages in the lower part of the "Check Now"-popup window. I don't remember which package it was but it said "<pkg>-20160314<some hash> -> <pkg>-20160311<other hash>" if that makes any sense. I installed them without any problems as far as I can tell.

 

[sef]

I was looking at the individual packages in the lower part of the "Check Now"-popup window. I don't remember which package it was but it said "<pkg>-20160314<some hash> -> <pkg>-20160311<other hash>" if that makes any sense. I installed them without any problems as far as I can tell.

It's a timestamp -- YYYYMMDDHHMM.

Here is a subset of how updates work:

1. The update code looks for, and fetches, a file named http://update-master.freenas.org/FreeNAS/${TRAIN}/LATEST
2. It compares the package versions in that file to the currently-installed file.
3. Package versions are either the same (nothing to be done), different (an update is required), or missing (either deleted or added, depending on which version of the manifest has it).

The package versions are compared simply as strings, nothing else -- no semantics required. This makes the update code very simple and reliable.

Now, on our end, it's a lot more complicated, as the process to create the updates (and, in particular, the delta packages) requires a lot of work. That's behind the scenes, and very, very sausage factory-like. But one thing that does matter is: when preparing an update, if there are no differences between the new version and the old version, it sets the manifest file to use the old version. (This means fewer things to download.)

One side effect of that, however, is that if an install is done via ISO (or the "manual" upgrade), then the package version will be what was done as part of the build, which does not have all that post-processing work done. And this means that if you do an ISO install, it's possible that an update will show up which seemingly "goes backwards" for some of the packages. It's not really going backwards, it's just that there is not (yet, anyway) a mechanism for the update code to know that the versions are the same. It's not a bug, and it's not particularly a feature; it's just a side effect.

 

[Ericloewe]

I find it funny how so many people do not immediately recognize those sequences as timestamps. Sure, it's missing the ISO8601-suggested T separating the date and time, but that thing can be dropped "by mutual agreement" anyway.

 

[sef]

I find it funny how so many people do not immediately recognize those sequences as timestamps. Sure, it's missing the ISO8601-suggested T separating the date and time, but that thing can be dropped "by mutual agreement" anyway.

It really is best to think of them as strings, only. Because that's the only use they're put to.

 

[Mattias Larsson]

I find it funny how so many people do not immediately recognize those sequences as timestamps. Sure, it's missing the ISO8601-suggested T separating the date and time, but that thing can be dropped "by mutual agreement" anyway.

Yea, I'm aware that it's a timestamp. That was part of the reason I found it a bit odd that a package with an older timestamp in the name was the upgrade target.

Anyways, thanks for the rundown on how it works sef.

Not sure this is the right place but I noticed that when I did an upgrade from 9.3.1 -> 9.10 and created a new jail based on a 10.3 template (I made myself, so it could be completely crap for all I know) I went and checked /usr/local/etc/pkg/repos/FreeBSD.conf it had 9:x86:x64 in the url and hence failed to bootstrap in pkg. I was wondering, where does this file come from? I checked the template archive and no file exists there so I assume it gets written my the jail setup process. My guess is that it should match the base-OS and for the stable train it does ofc, is/should this be changed for 9.10?

Please excuse me for rambling on, possibly in the wrong place too.