9.10 is now in Nightlies testing

[zuzuzzzip]

Nice!
Looking forward to using bhyve & iohyve :)

 

[Pheran]

Can we expect that an upcoming update will move FreeNAS 9.10 onto FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE?

 

[jgreco]

Can we expect that an upcoming update will move FreeNAS 9.10 onto FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE?

Probably not, because FreeNAS 9.10 isn't based on 10.2-RELEASE. TrueOS seems to follow the STABLE branch, on an "as convenient to the developers" basis. They integrate in changes and patches that are significant to the product, which in some cases includes code that's from 11, or in stable but won't make it into release, etc. That means that there isn't actually a version of FreeBSD that TrueOS and FreeNAS are actually cut directly from.

 

[zambanini]

9.10 should be based von freebsd 10.3 rc2 or rc3, so his question is open

 

[Pheran]

Probably not, because FreeNAS 9.10 isn't based on 10.2-RELEASE. TrueOS seems to follow the STABLE branch, on an "as convenient to the developers" basis. They integrate in changes and patches that are significant to the product, which in some cases includes code that's from 11, or in stable but won't make it into release, etc. That means that there isn't actually a version of FreeBSD that TrueOS and FreeNAS are actually cut directly from.

I know it's not based on 10.2, jkh states that it's based on 10.3-RC3. Which is why it would seem to make sense to move it to 10.3-RELEASE now that it's available. I think that ixSystems should have waited for 10.3-RELEASE before moving 9.10 from nightly to release, but that's only my personal opinion.

 

[mav@]

FreeNAS was pulled up to FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE as soon as one was published:

Code:

[root@freenas] ~# cat /etc/version
FreeNAS-9.10-MASTER-201604071730 (1e79048)
[root@freenas] ~# uname -r
10.3-RELEASE

But 1) as it was told before there is no real difference between 10.3-RC2 and 10.3-RELEASE other then the name, and 2) as also was told above we are not really holding for 10.3-RELEASE, but actively merging useful patches from different sources, so our OS code is something between 10.3-RELEASE, 10.3-STABLE, 11.0-CURRENT and something custom. :)

 

[jkh]

Can we expect that an upcoming update will move FreeNAS 9.10 onto FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE?

It's already been done. We're fully sync'd up.

 

[jkh]

Probably not, because FreeNAS 9.10 isn't based on 10.2-RELEASE. TrueOS seems to follow the STABLE branch, on an "as convenient to the developers" basis. They integrate in changes and patches that are significant to the product, which in some cases includes code that's from 11, or in stable but won't make it into release, etc. That means that there isn't actually a version of FreeBSD that TrueOS and FreeNAS are actually cut directly from.

This is also true. FreeNAS 9.10 is basically based on "FreeBSD 10.3++"

 

[Ericloewe]

This is also true. FreeNAS 9.10 is basically based on "FreeBSD 10.3++"

I'm looking forward to the flame wars about FreeBSD 10.3++16's inclusion of container classes in the standard library.

 

[jkh]

I'm looking forward to the flame wars about FreeBSD 10.3++16's inclusion of container classes in the standard library.

No worries! STL stands for "Swivel Towards Linux" in the *BSD world, so no container classes to worry about!

 

[depasseg]

Unfortunately, the SSH folks have removed support for the None cipher in later revisions so when we updated our ports, we lost that. We're going to create some other mechanism for "zero overhead replication" in 10 and then back-port it to 9.10, but that's not going to happen right away, so for now, just consider the None cipher dead and use one of the "cheaper" ciphers SSH offers. Sorry, but this one was just outside our control!

Looks like the latest 9.3.1-20160404 update has this ssh "enhancement" as well. Just updated, and the host key changed and the "disabled/none" cipher isn't valid.

 

[jgreco]

Looks like the latest 9.3.1-20160404 update has this ssh "enhancement" as well. Just updated, and the host key changed and the "disabled/none" cipher isn't valid.

... enable rsh?

 

[depasseg]

... enable rsh?

For replication?

 

[jgreco]

For replication?

Sure. What do you think rcp and rsync were originally based around?

 

[depasseg]

The only options for the cipher in the replication task are "disabled, fast and standard". And disabled no longer works.

 

[jgreco]

The only options for the cipher in the replication task are "disabled, fast and standard". And disabled no longer works.

That's not the point. Abusing ssh like this for replication was always kinda dumb, because the very idea of "s" in "ssh" is "secure"... and unencrypted is insecure.

 

[RichTJ99]

Can you roll between 9.3 & 9.10 if an issue pops up?

 

[jgreco]

Downgrades not supported. If you save a copy of your config file from before the upgrade, and you haven't made any changes, then you always have the option to reinstall and upload that config file.

 

[Ericloewe]

Downgrades not supported. If you save a copy of your config file from before the upgrade, and you haven't made any changes, then you always have the option to reinstall and upload that config file.

Rolling back to an earlier boot environment accomplishes almost exactly this. You just lose whatever config changes you'd made after the update you're rolling back to.

 

[cyberjock]

Deleted. I'm a moron and can't read English today.