FreeNAS 9.2.1.7 is now available

[diskdiddler]

Oh and fourthly...

To suggest that a version is specifically going to be more stable just because it had 7 revisions, over another version is also ridiculous. It's not impossible or even improbably that 9.3 or 9.3.1.2 could be just, if not more stable, more versions ! = more stable for certain. That's complete folly and I'd expect anyone with an understanding of computers and software to not make such a silly assumption.

EDIT: one more thing, you'll note I said "a few months into 9.3" and "2 or 3 versions in" - I was implying with that, you know "9.3.1.2" or "9.3.1.3" - obviously not base version of 9.3.

 

[cyberjock]

You actually expect 9.3 to have more than 1 version? Yeah.. I'm gonna stop there.

Good luck to you in your travels sir!

 

[diskdiddler]

9.2 had 8 versions, are you implying they won't patch any bugs in 9.3? You're confusing me at this point or being deliberately mysterious, what gives? Sorry but what exactly is your point here?

 

[cyberjock]

My point is that 9.2.1 was supposed to be a single release. There was no intention of adding all the others. They were required only because of serious problems. So expecting 9.3 to be more than 1 release is not logical. And if you are going to argue that 9.3 will be better after they work out the bugs you're not arguing anything at all except you want 9.3.

In any case, 9.3 is likely to be only a single release unless serious problems result..

 

[diskdiddler]

It's pretty straightforward for software to get patched - I would expect that 9.3 should have no extra releases IN THEORY too, same for 9.4 and 10.0 and 11.0 etc
Reality is though, patches occur all the time in software?? Look at the history.
http://doc.freenas.org/index.php/Past_Releases

If 9.3 is using a new kernel you know, I'd bet you're probably right that 9.3 will not be as stable as 9.2.1.7 but that's not a guarantee, it's also not a certainty that 9.3.1.3 isn't a very stable piece of software.

None the less the intention of my original post, was to imply, I will not be an early adopter of 9.3, I'll wait until it's a few months old before switching, just in case and I'd expect anyone who wants to be cautious do the same.

 

[cyberjock]

I'm not sure why you are linking history to me. I've been around since 8.0.4 and I'm familiar with the release cycle. Some of those releases were planned. But iX has streamlined their process and 9.1.0 had problems which resulted in a 9.1. 9.2.0 had problems, but no 9.2 release was provided for that. 9.2.1 wasn't supposed to have any released with it, but there were 7. So again, *expecting* a release when none is planned is a fool's errand. Expect it all you want, but unless it's fatally flawed you won't get any patches.

As someone who has been involved with this place for over 2 years, and taking into account all of the variables and my own inside story on what is going on in the development cycle I based my recommended for you to go to 9.2.1.7 on ALL of that information. If you somehow think you know better, do what you want. I gave you my opinion and if you think you know better you are welcome to disagree. It's your server and your right to decide what to do. But, I'm happily running 9.2.1.7 on all of my boxes except my main server. The only reason it's not on 9.2.1.7 is because I haven't had time to handle other aspects of the server (pool upgrade) and I want to do them all at the same time. If I knew I had tomorrow off from work my main server would be on 9.2.1.7 by tomorrow evening.

Anyway, good luck!

 

[diskdiddler]

I'm sure 9.2.1.7 is fine - the changelist though is fairly minimal and besides some CIFS speed improvements it's not going to impact me geatly. The SMB security issue isn't going to be a problem on my network either.

I guess we'll see when it comes to 9.3 - I've just mentally kind of decided "hey this thing is finally running mostly well, let's not fiddle until I see a nice big positive improvement" - I want a significant change in either performance or features. The current stability appears to be fine for me. Also if I'm going to go through the hassle of learning how the upgrade process works, I may as well learn it for a significant bump not a small one.

I'll wager you $10 US that we see at least 2 revisions to 9.3 how's that? :)

 

[jkh]

Man, this whole thread...

You guys clearly have way too much free time on your hands - go write some code! If you don't know how to write code, even better. Go spend a few months learning how to write code, then write some code.

In any case, starting with 9.3 there will be no more point releases. There will be updates you can apply via the update manager, but new ISOs probably won't happen except on major release boundaries. With any luck, 9.2.1.7 will be the last point release FreeNAS users ever see. :)

 

[diskdiddler]

I'm confused, what value is there in not having point releases? If you don't NEED point releases, don't do them - obviously. To suggest you may never need one again though seems kind of strange to me.

 

[jkh]

I'm confused, what value is there in not having point releases? If you don't NEED point releases, don't do them - obviously. To suggest you may never need one again though seems kind of strange to me.

You're thinking old-school. When a user installs OS X "Mavericks" (and the use of a name vs an arbitrary number is intentional) they don't think about point releases. They install something with a name, and then when the update app says "Hi, we have updates for you" they just indicate their willingness to apply them (or not). Same with Windows. You run Windows XP or Windows 7 or Windows 8 - unless something really significant changes, you don't have to think about Windows "7.1" or even be aware of the minor release number. Nobody says "I'm running Windows XP 3.0.5.7" unless they're geeky enough to find a hidden release string somewhere. After FreeNAS 9.3, it will be the same there. The developers will be able to ask any given user for a copy of their install manifest which covers the individual versions of every component in the system, and that manifest will have a tracking version # of its own which allows us to know how things have been updated, but we don't want users having to know or care which "point release" they're running anymore, just that they're up-to-date. That's the value of not having point releases. To anyone who's not a developer or skilled with git, they don't have any real meaning.

 

[Robert Smith]

Lol, you have not used Windows for a while, have you? On the client side, for active versions if Windows, if you are not on version 8.1 Update 1, you do not quality for updates.

 

[diskdiddler]

Ahh ok that makes sense.
I was perusing the roadmap and noted a lot of features about updates, packaging, stuff like that - so I'm going to assume that automatic updates are intended to be significantly easier under 9.3?
I get it now.
I think though ultimately that still means that the version of 9.3 which comes out at launch and 9.3 2 to 4 months later, will probably be different beasts in terms of stability.

 

[jkh]

Lol, you have not used Windows for a while, have you? On the client side, for active versions if Windows, if you are not on version 8.1 Update 1, you do not quality for updates.

I don't use Windows at all. I'm a Mac user. An even happier Mac user, since Microsoft has clearly lost its mind with its updating scheme if what you say above is true. :)

 

[Sir.Robin]

In any way... Great work and thank you for the 9.2.1.7!! :D

 

[deafen]

Jkh - I'll file a bug on this, but another thing I noticed in the new replication features is that the NONE cipher elicits a warning from common.pipesubr, which turns on the red alert light. Again, no biggie, but something that should get tweaked for the next release.

 

[jkh]

Jkh - I'll file a bug on this, but another thing I noticed in the new replication features is that the NONE cipher elicits a warning from common.pipesubr, which turns on the red alert light. Again, no biggie, but something that should get tweaked for the next release.

Already filed: https://bugs.freenas.org/issues/5758
Thanks!

 

[panz]

Replication is a "section" of FreeNAS that deserves more attention ;)

 

[cyberjock]

I believe 9.3 is getting a major revamp of replication. ;)

 

[Arwen]

In regards to the below for SSH using None Cipher, THANKS!

o Add support for the None Cipher in SSH. This can be used to improve
replication performance at the expense of sending your data over the
wire in cleartext. (Think private 10Gbe interlink)

I've used this on a local LAN before, (meaning traffic never left my own
switches, was not routed anywhere). It's great when you are dealing with
less than speedy equipment.

My old server, which I still have though not in use anymore, could only
do 1/3 of Fast Ethernet's bandwidth. Using this feature trippled the speed
of SCP. Plus, between my workstation and newer server, both were Gigabit,
I could get up to 110MBps, (that's MegaBytes!).

 

[jpaetzel]

Thank you to the Dev Team for jumping on that Samba vulnerability and taking the time to add a few more additions.
It is very nice to see a quick response to a fairly high CVE like this.

By chance "Increase performance of Directory Copy from CIFS" was the fix for this "Bug #5715: Find commit to trueos that disabled sync for xattr and merge it to 9.2.1-BRANCH"?

Yes