USB Won't Boot After Install

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jeremy Janz

Cadet
Joined
May 24, 2014
Messages
3
Hello Folks,

Here is the scenero:

I have installed "FreeNAS-9.2.1.5-RELEASE-x86.img" on two different USBs and from both OSX and Windows 7. With OSX i used terminal with the "dd" command. With Windows 7 I used Win32DiskImager. I used a 2.06GB Dane-Elec thumb drive and a SandDisk SD to USB with a 8GB SD card. On boot the following happen:

FreeNAS%20Boot%20Failure.JPG


As you can see I used the command: fsck -fy. I did this on both USB drives and received the same response as shown in the in the picture above. My hardware is as follows:

Asus P4P800-VM
3.2Ghz Pentium 4
1.536GB RAM

Any ideas on how to get this to boot?
 

cyberjock

Inactive Account
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Messages
19,526
Sigh.. please read our hardware requirements. 1.5GB of RAM is not enough for FreeNAS. And the boot media you are using is not recommend/supported per our requirements.

doc.freenas.org
 

Jeremy Janz

Cadet
Joined
May 24, 2014
Messages
3
Sigh.. please read our hardware requirements. 1.5GB of RAM is not enough for FreeNAS. And the boot media you are using is not recommend/supported per our requirements.

doc.freenas.org


Ok. Well I did read the following on: http://doc.freenas.org/index.php/Hardware_Recommendations

"If you plan to use your server for home use, you can often soften the rule of thumb of 1 GB of RAM for every 1 TB of storage"

and

"The FreeNAS® operating system is a running image. This means that it should not be installed onto a hard drive, but rather to a USB or compact flash device that is at least 2 GB in size. If you don't have compact flash, you can instead use a USB thumb drive that is dedicated to the running image and which stays inserted in the USB slot."

So from my understanding what I did do was possible. However, clearly unlikely given your comment. So now the questions is: if I upgraded to the following:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DYQYJ0E/?tag=ozlp-20

and

4GB of RAM

would FreeNAS run?


Thanks!
 

gpsguy

Active Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
4,472
Quoting from the same link your provided "FreeNAS® with ZFS typically requires a minimum of 8 GB of RAM in order to provide good performance and stability. The more RAM, the better the performance, and the FreeNAS® Forums provide anecdotal evidence from users on how much performance is gained by adding more RAM. For systems with large disk capacity (greater than 8 TB), a general rule of thumb is 1 GB of RAM for every 1 TB of storage.

With 4Gb of RAM, you could use UFS, but it will be deprecated in future versions of FreeNAS.

While some 2Gb flash drives work, we recommend using a 4Gb flash drive.
 

cyberjock

Inactive Account
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Messages
19,526
Jeremy Janz,

Don't skim through the manual read it. And don't ignore the sections that you don't want to read. Gpsguy quoted exactly what you should have read and exactly what you should have figured out. Instead you justified it with some excuses that do NOT make sense.

You need 8GB of RAM minimum for ZFS. PERIOD.

If you're going to skip stuff you're going to be one of those guys that loses data because they didn't want to read everything and heed the warnings.
 

guldan

Dabbler
Joined
Nov 25, 2012
Messages
29
Jeremy Janz,

Don't skim through the manual read it. And don't ignore the sections that you don't want to read. Gpsguy quoted exactly what you should have read and exactly what you should have figured out. Instead you justified it with some excuses that do NOT make sense.

You need 8GB of RAM minimum for ZFS. PERIOD.

If you're going to skip stuff you're going to be one of those guys that loses data because they didn't want to read everything and heed the warnings.

Sorry you are wrong, I've been running Freenas using 4GB of ram for four years.

And don't bother with a smug reply I won't be reading it.
 

pirateghost

Unintelligible Geek
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
4,219
Sorry you are wrong, I've been running Freenas using 4GB of ram for four years.

And don't bother with a smug reply I won't be reading it.
I don't think this comment was called for at all.

He's not wrong. Running with less than the minimum can cause lots of abnormalities. Just because you have been doing something wrong for four years doesn't mean you can say that we haven't seen issues that more ram resolved.

Your attitude is uncalled for.


Considering you necro'd a thread that's 6 months old just to stir up trouble, I'm locking this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top