Raspberry Pi 4 announced

ucomp

Active Member

Reaction score: 32
Messages: 187

.............
AArch64 is destined for Tier 1 support, so this and the B+ have a lot to look forward to.
My tests with all three major BSDs on several SBCs in the last few days, however, speak a completely different language:
Tier1 is light-years away, both in terms of hardware and software.

e.g. Hardware: Look at the headline: The Power to Serve
How could FreeBSD serve ZFS on a hardware platform, which
has only 1 cheaper SBC on the market with ECC-RAM?
Especially, considering that the board is of course sold out ...

e.g. Software: I have never seen FreeBSD crashing like this (down to total data loss),
like on these SD-cards & USB-sticks on the RPI3. for me this happened 4 times in a few days!
regardless of whether it was due to the hardware or software:
This is never Tier 1-destined

As a developer you ask yourself whether you want to invest all those unpaid working hours
in a platform which is , as of now, simply incompatible with the key-features of FreeBSD
( Data-integrity, Stability, speed... and so on) .
I would say: why not (for fun) , to save electricity and maybe only because of the hope that time will change the current massive limits of this platform -
support for aarch64- why not ..but unfortunately currently more Tier8 or Tier9 than Tier1 😂

Perhaps good for Raspbian to add 2 HDMI-ports , for FreeBSD useless.

For the low price of the RPI4 we will get the fun we paid for but we will never get a Tier 1 production - ready FreeBSD because these SBCs are not built for The Power to Serve.
 

forquare

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 137
Messages: 295

How could FreeBSD serve ZFS on a hardware platform, which
has only 1 cheaper SBC on the market with ECC-RAM?
Reminder that ZFS on non-ECC RAM still has better data integrity than most other file systems on the same hardware.
 

6502

Member

Reaction score: 12
Messages: 51

I think it is obvious that FreeBSD will use UFS on RPi. ZFS on 1-2GB RAM and SD card sounds like bad idea. The price for 4GB version goes too far from the initial idea for cheap SBC. I will prefer NUC or second hand Lenovo Tiny.
 

forquare

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 137
Messages: 295

I was thinking for things like ZFS replication to a USB3 HDD at home, nothing particularly performance intensive. Even 1GB RAM is fine at a push for something like that (a friend currently does this with an RPi3, albeit with hampered Ethenet performance and over USB2).
 

msplsh

Member

Reaction score: 17
Messages: 73

I'm not talking AArch64 Tier 1 support as a theoretical wish, it's a funded project of the FreeBSD Foundation

 

SirDice

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator

Reaction score: 7,907
Messages: 31,209

I'm not talking AArch64 Tier 1 support as a theoretical wish, it's a funded project of the FreeBSD Foundation
Nobody said it was theoretical. There's just a bunch of work that needs to be done. In other words, it's not going to be done any time soon.
 

ucomp

Active Member

Reaction score: 32
Messages: 187

Reminder that ZFS on non-ECC RAM still has better data integrity than most other file systems on the same hardware.
perhaps true for x86 with a little luck....
I give you a hint :
e.g. U-Boot for aarch64 is currently not under BSD- "control" .
... USB3 HDD at home ....
at home we can do all unsupported things we want ... at home I plugged in an USB- HDD (via power passive Dongle) and it crashed the dongle to electrical death .
long story pros and cons aarch64 consumer- hardware...
but for FreeBSD i would say:
arm64 is currently a load of crap ... has to got to Tier 3 ...
or the Foundation and Core Team would say:
O.K., we have the manpower to support it so let's go
 

Spartrekus

Daemon

Reaction score: 153
Messages: 1,150

I think it is obvious that FreeBSD will use UFS on RPi. ZFS on 1-2GB RAM and SD card sounds like bad idea. The price for 4GB version goes too far from the initial idea for cheap SBC. I will prefer NUC or second hand Lenovo Tiny.
Let's say simply
ZFS is slow ... but fine.
UFS is fast for RPI.
 

CraigHB

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 71
Messages: 267

RPi is ideal for Media Player. BTW, it is time to add SATA port.
I've read RPi4 has some heating issues as a media box, even after adding a heatsink. I use an AMLogic platform for that. My media box runs a version of Linux (CoreELEC), but at some point I'd like to try building a media box with FreeBSD on an AMD APU, would be an interesting albeit a challenging project. Never really considered FreeBSD on ARM, might be a stretch.
 

Nicola Mingotti

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 166
Messages: 423

I'm actually really interested in the programmable FPGA it supposedly has. Would be interesting to be able to play with that.
oh, that could be fun, a reason to buy the RPI, otherwise IMO the BeagleBones are really more interesting.
 

Spartrekus

Daemon

Reaction score: 153
Messages: 1,150

What is the issue with mini HDMI? Other than needing an adapter (or cable with mini-hdmi on one end)?
the adapter is rather the problem. I go to meeting rooms with the pi, without thinking about forgetting the adapter. Just the pi. ...

my monitor is happy with large hdmi, it is standard today and it is big enough not to break easily.
 

RobCrowston

New Member

Reaction score: 5
Messages: 8

It is not mini HDMI, it is micro HDMI

I made that mistake, didn't realise until the pi4 arrived. Had to buy a replacement cable.
 

Nicola Mingotti

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 166
Messages: 423

It is a pity the initial spec were an Apri Fool ... I belived it, as Fox Mulder would ;)

In this case I see no reason at all to leave the BeagleBone. This device has no PWM and no ADC. For electronics projects is not much interesting.
 

Nicola Mingotti

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 166
Messages: 423

Hi Nico,
what would be the best alternative to RPI 3 or 4 ?
Hi Spartrekus !

The only two boards similar to RPI i tried are the RPI (2|3) [not sure of the number right now, I am at airport] and the BeagleBone Black/Green.

I saw many reviews of other machines online and, in my opinion, they are more similar to the RPI than to the BBB. If you want to play with electronics, the is BBB is superior to the RPI from all points of view. It is true, it costs a bit more.

What I particularly love in the BBB is that it has these features other SOC usually do not have:
-] PWM: this is very useful for motors. Bitbanging a GPIO is not a serious option.
-] ADC: this is useful if you want to read an analog signal, e.g. how much light there is in your room.
-] PRUSS: these are 2 little processors separate from the main CPU that you can use for real time stuff.
-] eMMC + SSD: that is on BBB you have about 4G on boad storage memory, i usually install FreeBSD there. I use the SSD only for install or experiments.
-] software controllable pull(Up|Down) on GPIO

The RPI is superior to BBB for one thing AFAIK, video streaming, because it has a specific on board chip for that.

Most of what I know on this stuff I learnt on Derek Molloy book "Exploring BeagleBone". It is a very good book.

bye
 

ralphbsz

Daemon

Reaction score: 1,250
Messages: 1,999

... serve ZFS on a hardware platform, which has only 1 cheaper SBC on the market with ECC-RAM?
As forquare already said: ECC is not a prerequisite for ZFS. On the contrary, ZFS without ECC is still better (in terms of data durability) than other file systems without ECC. What is however true: since ZFS solves quite a few other data corruption issues (using checksums and scrubbing), the next big gain to be made once one has ZFS running is to use ECC. So ECC helps relatively more on ZFS than on other file systems.

I have never seen FreeBSD crashing like this (down to total data loss),
like on these SD-cards & USB-sticks on the RPI3. for me this happened 4 times in a few days!
I ran FreeBSD on a RPi3B for a few months, including a few days of intense prototyping on the lab bench. I don't remember it ever crashing. Nor did I have any data loss episode.

I think it is obvious that FreeBSD will use UFS on RPi. ZFS on 1-2GB RAM and SD card sounds like bad idea.
Why is ZFS worse than UFS on SD cards? Rather on the contrary, if you think through how ZFS lays out data (log-based), it probably benefits from a FTL (flash translation layer) and large blocks more than other file systems. And we know that for small file systems, you can very successfully run ZFS without terribly much memory. I have about a handful of TB of ZFS disk space in production on a 3GB 32-bit machine, which has been stable for several years.

The price for 4GB version goes too far from the initial idea for cheap SBC.
How does the price for the 4GB version compare to competitive systems? It seems to me that being under $100 it is still very cheap.

Let's say simply
ZFS is slow ... but fine.
UFS is fast for RPI.
Do you have any evidence for ZFS being particularly slow on RPi? Show me the data.
 

Spartrekus

Daemon

Reaction score: 153
Messages: 1,150

As forquare already said: ECC is not a prerequisite for ZFS. On the contrary, ZFS without ECC is still better (in terms of data durability) than other file systems without ECC. What is however true: since ZFS solves quite a few other data corruption issues (using checksums and scrubbing), the next big gain to be made once one has ZFS running is to use ECC. So ECC helps relatively more on ZFS than on other file systems.


I ran FreeBSD on a RPi3B for a few months, including a few days of intense prototyping on the lab bench. I don't remember it ever crashing. Nor did I have any data loss episode.


Why is ZFS worse than UFS on SD cards? Rather on the contrary, if you think through how ZFS lays out data (log-based), it probably benefits from a FTL (flash translation layer) and large blocks more than other file systems. And we know that for small file systems, you can very successfully run ZFS without terribly much memory. I have about a handful of TB of ZFS disk space in production on a 3GB 32-bit machine, which has been stable for several years.


How does the price for the 4GB version compare to competitive systems? It seems to me that being under $100 it is still very cheap.


Do you have any evidence for ZFS being particularly slow on RPi? Show me the data.
what about if the FreeBSD RPI3b servers a sshfs server with sshfs fuse for several machines, with two 6TB disks usb ?
The 2 x 6tb harddisks are powered by hub 3.0 high power on rpi3b.
Then, ZFS or UFS?
 

ralphbsz

Daemon

Reaction score: 1,250
Messages: 1,999

I have no idea about running sshfs. I've seen it go very wrong when administered badly.

But in general, if you have two disks, I would always run ZFS and use RAID (in this case mirroring). Unless you really don't care about your data, in which case you don't need any file system.
 

kpedersen

Daemon

Reaction score: 576
Messages: 1,504

what about if the FreeBSD RPI3b servers a sshfs server with sshfs fuse for several
Remember sshfs is very inefficient; it can only really do what SSH can do, so appending files generally involves a complete replace. A proper network filesystem like NFS or Samba is generally better. And to be honest, for batches (which sshfs is generally mentioned for), then rsync is still better.
 

Spartrekus

Daemon

Reaction score: 153
Messages: 1,150

I have no idea about running sshfs. I've seen it go very wrong when administered badly.

But in general, if you have two disks, I would always run ZFS and use RAID (in this case mirroring). Unless you really don't care about your data, in which case you don't need any file system.
for the fuse sshfs, I use the easy way if I have a distant machine.
sshfs is cool with a tunnel, so that you can use your data anywhere anytime anymachine.

ntpd_enable="YES"
ntpd_sync_on_start="YES"
sshd_enable="YES"
fusefs_enable="YES"
allscreens_flags="-f terminus-b32"
#apache24_enable="YES"


nsystem( " kldload fuse ; chmod 777 /dev/fuse " );
nsystem(" sysctl vfs.usermount " );
nsystem(" sysctl vfs.usermount=1 " );
nsystem(" sysctl vfs.usermount " );
 

ucomp

Active Member

Reaction score: 32
Messages: 187

well, Ralph, thanks for sharing your feedback / experiences with the arm-platform .
you seem to consider it as "Tier1/SD-card-ZFS-production-ready" and I considered it as "Tier3- crap" (at the moment) ....
should be something something like Tier 2 ( what it really is ) . :)
--
I wanted to work on a slightly more complex port for arm64, where all 3 major BSDs are to be taken into account. As long as there are enough happy arm users like you, I think again about whether I should fish my SBC cluster out of the recycle bin ;-) So actually fun



--- edit:--
...
in production on a 3GB 32-bit machine...
by the way ...
i386 != arm;
 

Elazar

Member

Reaction score: 27
Messages: 53

I prefer a small laptop like a Pinebook. With the Raspberry Pi, half of my desk is covered with cables (keyboard, mouse, hdmi, power supply..)
 

ralphbsz

Daemon

Reaction score: 1,250
Messages: 1,999

you seem to consider it as "Tier1/SD-card-ZFS-production-ready" and I considered it as "Tier3- crap" (at the moment) ....
I did not say that ARM is Tier 1. Matter-of-fact, I didn't say that anything about Tiers. What I did say is that when I ran it, I did not experience the frequent crashes that you seem to have experienced: I had no crashes.

i386 != arm;
I am very aware of that. My point was that it is perfectly possible to serve ZFS on a 32-bit machine with a small number of GB of RAM. From an architectural point of view (CPU, memory, interfaces), an RPi4 with 4GB should do at least as well as my home server, which handles the workload just fine.
 
Top