OPNsense Forum

Archive => 15.7 Legacy Series => Topic started by: roro on November 18, 2015, 09:04:03 pm

Title: [SOLVED] NANO on 4GB or 8GB cf-card?
Post by: roro on November 18, 2015, 09:04:03 pm

Hello,
I burned OPNsense-15.7.18-OpenSSL-nano-i386.img on a 8GB cf-card.
When I boot the machine no startup.

Is this img only for 4gb cf-cards?

Roro

Title: Re: NANO on 4GB or 8GB cf-card?
Post by: franco on November 19, 2015, 12:12:18 am

Yes, the size of preinstalled images must be fixed. In case of Nano 4 GB was our choice, split up over two redundant slices of 2 GB per system.

Title: Re: [SOLVED] NANO on 4GB or 8GB cf-card?
Post by: roro on November 28, 2015, 03:00:30 pm

Thanks for the answer, but I still have the following question:

Is it possible to get nano opnsense running on a 8gb cf-card?

Title: Re: [SOLVED] NANO on 4GB or 8GB cf-card?
Post by: weust on November 28, 2015, 05:14:37 pm

That should normally work. The 8GB card will then show 4GB used, instead of 8GB, but that's it.

Title: Re: [SOLVED] NANO on 4GB or 8GB cf-card?
Post by: BrianLloyd on November 28, 2015, 06:04:00 pm

It has been a long time since I was a sysadmin on anything other than MacOS. (SunOS and Solaris mostly in the day.) I notice that Apple has the ability to resize a partition on-the-fly. Not being familiar with the current BSD filesystems, is such a thing possible? That might be nice with the nano format.

Title: Re: [SOLVED] NANO on 4GB or 8GB cf-card?
Post by: roro on December 01, 2015, 10:04:35 pm

I didn't had time to test it over again with a 8gb cf-card.
I burnt the image to 4gb cf-card and it works now on soekris net5501.
Update also to latest OPNsense 15.7.20-i386 version.

Title: Re: [SOLVED] NANO on 4GB or 8GB cf-card?
Post by: roro on December 02, 2015, 10:37:41 am

point of attention:

First I had pfsense running on this machine with WAN on vr0 and LAN on vr1 (optX on vrX).

When I used the opnsense cf-card LAN is on vr0 and WAN is on vr1.

Title: Re: [SOLVED] NANO on 4GB or 8GB cf-card?
Post by: weust on December 02, 2015, 11:58:55 am

Actually most routers use the second port as WAN. I think this comes from the idea that you (the manager) connect first when having it just installed and need to connect to the router for initial configuration.
First come, first serve. So vr0 is LAN.

I personally always use the first port for WAN, as I feel a routers job is to serve the internet (WAN) to the LAN.
The LAN isn't served to the WAN, it's protected from the WAN.