What is the best solution to host PFsense and NAS on the same hardware?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}
These are my first steps in virtualization and things may not be as easy as they seem.
Simply put, I have a 4-core CPU and I would like to host both PFsense and FreeNas (or any other NAS solution), each of them using 2 physical cores.
I thought I would simply run PFfsense as the main OS then run VirtualBox to virtualize FreeNAS.
However, it seems that it is not as easy because PFsense is a highly tuned FreeBSD distribution and I cannot seem to be able to install packages that are not meant to be used with PFsense.
Any recommendations ?
Hardware :
Intel Pentium J5005,
8 GB of RAM,
64 GB storage
Dual Wan (main reason to use PFsense)
virtualbox virtualization nas freebsd pfsense
asked Jan 29 at 21:47
MonstyBMonstyB
63
add a comment |
These are my first steps in virtualization and things may not be as easy as they seem.
Simply put, I have a 4-core CPU and I would like to host both PFsense and FreeNas (or any other NAS solution), each of them using 2 physical cores.
I thought I would simply run PFfsense as the main OS then run VirtualBox to virtualize FreeNAS.
However, it seems that it is not as easy because PFsense is a highly tuned FreeBSD distribution and I cannot seem to be able to install packages that are not meant to be used with PFsense.
Any recommendations ?
Hardware :
Intel Pentium J5005,
8 GB of RAM,
64 GB storage
Dual Wan (main reason to use PFsense)
virtualbox virtualization nas freebsd pfsense
asked Jan 29 at 21:47
MonstyBMonstyB
63
Depending on your hardware, beyond the CPU, VMware ESXi is probably a better bet since it's a type 1 hypervisor. I know PFSense will run as a VM under VMware's products (netgate.com/docs/pfsense/virtualization/…).
– essjae
Jan 30 at 18:44
ESXi sounds like the good option ! What do you mean by "Depending on your hardware" ? My hardware is detailed in my first post. Thant you !
– MonstyB
Jan 31 at 21:03
You don't list NICs, motherboard, drive controllers, etc. Those are important for ESXi. 6.7 has gotten more restrictive than previous versions, which is why I mention checking the HCL...or just give it a try installing and see what happens. 6.5 might be a better fit if you're not using name-brand server hardware.
– essjae
Feb 1 at 0:11
add a comment |
These are my first steps in virtualization and things may not be as easy as they seem.
Simply put, I have a 4-core CPU and I would like to host both PFsense and FreeNas (or any other NAS solution), each of them using 2 physical cores.
I thought I would simply run PFfsense as the main OS then run VirtualBox to virtualize FreeNAS.
However, it seems that it is not as easy because PFsense is a highly tuned FreeBSD distribution and I cannot seem to be able to install packages that are not meant to be used with PFsense.
Any recommendations ?
Hardware :
Intel Pentium J5005,
8 GB of RAM,
64 GB storage
Dual Wan (main reason to use PFsense)
virtualbox virtualization nas freebsd pfsense
asked Jan 29 at 21:47
MonstyBMonstyB
63
These are my first steps in virtualization and things may not be as easy as they seem.
Simply put, I have a 4-core CPU and I would like to host both PFsense and FreeNas (or any other NAS solution), each of them using 2 physical cores.
I thought I would simply run PFfsense as the main OS then run VirtualBox to virtualize FreeNAS.
However, it seems that it is not as easy because PFsense is a highly tuned FreeBSD distribution and I cannot seem to be able to install packages that are not meant to be used with PFsense.
Any recommendations ?
Hardware :
Intel Pentium J5005,
8 GB of RAM,
64 GB storage
Dual Wan (main reason to use PFsense)
virtualbox virtualization nas freebsd pfsense
virtualbox virtualization nas freebsd pfsense
asked Jan 29 at 21:47
MonstyBMonstyB
63
asked Jan 29 at 21:47
MonstyBMonstyB
63
edited Jan 29 at 21:52
MonstyB
asked Jan 29 at 21:47
MonstyBMonstyB
63
asked Jan 29 at 21:47
MonstyBMonstyB
63
asked Jan 29 at 21:47
MonstyBMonstyB
63
63
Depending on your hardware, beyond the CPU, VMware ESXi is probably a better bet since it's a type 1 hypervisor. I know PFSense will run as a VM under VMware's products (netgate.com/docs/pfsense/virtualization/…).
– essjae
Jan 30 at 18:44
ESXi sounds like the good option ! What do you mean by "Depending on your hardware" ? My hardware is detailed in my first post. Thant you !
– MonstyB
Jan 31 at 21:03
You don't list NICs, motherboard, drive controllers, etc. Those are important for ESXi. 6.7 has gotten more restrictive than previous versions, which is why I mention checking the HCL...or just give it a try installing and see what happens. 6.5 might be a better fit if you're not using name-brand server hardware.
– essjae
Feb 1 at 0:11
add a comment |
Depending on your hardware, beyond the CPU, VMware ESXi is probably a better bet since it's a type 1 hypervisor. I know PFSense will run as a VM under VMware's products (netgate.com/docs/pfsense/virtualization/…).
– essjae
Jan 30 at 18:44
ESXi sounds like the good option ! What do you mean by "Depending on your hardware" ? My hardware is detailed in my first post. Thant you !
– MonstyB
Jan 31 at 21:03
You don't list NICs, motherboard, drive controllers, etc. Those are important for ESXi. 6.7 has gotten more restrictive than previous versions, which is why I mention checking the HCL...or just give it a try installing and see what happens. 6.5 might be a better fit if you're not using name-brand server hardware.
– essjae
Feb 1 at 0:11
Depending on your hardware, beyond the CPU, VMware ESXi is probably a better bet since it's a type 1 hypervisor. I know PFSense will run as a VM under VMware's products (netgate.com/docs/pfsense/virtualization/…).
– essjae
Jan 30 at 18:44
Depending on your hardware, beyond the CPU, VMware ESXi is probably a better bet since it's a type 1 hypervisor. I know PFSense will run as a VM under VMware's products (netgate.com/docs/pfsense/virtualization/…).
– essjae
Jan 30 at 18:44
ESXi sounds like the good option ! What do you mean by "Depending on your hardware" ? My hardware is detailed in my first post. Thant you !
– MonstyB
Jan 31 at 21:03
ESXi sounds like the good option ! What do you mean by "Depending on your hardware" ? My hardware is detailed in my first post. Thant you !
– MonstyB
Jan 31 at 21:03
You don't list NICs, motherboard, drive controllers, etc. Those are important for ESXi. 6.7 has gotten more restrictive than previous versions, which is why I mention checking the HCL...or just give it a try installing and see what happens. 6.5 might be a better fit if you're not using name-brand server hardware.
– essjae
Feb 1 at 0:11
You don't list NICs, motherboard, drive controllers, etc. Those are important for ESXi. 6.7 has gotten more restrictive than previous versions, which is why I mention checking the HCL...or just give it a try installing and see what happens. 6.5 might be a better fit if you're not using name-brand server hardware.
– essjae
Feb 1 at 0:11
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
You may want to instead virtualise PFsense and pass through your network connection to there if necessary. If FreeNAS can support virtualisation software, this may be one of your only suitable solutions. Another solution could be to use a very very lightweight Linux distribution and virtualise both FreeNAS and pfsense - this way you can set them up as separate entities and rebooting neither freeNas nor pfsense machines will reboot the other. For this you may want a stable distro like Debian but I have not used it so I cannot comment from experience, though Debian is known for its stability.
answered Jan 29 at 22:00
QuickishFMQuickishFM
44938
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1399832%2fwhat-is-the-best-solution-to-host-pfsense-and-nas-on-the-same-hardware%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You may want to instead virtualise PFsense and pass through your network connection to there if necessary. If FreeNAS can support virtualisation software, this may be one of your only suitable solutions. Another solution could be to use a very very lightweight Linux distribution and virtualise both FreeNAS and pfsense - this way you can set them up as separate entities and rebooting neither freeNas nor pfsense machines will reboot the other. For this you may want a stable distro like Debian but I have not used it so I cannot comment from experience, though Debian is known for its stability.
answered Jan 29 at 22:00
QuickishFMQuickishFM
44938
add a comment |
You may want to instead virtualise PFsense and pass through your network connection to there if necessary. If FreeNAS can support virtualisation software, this may be one of your only suitable solutions. Another solution could be to use a very very lightweight Linux distribution and virtualise both FreeNAS and pfsense - this way you can set them up as separate entities and rebooting neither freeNas nor pfsense machines will reboot the other. For this you may want a stable distro like Debian but I have not used it so I cannot comment from experience, though Debian is known for its stability.
answered Jan 29 at 22:00
QuickishFMQuickishFM
44938
add a comment |
You may want to instead virtualise PFsense and pass through your network connection to there if necessary. If FreeNAS can support virtualisation software, this may be one of your only suitable solutions. Another solution could be to use a very very lightweight Linux distribution and virtualise both FreeNAS and pfsense - this way you can set them up as separate entities and rebooting neither freeNas nor pfsense machines will reboot the other. For this you may want a stable distro like Debian but I have not used it so I cannot comment from experience, though Debian is known for its stability.
answered Jan 29 at 22:00
QuickishFMQuickishFM
44938
You may want to instead virtualise PFsense and pass through your network connection to there if necessary. If FreeNAS can support virtualisation software, this may be one of your only suitable solutions. Another solution could be to use a very very lightweight Linux distribution and virtualise both FreeNAS and pfsense - this way you can set them up as separate entities and rebooting neither freeNas nor pfsense machines will reboot the other. For this you may want a stable distro like Debian but I have not used it so I cannot comment from experience, though Debian is known for its stability.
answered Jan 29 at 22:00
QuickishFMQuickishFM
44938
answered Jan 29 at 22:00
QuickishFMQuickishFM
44938
answered Jan 29 at 22:00
QuickishFMQuickishFM
44938
answered Jan 29 at 22:00
QuickishFMQuickishFM
44938
44938
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1399832%2fwhat-is-the-best-solution-to-host-pfsense-and-nas-on-the-same-hardware%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Depending on your hardware, beyond the CPU, VMware ESXi is probably a better bet since it's a type 1 hypervisor. I know PFSense will run as a VM under VMware's products (netgate.com/docs/pfsense/virtualization/…).
– essjae
Jan 30 at 18:44
ESXi sounds like the good option ! What do you mean by "Depending on your hardware" ? My hardware is detailed in my first post. Thant you !
– MonstyB
Jan 31 at 21:03
You don't list NICs, motherboard, drive controllers, etc. Those are important for ESXi. 6.7 has gotten more restrictive than previous versions, which is why I mention checking the HCL...or just give it a try installing and see what happens. 6.5 might be a better fit if you're not using name-brand server hardware.
– essjae
Feb 1 at 0:11