What version were you running before the upgrade? Can you post the contnet from /conf/upgrade_log.latest.txt?

hi, this caused me mass headaches too. Ive reverted back to 2.4.3 no p1. Didnt fancy patching things. Id have pulled the release and re-issued as I noticed that even with the issue the firewall was still passing traffic but was just completely open in some instances. :/

Yes. I just "got er dun". It took me a few attempts as I had a new 8GB USB drive which would not take the 1GB image. I switched drives and it worked like a champ. I'm back on the latest release image.

I can't check atm but I do remember vaguely that dtrace also requires a kernel option or a src.conf option or both to work

Solved it myself, turned out that there was some false metadata saying this was part of an array (it has never been, so I have no idea how). I used graid remove Promise ada0 and it destroyed it. Now it's installing.

Well if your the owner of the this box, ie take a "modem/router/gateway" if this provides dhcp to your current network and you want put pfsense and your network behind this "box" then you can just let pfsense use dhcp on its wan (which is the default) or you could set it to be static depending on the network currently behind your "box" That would be up to you. Normally pfsense would replace this "box" and get dhcp from your ISP via a modem or a gateway in "bridge mode" so that pfsense gets a public IP on its wan from your ISP. But it does not have to be on the public internet it can be behind your box doing nat. Then in general you would place the rest of your network behind pfsense. Where you could use the default network on pfsense lan of 192.168.1/24 or set this to be whatever you want. The only thing to make sure of is that network on the lan does not overlap the network on the wan of pfsense.

@crotalus said in Change autoboot_delay value: If I add an entry in /boot/loader.conf.local That is the correct procedure, but there was a bug, which has been fixed for the next release.

If you need to reinstall on an APU (first or second gen), the amd64 serial-memstick image is what you'd need.

Thank you for your patience!

I also tried the instructions on this link: https://www.netgate.com/docs/pfsense/hardware/forcing-a-filesystem-check.html For the "full install" shell command I get "Read-Only system" For the 2nd set, I get "Fatal Error Unable to creat lock file: Bad file Descriptor (9)"

Great... I was meaning to play with this but have been side tracked all weekend.

I was on 2.3 something when I did this Well, it would be good to know which exact version you have installed and what version the upgrade has. If you did a new install anyways, why didnt you download an actual version first and install that?

Nope it's probably this: https://www.netgate.com/docs/pfsense/hardware/boot-troubleshooting.html?highlight=boot#pfsense-2-2-and-later The CF card slot in those boxes does not have the DMA pins connected, it can only do PIO mode. But if you use a UDMA capable CF card (most decent sized cards are) the OS will still see that and try to use it. Hence DMA errors. Steve

Whatever the proxy is for or is doing is probably messing up DNS resolution for your pfSense. The package management system needs a completely clean DNS resolution to operate properly, namely there can not be any filtering or tampering with SRV records, the pkg package manager uses those all the time for finding suitable mirrors for the packages. Either that or the proxy is doing something to the http(s) downloads of the package catalogs to mess up the update system.

In my case this was linked to my previous post - https://forum.netgate.com/topic/131667/upgrade-2-3-5-to-2-4-3-crash-report/55 ... crash report - which @jimp tried to help me sort out. I eventually had to load a new image and restore my config. Colin

If you are installing a patch that is included in the next version (as is the case for both of these and 2.4.4) simply don't check the Auto Apply checkbox. After the update you will have the option to apply the patch again (which should not be able to be applied cleanly and fail anyway) or delete the patch.

This worked perfectly!!!