NanoBSD 2G 1.2.3 -> 2.0 RC1 Failing Not enough space?
-
In case it helps at all here is the output from df on the shell:
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/ufs/pfsense0 935007 83112 777094 10% / devfs 1 1 0 100% /dev /dev/md0 39406 4 36250 0% /var/tmp /dev/md1 59246 6602 47906 12% /var /dev/ufs/cf 50527 1131 45354 2% /cf devfs 1 1 0 100% /var/dhcpd/devand this is fdisk:
******* Working on device /dev/ufs/pfsense0 ******* parameters extracted from in-core disklabel are: cylinders=118 heads=255 sectors/track=63 (16065 blks/cyl) parameters to be used for BIOS calculations are: cylinders=118 heads=255 sectors/track=63 (16065 blks/cyl) fdisk: invalid fdisk partition table found Media sector size is 512 Warning: BIOS sector numbering starts with sector 1 Information from DOS bootblock is: The data for partition 1 is: sysid 165 (0xa5),(FreeBSD/NetBSD/386BSD) start 63, size 1895607 (925 Meg), flag 80 (active) beg: cyl 0/ head 1/ sector 1; end: cyl 117/ head 254/ sector 63 The data for partition 2 is: <unused>The data for partition 3 is: <unused>The data for partition 4 is:</unused></unused> -
The #1 cause of the error you posted is accidentally using a full nanobsd image instead of an upgrade slice image.
-
I am trying to flash with the file "pfSense-2.0-RC1-2g-i386-20110226-1633-nanobsd-upgrade.img"
Is that not the correct image?
-
That should be the correct one then.
The 2G slice size has actually decreased since 1.2.3 so it's pretty unusual that you'd be getting that.
Did you do the upgrade through the GUI or from the console menu?
What kind of media is this installed on? CF? USB? Looks like it's attached via USB.
Also, the fdisk command to get the whole disk info in your case is:
fdisk /dev/da0 -
It is a USB Stick yes. I am upgrading via the Web GUI and I am using Google Chrome to attempt the upgrade.
Here is the read out from the command above:
******* Working on device /dev/da0 ******* parameters extracted from in-core disklabel are: cylinders=243 heads=255 sectors/track=63 (16065 blks/cyl) parameters to be used for BIOS calculations are: cylinders=243 heads=255 sectors/track=63 (16065 blks/cyl) Media sector size is 512 Warning: BIOS sector numbering starts with sector 1 Information from DOS bootblock is: The data for partition 1 is: sysid 165 (0xa5),(FreeBSD/NetBSD/386BSD) start 63, size 1902033 (928 Meg), flag 80 (active) beg: cyl 0/ head 1/ sector 1; end: cyl 862/ head 15/ sector 63 The data for partition 2 is: sysid 165 (0xa5),(FreeBSD/NetBSD/386BSD) start 1902159, size 1902033 (928 Meg), flag 0 beg: cyl 863/ head 1/ sector 1; end: cyl 701/ head 15/ sector 63 The data for partition 3 is: sysid 165 (0xa5),(FreeBSD/NetBSD/386BSD) start 3804192, size 102816 (50 Meg), flag 0 beg: cyl 702/ head 0/ sector 1; end: cyl 803/ head 15/ sector 63 The data for partition 4 is:This was a fresh install of 1.2.3 approx. 3 months ago.
-
I think there was an issue that someone else had with NanoBSD on a USB stick doing that same thing before, though I don't recall the specifics. You may just have to backup your config and reflash the stick.
It was something about USB thumbdrives specifically that had the issue, CF media was fine.
-
I don't want to hijack the thread but I also ran into a similar problem with the Beta's but haven't tried the RC1. But now that I'm reading this thread it has me questioning if I was just choosing the wrong image. So is the naming convention for the upgrade images based on the CF size or the slice size? For example if you have a 1GB CF with 512mb slices would you need the 1GB or the 512mb upgrade image?
-
1GB full install use 1GB upgrade images, and so on. The names always match.
-
I reported this, Bug #1149
-
Ok so I was trying to use the correct image then. I'll try again tonight with the rc1 and report back.
-
The RC1 image upgraded successfully. Not sure what my problem was with the older Beta5 images.
-
Thanks for the help! I guess I'll wait for 2.0 final before upgrading.
