[solved] 2.2.3 nanobsd - packages reinstall after upgrade totally screwed
-
Yeah, that's the patch that was removed. At least the part of it that actually affected the filesystem.
Guys, it really sucks now.
Every config action is delayed 4 seconds now, this is very anti-productive. I'm using brand new SanDisk CF cards, 2015 model, on Supermicro A1SRi-2758F with a CF-to-SATA adapter.
/etc/rc.conf_mount_rw followed by /etc/rc.conf_mount_ro is also 4 to 5 seconds.
Previously it was working in an instant.I am using exclusively only NanoBSD version in all kinds of setups, Jetway systems, SuperMicro and various thin clients and never had any boot problems or whatsoever.
Can you please consider putting back the patch with a configurable option/system tunable? Because I definitely vote to keep using it.
I see the option of keeping it RW all the time, but NanoBSD exists exactly because of the super-great capability to keep the system RO, and we should really keep relying on that professional feature, as an extra security measure.
Consider yourself lucky with those 4 seconds. It's virtually minutes for some people, plain unusable without switching to permanent RW. Plus this - https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/4803 – dunno how exactly this helped with filesystem corruption, appears the cure is worse than the disease.
-
Oh shit.
Put back the patch, please, please…
-
I have noticed that after the first reboot, packages don't seem to fully reinstall until I reboot a second time. Is that normal?
-
For most of my boxes packages just don't reinstall, some finally did and the others I had to roll back to 2.2.2 until this package reinstall issue is fixed
-
I have been bitten by this too. Config changes take about 5 minutes to complete. I have three nearly identical systems on which the 4GB nanobsd image is written on a brand new HP 8GB v221 USB stick. Since the 2.2.3 upgrade my systems are pretty well unusable from an administration standpoint.
Is there a workaround for this? The thread above is not very clear.
Thanks,
Bennett -
Is there a workaround for this? The thread above is not very clear.
I don't know what's not very clear from the huge hint at the top of the very first post.
-
I'm not sure what you are seeing in the first post, but all I see is a bold faced advisory that explains nothing, and I read every post in the thread.
"tl;dr: Preferably before upgrade, go to Diagnostics - NanoBSD and"
AND nothing.
Might you grace me with a more fulsome explanation?
If making my flash permanently read/write is the workaround you are cryptically alluding to, I'm not keen on it.
 -
-
AND nothing.
Your browser or network might block inline pictures. The next sentence is actually a screenshot of the setting you have to do, but for some reason it doesn't appear in your browser.
-
I don't want to start a new thread about this, but I've had to move back to 2.2.2 because of the 2-3 min config change time. So are some saying now that the change is to just set RW all the time? I could do this but I believed from others saying over the years that CF cards didn't like this. I'm wondering if USB sticks don't like this either. I know SSD have wear leveling so those probably don't apply.
Anyhow, is this now what must be done to run this normally or has anyone committed to patching this or at least fixing it next release?
Last question, is the broken limiter fixed in 2.2.3?
Thanks.
-
is the broken limiter fixed in 2.2.3?
As far as I remember reading from the changelogs, it is.
-
Thank you, Robi.
For whatever reason, adblock plus doesn't like the source of the inline image (tinypic.com).
-
Well, the cards are what PC Engines sells. This: http://www.pcengines.ch/cf2slc.htm
Do you have a recalled card by chance?
http://www.pcengines.ch/cfissue.htmWe don't have any 2G of those, but have several of the 4G version of same and they're all fine.
-
@cmb:
Do you have a recalled card by chance?
http://www.pcengines.ch/cfissue.htmWe don't have any 2G of those, but have several of the 4G version of same and they're all fine.
Hmm, don't think so… Just re-checked a couple of spare ones I have laying around, and they are all "code K" marked. (All of them were ordered at the same time, ~100 of them.)
-
Hmm, don't think so… Just re-checked a couple of spare ones I have laying around, and they are all "code K" marked. (All of them were ordered at the same time, ~100 of them.)
Could you double check a 'time /etc/rc.conf_mount_ro' (when it's rw mounted) on one of those?
And send a picture of the card?
-
@cmb:
Hmm, don't think so… Just re-checked a couple of spare ones I have laying around, and they are all "code K" marked. (All of them were ordered at the same time, ~100 of them.)
Could you double check a 'time /etc/rc.conf_mount_ro' (when it's rw mounted) on one of those?
$ time /etc/rc.conf_mount_ro 0.560u 0.517s 0:12.28 8.7% 2623+262k 0+4349io 5pf+0wMind you, this is with previously completely unused card I just imaged and booted from on a desktop computer via USB card reader… It's whole lot worse on the Alix boxes. >:(
-
Mind you, this is with previously completely unused card I just imaged and booted from on a desktop computer via USB card reader… It's whole lot worse on the Alix boxes. >:(
Could you put that specific card in an ALIX to compare? I think it's more the card than anything to do with how fast the system is.
What's the 'time /etc/rc.conf_mount_ro' from rw like on one of your production systems?
-
@cmb:
Could you put that specific card in an ALIX to compare? I think it's more the card than anything to do with how fast the system is.
Mere unchecking of the "Keep media mounted read/write at all times." and clicking save took almost two minutes with the browser spinning and waiting for the change to get saved. Subsequent /etc/rc.conf_mount_rw; /etc/rc.conf_mount_ro took 30-45 seconds, tried 5 times and got tired of it.
I seriously don't have anything good to say about causing similar huge regressions on a bugfix release. Can as well get rid of the read-only mounts altogether, because it is plain not usable and breaks tons of stuff. Haven't seen a single complaint about the "harmful" patch for years.
-
