-
So you have only updated 4 times in the last 5 years? In the last 4 years since ver 2 there have been 17 releases.. With major changes, going from 2.0, to 2.1, 2.2 etc..
And your installing it on what hardware exactly? When I google neocore all I find is they sell some knockoff tablets
http://www.neocoretablets.com/ -
Got it all fixed up. Well, there is always next time.
"So you have only updated 4 times in the last 5 years? In the last 4 years since ver 2 there have been 17 releases.. With major changes, going from 2.0, to 2.1, 2.2 etc.."
Why do you think that is? Perhaps because of the first 3 update fails?
On a positive note, the restore from the backup worked perfectly.. The update and the reinstall was a complete cluster though. Reinstalling anything that you haven't done in awhile is a pain.
Also, if the devs have made a backdoor in PFSense I fully endorse hosting gay porn on my box as payback. Its what I would do. And if you're gay and offended I'm sorry, but straight people are probably funny to you.
-
I've never heard of "Neocore" and "Neocore CA22" seems to not even exist according to Google.
-
I've never heard of "Neocore" and "Neocore CA22" seems to not even exist according to Google.
My apologies, Neoware ca22. Thats my fault and I accept the ridicule and mocking for the mistake :)
-
The now defunct thin client maker that was bought by hp back in what 2007?
That you manage to get pfsense running on such a device is a feat in itself… That you might have had issues with upgrading a nanobsd install on such hardware - no really, you don't say rolleyes...
What version were you trying to upgrade from???
-
Well, I have the newest version running via a fresh install, so the last version I had is kind of a moot point.
-
not when your talking an upgrade… Did you try upgrading from say a 2.1.x to a 2.2.x
You stated you have only updated like 4 times in the last 5 years was the way I read your first post.. So for all we know you were trying to go from 2.0 to 2.2 ??
-
not when your talking an upgrade… Did you try upgrading from say a 2.1.x to a 2.2.x
You stated you have only updated like 4 times in the last 5 years was the way I read your first post.. So for all we know you were trying to go from 2.0 to 2.2 ??
I don't care how many versions it is. Why not make an upgrade incremental for each version? At least you could reasonable guarantee success when upgrading. Why put an update function in the software if it doesn't work? Do what you have to make sure it works, even if it is forcing incremental upgrades in sequence. I would rather click "ok" a bunch of times than have the whole thing crash and have to re-download the software and re-learn the install process every time. Although I made notes this time because I fully expect to have to do it again. I have to admit though, it was pretty sweet that one time the update from the gui worked. Shame it was only once.
-
thanks for this useless post. happy hollidays
Sorry, I'm not trying to be mean, but I'm not doing any favors by blowing smoke up peoples asses. I'm going Steve Jobs on it. The gui updates are completely unreliable. Work on it. I haven't updated in many months even though an update was available because I figured the update would crash and I would have to spend hours re-doing my box, and that is exactly what happened.
-
You'd think someone would learn to take a config backup before upgrading.
-
thanks for this useless post. happy hollidays
Sorry, I'm not trying to be mean, but I'm not doing any favors by blowing smoke up peoples asses. I'm going Steve Jobs on it. The gui updates are completely unreliable. Work on it. I haven't updated in many months even though an update was available because I figured the update would crash and I would have to spend hours re-doing my box, and that is exactly what happened.
Its not about being mean or friendly … and you are blowing smoke up peoples asses.
The gui updates are not completely unreliable, thousands of systems get updated without any issues. I'm not saying everything is perfect, nothing ever is.So instead of being a wanker and making useless posts:
perhaps you should take the time and actually describe your upgrade problem? Post logs / screenshots / anything related to the errors you have.
perhaps it would be productive finding the cause instead of personally attacking the devs?
perhaps it would make sense to work with the devs, so your next update doesn't require you to reinstall? -
Perhaps you should also be happy you even got a response from the community, let alone from the devs, after your dickish attitude. And the devs are still trying to help you in spite of it.
A little courtesy goes a long ways.
-
I don't care how many versions it is. Why not make an upgrade incremental for each version? At least you could reasonable guarantee success when upgrading. Why put an update function in the software if it doesn't work? Do what you have to make sure it works, even if it is forcing incremental upgrades in sequence.
pfSense up to and including 2.2.x is monolithic - when you upgrade, everything gets reinstalled, then the configuration gets upgraded (when necessary) on reboot. This means you need a fair amount of spare storage space to download and unpack an upgrade, also there is little point in upgrading incrementally.
One problem with the monolithic nature of pfSense to date and the release strategy that has historically been employed is that some of the upgrades involve huge changes between releases. pfSense 2.1.5 to 2.2 was a particularly notable example - the underlying operating system jumped from FreeBSD 8.3 to 10.1, also IPsec changed from racoon to strongSwan. There was good reason for both these changes, but it did result in a fair amount of breakage, especially on older hardware.
The forthcoming pfSense 2.3 corrects some of the historic architectural limitations. PBI based packages and the antiquated build system go in the bit bucket where they belong, to be replaced by pkg and a more modern build system. Rather than being monolithic, everything is a package on pfSense 2.3, including the FreeBSD kernel and each of the ports that are essential for the base system. Once pfSense 2.3 is released, the developers will have the option of releasing upgraded packages piecemeal, rather than having to make and test a complete release - potentially very useful if there is a security issue affecting one package or a serious bug emerges. This gives the option of more frequent releases than at present.
The only thing that surprises me with pfSense 2.3 at present is that the FreeBSD userland and pfSense code are in the same package. Personally, I'd have the userland in one package and the pfSense code in another, but I can think of some good reasons why the developers have settled on this approach for now.
As others have pointed out, you're complaining about issues when you make infrequent upgrades to a thin client that seems likely to be at least eight years old. This gives you about the worst possible scenario - modest hardware that is probably very marginal for modern demands, almost certainly a restriction to the less preferred i386 architecture and some upgrades seemingly involving upgrading across more than one pfSense release at a time. If you are using flash storage that you haven't replaced for years, your storage device may be worn out and therefore the prime suspect for any upgrade related issues.
The developers do give you an alternative option - you can easily back up your configuration and reinstall pfSense. This can be more robust that an in-place upgrade, especially on modest hardware with limited storage.
-
Your hardware is garbage, and your results are garbage. Shouldn't be surprised. Tens of thousands of people hit auto-update on every release and have no issues. Upwards of 100,000 systems auto-update every year and have no issues.
We can't fix a problem you won't even describe in any detail whatsoever, though I'm sure it's a hardware-specific issue to begin with given the extensive testing all updates go through before they come out and the fact you're using a system that should have been recycled years ago and was never intended to run anything other than the Neoware-provided OS.
-
One of these days you're going to to make an update that actually installs on my Neocore (Edit: Its Neoware, not Neocore) CA22 successfully when I auto update it and I am going to poop. Until that time, I would just like to say that you all should reconsider careers in the janitorial sciences because you sure as hell can't program.
Dear Skysmurf76, the "devs" did a great job with the update, it ran hasslefree on various sites and also my side, the noobish side of "se known galaxy". Concerning your janitorial wishes, well, you must have your experiences in that field; at least, in some sort of basement, but let's not carry on this, shall we?
I have to go now to finish completely wiping my box and reinstalling…...again...... for like the 4th time in 5 years....which makes me wonder why you even have auto-update as an option if its so unreliable.
For the last 5 Years? Well, if others are able and you are not, what does you tell this?
Hey, at least what you're charging is the correct price. :)
Price, yap. Go, get a sonicwall (they castrate your bandwith by firmware, but they charge you the correct price), go, get a Juniper, or Cisco, they deliver to you with a door and charge you also the correct price. Go, get a Walmartwall, for 0.99$, they are the best.
Sorry, from one Noob to another: Post the logs, post the errors, help might come. Post no logs, troll, be unpolite: no help, no mercy with no remorse.
Happy new year, soon.