Don't upgrade to x86 CE build 2.4.0.r.20171008.0625
-
In this next sentence I say Something witty in Klingon about ZFS boot environments in pfSense 2.4+ as a mitigating factor for contingencies such as this:
"ZFS nIvbogh be'vam SUPERBORK SeH 'oH alows SoH ghaH nom RECOVER."
That was one really nice thing about Nano.
-
In this next sentence I say Something witty in Klingon …..
Nice. ;D
_That is always the safest way. And with the config recovery in 2.4 should be fast.
Internal testing of the new pkgs is looking good.
Steve_
-
In this next sentence I say Something witty in Klingon about ZFS boot environments in pfSense 2.4+ as a mitigating factor for contingencies such as this:
"ZFS nIvbogh be'vam SUPERBORK SeH 'oH alows SoH ghaH nom RECOVER."
That was one really nice thing about Nano.
Will be a snapshots a thing in pfSense? Wold be great a auto snapshot before upgrade option, maybe. Config recovery do the job beautifully.
-
@mais_um:
Will be a snapshots a thing in pfSense? Wold be great a auto snapshot before upgrade option, maybe. Config recovery do the job beautifully.
It's a ZFS thing, and ZFS is now an install option in pfSense 2.4.
AFAIK, you can't recover from ZFS snapshots in pfSense just yet. I'm not sure where that is on the road-map, but if I were King/President/Jesus, I'd make it a high priority.
I've been anticipating ZFS in pfSense for years and am still giddy when I think about a ZPool vDEV made of 2 flash DOMs. https://twitter.com/karlfife/status/878833005426561024
FreeNAS has been doing GUI-integrated ZFS boot environments for a while, and the feature has saved my bacon more than once (especially in remote installs without remote technical hands). As long as the system comes back up after an update/upgrade, you can pick a boot snapshot (via GUI/SSH–no IPMI needed).
Yes, snapshots are auto-generated at time of update, and (of course) they each contain a private copy of the config (e.g. usable, non-migrated).
-
I just applied the newly available 10/9 build. It seems to have fixed my broken install.
That is, my 2.4 remote instance was non-functional, notably had a DHCP server that wouldn't start, but the borked instance retained WAN connectivity. Just now, it called home to the update servers, which pushed the 10/9 build, then rebooted, bringing the network back to the land of the living. Nice work gentlemen.
-
Too late, totally messed me up. Took about 4 hours to figure out what happened and get things fixed and going again. :(
-
Installed the latest update. Seems okay so far.
-
But dhcpd v4 not working:
Oct 10 06:21:15 dhcpd Can't attach interface bridge0 to bpf device /dev/bpf0: Invalid argument -
But dhcpd v4 not working:
Oct 10 06:21:15 dhcpd Can't attach interface bridge0 to bpf device /dev/bpf0: Invalid argumentI'm not seeing that error or any other malfunction of dhcpd.
-
Manual upgrade "pkg upgrade -f isc-dhcp43-server-4.3.6_1" and clean chroot env. /var/dhcpd resolve it.
-
Fresh install of the new version and restore from old config.xml has fixed everything.
-
Did a fresh install and restored my old config and its all working fine now.
-
Manual upgrade "pkg upgrade -f isc-dhcp43-server-4.3.6_1" and clean chroot env. /var/dhcpd resolve it.
That did the trick for me as well.
For developers, I know it's hard to keep up with the changes but this is a case where you could improve greatly. It should not be possible to upgrade your system and be left with an old version of a chroot environment that has the wrong device nodes or other files, every upgrade should clean up expendable content so that the services are started with a clean slate after an upgrade.Edit: I realize now that the real problem was a bad dhcpd binary and the package system didn't include an updated dhcpd package, it actually did but since the version number hadn't changed pkg didn't offer it as an update and the only way to get the fixed dhcpd package was to use pkg install/upgrade -f.
You could investigate a possiblity of including a build number into your package version numbers. It's not afaik supported directly by poudriere which assumes that the version numbers are what's in the ports tree and nothing else. A build number would solve a lot of problems similar to this and enable a forced reinstall of all packages regarless of what the version numbers are in the ports tree.
-
Installed the latest update. Seems okay so far.
Logos', my pfSense logos' are screwed up on both my units, not critical but visually obvious. :)
-
Erm… I have a strong feeling that the pre-kaboom snapshots should be taken, released as 2.4.0 and this insane messing should be moved to 2.4.1. WTH is anyone doing changes like this days before release, after months and months of beta testing.
-
Erm… I have a strong feeling that the pre-kaboom snapshots should be taken, released as 2.4.0 and this insane messing should be moved to 2.4.1. WTH is anyone doing changes like this days before release, after months and months of beta testing.
-
@marjohn56:
Installed the latest update. Seems okay so far.
Logos', my pfSense logos' are screwed up on both my units, not critical but visually obvious. :)
Refresh browser cache, fixed the broken logo for me.
-
@marjohn56:
Installed the latest update. Seems okay so far.
Logos', my pfSense logos' are screwed up on both my units, not critical but visually obvious. :)
Refresh browser cache, fixed the broken logo for me.
Yup.. I'll go sit in the corner with my dunces hat on… :-[
-
Updating to build 2.4.0.r.20171009.1758 worked like a charme.
pfSense is now running about 12 hours without showing any problems so I'd say "Good work and thank you" to the pfSense Team.
-
I'm also running good & stable on 2.4.1.a.20171009.2023 since last night. Thank you guys 8)