Secondary partition (/dev/ufs/pfsense0), used for upgrade not found

jcpolo

I cannot get the upgrade to work at all from the web gui. In searching the forums I though I should try via the command line. Below is what I get when I try…

Logout (SSH only) 9) pfTop
Assign Interfaces 10) Filter Logs
Set interface(s) IP address 11) Restart webConfigurator
Reset webConfigurator password 12) pfSense Developer Shell
Reset to factory defaults 13) Update from console
Reboot system 14) Disable Secure Shell (sshd)
Halt system 15) Restore recent configuration
Ping host 16) Restart PHP-FPM
Shell

Enter an option: 13

Updating repositories metadata...
Updating pfSense-core repository catalogue...
pfSense-core repository is up-to-date.
Updating pfSense repository catalogue...
pfSense repository is up-to-date.
All repositories are up-to-date.
**** WARNING ****
Duplicate slice required!!

Before starting the upgrade process, the currently mounted nanobsd partition
needs to be cloned to the secondary partition, where the update will happen

After installation a reboot will be required to switch partition.

Proceed with upgrade? (y/N) y
Secondary partition (/dev/ufs/pfsense0), used for upgrade not found

jimp

What does the output of "mount" show? How about "ls -l /dev/ufs* /dev/ada* /dev/da*"?

davel

Hi - I'm having the same problem… trying to upgrade from 2.3. Here is my output from mount and "ls -l /dev/ufs* /dev/ada* /dev/da*"

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[2.3-RELEASE][admin@pfsense.lampert]/root: mount
/dev/ufs/pfsense1 on / (ufs, local, noatime, read-only, synchronous)
devfs on /dev (devfs, local)
/dev/ufs/cf on /cf (ufs, local, noatime, read-only, synchronous)
/dev/md0 on /tmp (ufs, local)
/dev/md1 on /var (ufs, local)
devfs on /var/dhcpd/dev (devfs, local)
[2.3-RELEASE][admin@pfsense.lampert]/root: ls -l /dev/ufs* /dev/ada* /dev/da*
crw-r–--- 1 root operator 0x59 Aug 6 00:54 /dev/da0
crw-r----- 1 root operator 0x5a Aug 6 00:54 /dev/da0s1
crw-r----- 1 root operator 0x5e Aug 6 00:54 /dev/da0s1a
crw-r----- 1 root operator 0x5b Aug 6 00:54 /dev/da0s2
crw-r----- 1 root operator 0x64 Aug 6 00:55 /dev/da0s2a
crw-r----- 1 root operator 0x5c Aug 6 00:54 /dev/da0s3
crw------- 1 root wheel 0x36 Aug 6 00:54 /dev/ufssuspend

/dev/ufs:
total 0
crw-r----- 1 root operator 0x61 Aug 6 00:54 cf
crw-r----- 1 root operator 0x66 Aug 6 00:54 pfsense1

/dev/ufsid:
total 0
crw-r----- 1 root operator 0x78 Aug 18 05:02 5362ae935a04aa0c
crw-r----- 1 root operator 0x63 Aug 6 00:55 570c3e041222985b
[2.3-RELEASE][admin@pfsense.lampert]/root:

jimp

I'm not quite sure how that might have landed in that position. Not too hard to fix, though:

tunefs -L pfsense0 /dev/da0s1a

davel

Thank you for the quick response. I seem to have run into an additional issue.

[2.3-RELEASE][admin@pfsense.lampert]/root: tunefs -L pfsense0 /dev/da0s1a
tunefs: /dev/da0s1a: failed to write superblock

Checked the man page for tunefs…not sure if the output from tunefs -p is helpful but, here it is...

[2.3-RELEASE][admin@pfsense.lampert]/root: tunefs -p /dev/da0s1a
tunefs: POSIX.1e ACLs: (-a) disabled
tunefs: NFSv4 ACLs: (-N) disabled
tunefs: MAC multilabel: (-l) disabled
tunefs: soft updates: (-n) disabled
tunefs: soft update journaling: (-j) disabled
tunefs: gjournal: (-J) disabled
tunefs: trim: (-t) disabled
tunefs: maximum blocks per file in a cylinder group: (-e) 512
tunefs: average file size: (-f) 16384
tunefs: average number of files in a directory: (-s) 64
tunefs: minimum percentage of free space: (-m) 8%
tunefs: space to hold for metadata blocks: (-k) 1032
tunefs: optimization preference: (-o) time
tunefs: volume label: (-L) pfsense1

Again, any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

jimp

So what does tunefs -p show for /dev/da0s2a ?

davel

Ok… did some more poking around. I realized that both /dev/da0s1a and /dev/da0s2a were labeled pfsense1. I then assumed I couldn't re-label the mounted filesystem which is actually /dev/da0s1a. I ran the below command and it seemed to work just fine however, I now fear I have the filesystem labels transposed... s1a should be pfsense0 but it is pfsense1... s2a should be pfsense1 but it is pfsense0. Is this a problem that I need to fix? I'm concerned about proceeding with another attempt at a software upgrade with the filesystem labels transposed.

Again... any help is greatly appreciated.

[2.3-RELEASE][admin@pfsense.lampert]/root: tunefs -L pfsense0 /dev/da0s2a
[2.3-RELEASE][admin@pfsense.lampert]/root: tunefs -p /dev/da0s2a
tunefs: POSIX.1e ACLs: (-a) disabled
tunefs: NFSv4 ACLs: (-N) disabled
tunefs: MAC multilabel: (-l) disabled
tunefs: soft updates: (-n) disabled
tunefs: soft update journaling: (-j) disabled
tunefs: gjournal: (-J) disabled
tunefs: trim: (-t) disabled
tunefs: maximum blocks per file in a cylinder group: (-e) 512
tunefs: average file size: (-f) 16384
tunefs: average number of files in a directory: (-s) 64
tunefs: minimum percentage of free space: (-m) 8%
tunefs: space to hold for metadata blocks: (-k) 1032
tunefs: optimization preference: (-o) time
tunefs: volume label: (-L) pfsense0

Sorry… I was posting at the same time you asked the above question. Before I ran the command above.. both showed the exact same thing.

[2.3-RELEASE][admin@pfsense.lampert]/root: tunefs -p /dev/da0s2a
tunefs: POSIX.1e ACLs: (-a) disabled
tunefs: NFSv4 ACLs: (-N) disabled
tunefs: MAC multilabel: (-l) disabled
tunefs: soft updates: (-n) disabled
tunefs: soft update journaling: (-j) disabled
tunefs: gjournal: (-J) disabled
tunefs: trim: (-t) disabled
tunefs: maximum blocks per file in a cylinder group: (-e) 512
tunefs: average file size: (-f) 16384
tunefs: average number of files in a directory: (-s) 64
tunefs: minimum percentage of free space: (-m) 8%
tunefs: space to hold for metadata blocks: (-k) 1032
tunefs: optimization preference: (-o) time
tunefs: volume label: (-L) pfsense1
[2.3-RELEASE][admin@pfsense.lampert]/root: tunefs -p /dev/da0s1a
tunefs: POSIX.1e ACLs: (-a) disabled
tunefs: NFSv4 ACLs: (-N) disabled
tunefs: MAC multilabel: (-l) disabled
tunefs: soft updates: (-n) disabled
tunefs: soft update journaling: (-j) disabled
tunefs: gjournal: (-J) disabled
tunefs: trim: (-t) disabled
tunefs: maximum blocks per file in a cylinder group: (-e) 512
tunefs: average file size: (-f) 16384
tunefs: average number of files in a directory: (-s) 64
tunefs: minimum percentage of free space: (-m) 8%
tunefs: space to hold for metadata blocks: (-k) 1032
tunefs: optimization preference: (-o) time
tunefs: volume label: (-L) pfsense1

jimp

That's definitely odd. I'm not sure how it could have ended up in that state, but it's definitely not good. At this point I would wipe and reload but do a full install on that card instead of NanoBSD. NanoBSD won't be in 2.4 anyhow. Only upgrades you'd get from here would be 2.3.2_x or maybe a 2.3.3 anyhow if you want to risk staying on Nano.

davel

Thanks for your help. I had previously tried to upgrade via the web UI and, it (obviously) didn't go well. I had to do a hard reset at one point which, i'm sure didn't help. This was an "appliance" i purchased from NetGate a few years ago and, it has served me well to this point. I'll see about installing on a new card and just switch them since, I cant have it offline for long. If that doesn't go well, I might just bite-the-bullet and purchase another appliance from the pfsense store… new hardware, etc.

If I manage to get a new install complete, i'll post here with a few details.

Thanks and regards

jimp

Sounds like an APU. A new device would be ideal but if you are trying to squeeze a little more out of this one, use the serial memstick to do a full install to a new SD card, or drop an mSATA disk in there for a full install, which is a million times better than running off SD and shouldn't be too much cost.

davel

That is exactly right. It has been so trouble-free that I've never really had to get into the "inner workings"… until now... although, it is still running just fine, just needs some TLC to be able to extend its life.

Thanks again for all the help. I've been reading up on the different install types and, your post above helps me understand the differences and pros/cons.

I'll post an update in a few weeks after I get my solution implemented.

Regards