2.0-RELEASE (i386) - Unable to check for updates.
-
Hi!
First, I'm very sorry if this exact question have been brought up before, but it was not in sticky or in any of the posts on the first pages.
Searching in such a huge forum for something so general is futile.So to my problem, I have a newly installed pfSense 2.0 (no upgrade) which simply refuses to contact the update-server.
In System > Firmware > Auto update I get:Downloading new version information...done Unable to check for updates. Could not contact pfSense update server http://snapshots.pfsense.org/FreeBSD_RELENG_8_1/i386/pfSense_RELENG_2_0/.updaters/No matter what I select in "Default update URLs", it won't work.
If i try visiting the URL manually (http://snapshots.pfsense.org/FreeBSD_RELENG_8_1/i386/pfSense_RELENG_2_0/.updaters/),
I get a "Not found" error, so it is clearly not working.Do any of you have a different URL ?
I resolve "snapshots.pfsense.org" to IP 69.64.6.6
Also the web UI gets slugish sometimes, even though the CPU is only at 0-10% use, it can take 10 seconds before a page is shown, but most of the time
it will load at normal speed, as in very fast.Thanks for any help :D
-
Try going to the top page of snapshots. I think that might answer your questions.
Cheers.
-
Try going to the top page of snapshots. I think that might answer your questions.
Cheers.
Thanks for that, I forgot to mention that I noticed this earlier, but since there was no confirmation anywhere (sticky post could be a good idea ?),
and the fact that a buddy of mine was able to check for updates (or at least said so) made me think there could be something else at play.I will make an change request for this later, as I work in a software company myself with software that updates itself daily over the internet,
and there is a huge difference between "unable to connect" (error) and "The update servers are down for maintenance be back in x time" ;)But thanks!
-
Did you tested name resolution in your box?
-
That's odd, are you sure you are using 2.0 release and not an RC?
Anyway the URL should be: http://updates.pfsense.org/_updaters
Steve
-
I updated through a number of RCs and snapshots to 2.0 RELEASE and my Auto Update page also reports:
Downloading new version information…done
Unable to check for updates.
Could not contact pfSense update server http://snapshots.pfsense.org/FreeBSD_RELENG_8_1/i386/pfSense_RELENG_2_0/.updaters/when I leave the Auto Updater settings box Default Auto Update URLs empty. I changed it to pfSense Stable Release Updates (i386) clicked Save and went back to the Auto Update page and it still said
Downloading new version information…done
Unable to check for updates.
Could not contact pfSense update server http://snapshots.pfsense.org/FreeBSD_RELENG_8_1/i386/pfSense_RELENG_2_0/.updaters/
-
Snapshots are offline, choose a stable or RELEASE in list option.
-
choose a stable or RELEASE in list option.
I thought I did that and it still went looking for a snapshot update. (See my reply immediately preceding this suggestion.) Or did I miss some nuance of your suggestion. :)
-
Conversely my box, which is still running RC3 :-[, shows the correct URL.
[quote]
A new version is now availableCurrent version: 2.0-RC3
NanoBSD Size : 1g
Built On: Tue Jun 21 04:02:40 EDT 2011
New version: 2.0-RELEASEUpdate source: http://updates.pfsense.org/_updaters
Steve
-
so, test name resolution.
-
That's odd, are you sure you are using 2.0 release and not an RC?
Anyway the URL should be: http://updates.pfsense.org/_updaters
A fresh install of pfSense 2.0 amd64 RELEASE led me here - same issue. The default install is checking snapshots.pfsense.org, not updates.pfsense.org. Selecting "pfSense Stable Release Updates (amd64)" in the in System : Firmware : Settings drop-down sets the Firmware Auto Update URL to "http://updates.pfsense.org/_updaters/amd64" but also checks "Use a URL server for firmware upgrades other than www.pfsense.org"
Checking that box would seem to have implications:
"NOTE: When a custom URL is enabled, the system will not verify the digital signature from www.pfsense.org."
-
Presuming this reply was directed to me (possibly among others)
@marcelloc:so, test name resolution.
I tested name resolution on my pfSense box as follows:
nslookup snapshots.pfsense.org
Server: 127.0.0.1
Address: 127.0.0.1#53Non-authoritative answer:
Name: snapshots.pfsense.org
Address: 69.64.6.6nslookup updates.pfsense.org
Server: 127.0.0.1
Address: 127.0.0.1#53Non-authoritative answer:
Name: updates.pfsense.org
Address: 204.93.162.188but it wasn't clear to me what name resolution test was being suggested. My pfSense box has DNS forwarder enabled, DNS forwarder has no overrides for anything in domain pfsense.org and the box uses OpenDNS as its name server.
Conversely my box, which is still running RC3 :-[, shows the correct URL.
[/quote]
From recollection, the last snapshot build I used (before upgrading to 2.0 RELEASE) was from 26-Aug-2011.Like strategem I was reluctant to manually change the update URL due to the warning about digital signature not being checked.
-
Yes I can see why the manually checking the box in the face of a warning can be off putting.
I was just pointing out that the update URL seems to have already been corrected in RC3. Although now I apply more brain I could have entered that myself.
Is it not related to this?:
http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,38687.0.htmlSteve
-
Is it not related to this?:
http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,38687.0.htmlIts not clear to me that a post about update URLs changing 3 months before release would also apply to that release. I expected (apparently wrongly) that a release (either from fresh install OR upgrade from a snapshot) would establish the correct URL for updates.
This issue doesn't bother me personally since I (now) always download the firm ware I want and then upgrade manually. I have contributed to this discussion because I thought that some additional data might help identify the problem (and I would prefer not to to see "unable to check for updates" on the home page of my pfSense boxes).
-
I have contributed to this discussion because I thought that some additional data might help identify the problem
As did I yet I can see I've only added confusion! ::)
Steve
