Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    [solved] 2.2.3 nanobsd - packages reinstall after upgrade totally screwed

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Problems Installing or Upgrading pfSense Software
    38 Posts 9 Posters 6.0k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • R
      robi
      last edited by

      Oh shit.

      Put back the patch, please, please…

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • S
        ShutterBC
        last edited by

        I have noticed that after the first reboot, packages don't seem to fully reinstall until I reboot a second time. Is that normal?

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • X
          xbipin
          last edited by

          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

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • B
            bfeitell
            last edited by

            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

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • D
              doktornotor Banned
              last edited by

              @bfeitell:

              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.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • B
                bfeitell
                last edited by

                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.

                ![Screen Shot 2015-07-02 at 3.31.15 AM.png](/public/imported_attachments/1/Screen Shot 2015-07-02 at 3.31.15 AM.png)
                ![Screen Shot 2015-07-02 at 3.31.15 AM.png_thumb](/public/imported_attachments/1/Screen Shot 2015-07-02 at 3.31.15 AM.png_thumb)

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • D
                  doktornotor Banned
                  last edited by

                  @bfeitell:

                  Might you grace me with a more fulsome explanation?

                  Read the fine thread.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • R
                    robi
                    last edited by

                    @bfeitell:

                    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.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • G
                      gazoo
                      last edited by

                      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.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • R
                        robi
                        last edited by

                        @gazoo:

                        is the broken limiter fixed in 2.2.3?

                        As far as I remember reading from the changelogs, it is.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • B
                          bfeitell
                          last edited by

                          Thank you, Robi.

                          For whatever reason, adblock plus doesn't like the source of the inline image (tinypic.com).

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • C
                            cmb
                            last edited by

                            @doktornotor:

                            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.htm

                            We don't have any 2G of those, but have several of the 4G version of same and they're all fine.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • D
                              doktornotor Banned
                              last edited by

                              @cmb:

                              Do you have a recalled card by chance?
                              http://www.pcengines.ch/cfissue.htm

                              We 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.)

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • C
                                cmb
                                last edited by

                                @doktornotor:

                                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?

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • D
                                  doktornotor Banned
                                  last edited by

                                  @cmb:

                                  @doktornotor:

                                  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+0w
                                  
                                  

                                  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.  >:(

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • C
                                    cmb
                                    last edited by

                                    @doktornotor:

                                    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?

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • D
                                      doktornotor Banned
                                      last edited by

                                      @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.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • R
                                        robi
                                        last edited by

                                        @doktornotor:

                                        Haven't seen a single complaint about the "harmful" patch for years.

                                        +1

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • First post
                                          Last post
                                        Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.