Project

General

Profile

Bug #457

Upgrade failed, "Something went wrong when trying to update the fstab entry".

Added by Oscar Francia about 9 years ago. Updated almost 9 years ago.

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Category:
Upgrade
Target version:
Start date:
03/27/2010
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:
Affected Version:
2.0
Affected Architecture:

Description

I tested 1Gb image 26 Mar.( 512Mb have disk full problem )
php: : New alert found: Something went wrong when trying to update the fstab entry. Aborting upgrade.

nanobsdUpgrade.txt (241 KB) nanobsdUpgrade.txt upgrade.log with http://snapshots.pfsense.org/FreeBSD_RELENG_8_1/i386/pfSense_HEAD/updates/pfSense-2.0-BETA1-4g-20100515-0038-nanobsd-upgrade.img.gz Jochen Becker, 05/19/2010 11:42 PM
from-20100515-0038-nanobsd_to-20100523-1142-nanobsd.tar.bz2 (20.7 KB) from-20100515-0038-nanobsd_to-20100523-1142-nanobsd.tar.bz2 Jochen Becker, 05/25/2010 06:10 PM
from-20100526-0339-nanobsd_to-20100528-0707-nanobsd.tar.bz2 (22.9 KB) from-20100526-0339-nanobsd_to-20100528-0707-nanobsd.tar.bz2 Jochen Becker, 05/28/2010 07:44 PM

History

#1 Updated by Ermal Lu├ži about 9 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Closed

What is the error report here!
It is saying that it could not upgrade.

#2 Updated by Chris Buechler about 9 years ago

  • Status changed from Closed to New

This is a legit issue, I've seen it several times myself, there are major issues with nanobsd upgrades in 2.0. Needs more testing and more info to fix but this is definitely legit.

#3 Updated by Jochen Becker about 9 years ago

same problem with fresh image 14.05.2010 by upgrading try to 18.05.2010 via webinterface

(sytemlog) php: : New alert found: Something went wrong when trying to update the fstab entry. Aborting upgrade.
system mount: "/dev/ufs/pfsense0 on / (ufs, local, read-only)"

(/cf/conf/firmware_update_misc.log)
mount: /dev/ufs/pfsense1 : No such file or directory
cp: /tmp/pfsense1/etc/fstab: No such file or directory sed: /tmp/pfsense1/etc/fstab: No such file or directory
umount: /tmp/pfsense1: not a file system root directory

(fdisk_upgrade_log.txt)
#no content#

#4 Updated by Jochen Becker about 9 years ago

system alix board 4GB kingston flashcard

#5 Updated by Jochen Becker about 9 years ago

NanoBSD Firmware upgrade in progress...

File list:

Warning: file_get_contents(/conf/file_upgrade_log.txt): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /usr/local/www/diag_nanobsd.php on line 181

Misc log:

mount: /dev/ufs/pfsense1 : No such file or directory
cp: /tmp/pfsense1/etc/fstab: No such file or directory
sed: /tmp/pfsense1/etc/fstab: No such file or directory
umount: /tmp/pfsense1: not a file system root directory

fdisk/bsdlabel log:

#6 Updated by Jim Pingle about 9 years ago

I just updated a 2GB image from the GUI and the CLI and both worked, though I did check some fixes in for the "console update by URL" option. I updated from mid-April to a snapshot from yesterday night.

#7 Updated by Jochen Becker almost 9 years ago

Update URL ?

i flashed the CF card with "pfSense-2.0-BETA1-4g-20100515-0038-nanobsd.img.gz" and want to update from "http://snapshots.pfsense.org/FreeBSD_RELENG_8_1/i386/pfSense_HEAD/.updaters/"

i added url to update manager and tried the online update from the GUI, nothing works

after this i tried the console update with the url "http://snapshots.pfsense.org/FreeBSD_RELENG_8_1/i386/pfSense_HEAD/.updaters/latest.tgz" and it does not work.

system reboots and it trys to update the installed packages

failed with fstab error

#8 Updated by Jim Pingle almost 9 years ago

Automatic update has never, ever, worked on NanoBSD. It will be worked on eventually though.

Use one of the snapshot images from here, find one that matches your size:

http://snapshots.pfsense.org/FreeBSD_RELENG_8_1/i386/pfSense_HEAD/updates/?C=M;O=D

Download the image and use the firmware upload feature, or do a console update by URL.

#9 Updated by Jochen Becker almost 9 years ago

this update works, but i have many mistakes about the partitiontable
see update.log file as attachment

on my 1.2.x pfsense box upgrades via webupdate and GUI ... only the 2.0 version will not upgrade on nanobsd

#10 Updated by Jim Pingle almost 9 years ago

I'll see if I can find out what might be causing those errors, but none of them appear to be fatal.

#11 Updated by Jim Pingle almost 9 years ago

The errors were meaningless. They were just for logging purposes, some fdisk commands were being run on other slices that didn't really need to be. I fixed those errors and some others that were coming up. Those logs are really only for debugging when something goes wrong with the upgrade; If it works, there is really no need to check the logs.

I am still trying to figure out why the logs do not contain all of the information that should be there. There is a lot of info that should be logged, and is logged if I watch the files "live" during the upgrade, but is not in the logs after reboot.

#12 Updated by Jochen Becker almost 9 years ago

Where does the log files will be written?
Both Partitions /dev/ufs/pfsense1 on / and /dev/ufs/cf on /cf are read only.
if the upgrade fails and the partitions are ro mounted, the information will be lost.

I think if i look on the upgrade process, the system fails and set the partitions read only in this fdisk part, after this pfsense reboots and will finish the upgrade prozess (reinstall plugins). but in reality it never upgrades.

@Jim i am not so deep in the code and prozesses of pfsense, but i will help to find and fix bugs in the best way i can do.

#13 Updated by Jim Pingle almost 9 years ago

The logs are stored in /conf/ and the partition is read/write when the logs are written, and I don't see that it gets switched back to read-only mode at all during the process.

#14 Updated by Jim Pingle almost 9 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Feedback

I found what was messing up the upgrade logs. I fixed it, but it won't really show until you upgrade from that new snapshot to one after it.

There will still be a couple errors that show in the logs, but some are expected because during the process we test various partitions and expect errors in some cases -- For example, if an upgrade went really wrong, there could be a partition or label in a place where it should not exist.

So in order to get any more useful info from this point, you (or anyone who wants to test) will need to upgrade or reimage to the next snapshot, then upgrade again after you are at that point. From there, the logs should give us more meaningful detail should a failure occur again.

#15 Updated by Jochen Becker almost 9 years ago

okay, I will try, can you upload an upgrade SnapShot (Size 4G) and i will try it
which files do you need?

#16 Updated by Jim Pingle almost 9 years ago

You'll have to wait for the snapshot builder to crank one out. It moves at its own special pace :-)

The log files from /conf/*_log.txt are the debug logs we need if you have a problem.

#17 Updated by Jochen Becker almost 9 years ago

/conf/*log* data from upgrade nanobsd 4G from-20100515-0038 to 20100523-1142

upgrade via console with upgrade per url

#18 Updated by Jochen Becker almost 9 years ago

Jochen Becker wrote:

/conf/*log* data from upgrade nanobsd 4G from-20100515-0038 to 20100523-1142

upgrade via console with upgrade per url

upgrade url http://snapshots.pfsense.org/FreeBSD_RELENG_8_1/i386/pfSense_HEAD/updates/pfSense-2.0-BETA1-4g-20100523-1142-nanobsd-upgrade.img.gz

#19 Updated by Jim Pingle almost 9 years ago

None of those files you used will have the code I checked in today. You need to wait for snapshots dated after the 25th.

#20 Updated by Jochen Becker almost 9 years ago

today upgraded to
pfSense-2.0-BETA1-4g-20100526-0339-nanobsd-upgrade.img.gz

waiting for next 4G image to send the files

#21 Updated by Jochen Becker almost 9 years ago

upgrade
from pfSense-2.0-BETA1-4g-20100526-0339-nanobsd-upgrade.img.gz
to pfSense-2.0-BETA1-4g-20100528-0707-nanobsd-upgrade.img.gz

via console update url

#22 Updated by Jochen Becker almost 9 years ago

have a look on ticket #516
if this is fixed, next one will be #516

#23 Updated by Jim Pingle almost 9 years ago

  • Status changed from Feedback to Resolved

Everything in that last backup looked normal. There are errors when I expect to see them (failsafe checks) and no errors I did not expect to see. It should be functioning normally now.

Also available in: Atom PDF