From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 2 14:12:45 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 240023B8 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 14:12:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55CCB2887 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 14:12:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r72EChUM098193; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 08:12:43 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) with ESMTP id r72EChSF098190; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 08:12:43 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 08:12:43 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block To: Ronald Klop Subject: Re: ZFS: unsupported ZFS version 5000 (should be 28) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Fri, 02 Aug 2013 08:12:43 -0600 (MDT) Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 14:12:45 -0000 On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Ronald Klop wrote: > On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 09:48:03 +0200, Tim Gustafson wrote: > >> Ok, so I think I have a little more of an idea as to what happened. >> >> Apparently, when I did an "svn checkout" this evening, I grabbed >> releng/9.1 rather than releng/8.4. Apparently, that make >> buildworld/buildkernel/installkernel/installworld also upgraded the >> zpool for me, or something...I'm not sure what happened, but I *am* >> sure I didn't type "zpool upgrade" at any point. Is an automatic >> zpool upgrade included in installkernel now? > > No, it isn't. > >> So now I've got base/releng/9.1 revision number 253878 installed on >> that machine, which apparently does support the 5000 zpool version, >> but seems to somehow not have a compatible boot loader. >> >> I'm feeling like "gpart bootcode" ought to fix this problem for me, >> but I've tried several iterations of that without success. >> >> For now, I'm booted off the 9.2-BETA CD in single user mode, and then >> mounted my zpool and zfs file systems, and then ran "sh /etc/rc" by >> hand, which started (almost) everything up for me. My jails are >> running, so my services are up, so I'm going to sleep on it. I don't >> have some commands like "ps" and "top" right now in the root OS (/dev >> seems to be wedged), but at least I can poke around and look at some >> files and see what happened, and then maybe fix it. > > Maybe post the setup of your disks. So people can take a look if your > commands are right or wrong. > The output of 'gpart show' and 'gpart list' are a good starting point. Agreed. One thing that comes to mind is some older setups may only have 32K freebsd-boot partitions, and gptzfsboot is 41K at present. I'd expect an error on trying to install the bootcode, but have not tested it.