Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:21:54 +1000 From: Aristedes Maniatis <ari@ish.com.au> To: Kip Macy <kmacy@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Jurgen Weber <jurgen@ish.com.au> Subject: Re: Problematic upgrade from 7.2 to 8.0 with ZFS file system Message-ID: <4A64FC12.9050709@ish.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3c1674c90907201556n7dbd385fucb2d49aa2b1a1416@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A5D4D25.3040908@ish.com.au> <3c1674c90907201501j42f29bfbl987419edf04b1a8b@mail.gmail.com> <4A64F35E.6070501@ish.com.au> <3c1674c90907201556n7dbd385fucb2d49aa2b1a1416@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 21/07/09 8:56 AM, Kip Macy wrote: >> * lots of of clear documentation about what course of action a user should >> > follow if they are performing a source update. Should the recommendation be >> > changed to install userland*before* rebooting, and then immediately reboot >> > before some of that userland explodes against the old kernel in memory? > UPDATING explicitly states that the two need to be in sync or the user > tools will not work. Since I'm following the binary update process at the moment, I don't have UPDATING anywhere on my system. With the increasing popularity of Colin's freebsd-update, perhaps that file needs to be moved to / or somewhere else prominent and not in /usr/src Also, if the notes say "tools will not work" that should be upgraded to something stronger, like "you will not be able to reboot if you have installed any part of your operating system on ZFS". To me, 'tools' sounds like 'you will not be able to run "zpool status"'. >> > The existing recommendation is based on the fact that the new kernel will >> > continue to work after reboot with the old userland. >> > If that assumption is >> > not always true then the whole FreeBSD installation process needs >> > rethinking. > I don't think so. It is well understood that ZFS is an external code > base, and like any third party application, users need to to inform > themselves when updating. Just because it works fairly well, I don't > think we should mislead ourselves in to believing that all the rough > edges can be removed in the near future. It isn't a third party application like something out of the ports system and FreeBSD users have grown to love how everything in the base distribution works together so well. This is the first time in my 15 years of FreeBSD usage that an upgrade through major releases has had any problem for me, and I don't think it can be written off as "this isn't really part of FreeBSD, so it doesn't count." Users don't see the difference between parts of the FreeBSD system depending on their heritage. That said, you and the other developers have done a fabulous job to get us all ZFS in our favourite operating system. Thank you. Given that you've said keeping backward ABI compatibility is too hard to achieve, then I think the only answer is lots of clear documentation. I am an avid FreeBSD user, read the lists and keep myself informed, but I didn't see any warning in the places where it would have helped me. Are you saying that it is generally more dangerous to install world before rebooting? Would it be safer to: 1. reboot to single user (so there aren't many userland applications running) 2. install both world and kernel 3. reboot My only suggestions are improving the freebsd-update tool (is Colin Percival reading this?) to give relevant feedback, moving UPDATING to somewhere useful for non-source updaters and ensuring the docs clearly state the seriousness of this particular issue. For myself, I know what to do now, so my suggestions are purely to help others avoid similar difficulties. Cheers Ari Maniatis --------------------------> ish http://www.ish.com.au Level 1, 30 Wilson Street Newtown 2042 Australia phone +61 2 9550 5001 fax +61 2 9550 4001 GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A64FC12.9050709>