Possible problems upgrading from 8.2 to 9.0?

M

MasterOne

I am wondering, what possible problems are to be expected, when upgrading from 8.2-RELEASE to 9.0-RELEASE.

Especially what about existing filesystems, so upgrading to the latest UFS with journaling and the latest ZFS version, that will be in 9.0-RELEASE? Do filesystems have to be reformated?

Since 9.0-BETA3 is already available, it can not take too long any more till the release, so I am curious, about the best strategy for new installations at that point:

- Install 8.2-RELEASE now and upgrade to 9.0-RELEASE once it's available
- Install 9.0-BETA3 now and upgrade to 9.0-RELEASE once it's available
- Wait with performing new installations, till 9.0-RELEASE is available (if one is in no hurry)
 
Unsure about if your fstab may need to be rewritten for a v8.2 > v9 upgrade, but for the most of the questions find the online file that details v9 release data. It should have zfs, filesystem, and much more information, then one can decide on the best strategy depending upon resources.
 
Do you mean What's cooking for FreeBSD 9??

It mentions all the good stuff happening to FreeBSD 9, but not what's in store when upgrading.

I tried to find more info on the mentioned filesystem-upgrades, but have been unsuccessful. Is there already another document which details the upgrade process from 8.2-RELEASE to 9.0-RELEASE (maybe a draft)?

So the question remains: Can anybody here explain, if UFS and ZFS filesystems from 8.2-RELEASE will need to be reformated for the new revisions of 9.0-RELEASE (UFS SU+J and ZFS v28)?
 
MasterOne said:
So the question remains: Can anybody here explain, if UFS and ZFS filesystems from 8.2-RELEASE will need to be reformated for the new revisions of 9.0-RELEASE (UFS SU+J and ZFS v28)?
Click to expand...

The concept of format doesn't exist in the BSD world.

For ZFS systems you just have to upgrade with:

[CMD=""]# zpool upgrade <pool> [/CMD]

For UFS2 systems if you want to migrate them to SU+J then you have to unmount them and use tunefs to convert them:

[CMD=""]# tunefs -j enable <partition>[/CMD]

That's basically all there is to it.
 
Thanks for your explanation, I guess that issue was the only obstacle when considering to use 8.2-RELEASE for new installations now, and to upgrade to 9.x-RELEASE later.
 
MasterOne said:
I am wondering, what possible problems are to be expected, when upgrading from 8.2-RELEASE to 9.0-RELEASE.
Click to expand...

If you used ahci.ko module on 8.x then nothing will change if it comes to disk devices names, if not, then ad4 will became ada0 and ad10 will become ada1 (if you have ad4 and ad10 disks).

The CD-ROM acd0 device will be now cd0.

Especially what about existing filesystems, so upgrading to the latest UFS with journaling and the latest ZFS version, that will be in 9.0-RELEASE? Do filesystems have to be reformated?
Click to expand...
Its not needed.

About upgrade ... take the 'classic' [1] source upgrade, no matter if its BETA3 or RELEASE, it will work the same and after RELEASE is there, you will upgrade again from BETA3 to RELEASE ... or to RC1 for example.

[1] http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=26140
 
MasterOne said:
Thanks for your explanation, I guess that issue was the only obstacle when considering to use 8.2-RELEASE for new installations now, and to upgrade to 9.x-RELEASE later.
Click to expand...
Your welcome. I also forgot to mention the ATA/SATA renaming from ad(x) to ada(x) like vermaden mentioned above.
For new installations I personally go with 9-BETA3 instead of 8.2-RELEASE, although I understand that this might not be your best choice. If you don't need to rush an installation RC1 is scheduled for coming Monday.
 
Maybe an answer to a question in your first post, but I am not sure if it is or not a problem specific to only the machines here. Edit, etc seem to not enable accurate editing of configuration files xorg.conf, fstab etc, but editors/jed came to the rescue... (Was not a problem in the v9 from march of this year that I recall...)
 
vermaden said:
If you used ahci.ko module on 8.x then nothing will change if it comes to disk devices names, if not, then ad4 will became ada0 and ad10 will become ada1 (if you have ad4 and ad10 disks).
Click to expand...

Moreover, the use of ufs disk labels within /etc/fstab leaves you away from this.
 
[DELETED]

Something strange going on, just thought, RC1 got rolled back to BETA3 since the FTP-download content changed, but now RC1 is back in the images folder. I already downloaded the memstick images for i386 and amd64 yesterday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top