9.2.1.9 installs to da1 when da10 was chosen

[gusgus]

9.2.1.9 both the USB and CD install images are installing to da1 (a member of a RAIDz2 array that has data on it!!) even though I'm picking my USB flash drive (da10). After several attempts, I thought I was going crazy (the USB flash drive da10 keeps booting afterwards with 9.2.1.7, unchanged) until I noticed that the message "FreeNAS has been installed to da1" appears at the end of the install. Investigation in the shell shows that:
gparted show da1
shows that it is a (now corrupted) GPT-formatted 3TB hard drive, while
gparted show da10
shows that it is my 16GB USB flash drive.

I searched through the forums but no one else seems to have reported this, suggesting that it may still be present in the installer code.

EDIT: My USB drive is actually listed in the installer as both da1 and da10 for some reason. Choosing da10 yields the correct installation onto the USB drive. This still seems like unintended activity by the installer so I'll leave it here.

Steps to reproduce:
-Have a USB flash drive with FreeNAS 9.2.1.7 installed on it
-Boot 9.2.1.9 installer from usb or flash drive
-Select Shell
-Verify which device is which using gpart (my USB flash drive is da10)
-Exit shell
-Begin installer
-Select USB flash drive
-Let it install
-At the end, see the message about FreeNAS was installed to da1
-Enter shell again
-Verify that USB flash drive is still da10
-Check the GPT of the device da1 (it is now corrupted)
-Exit installer, reboot
-Verify that the USB flash drive that was da10 is unchanged by booting into it.

 

[pirateghost]

A. 9.2.x is old. Like really old. There is no work being done on that at all.

B. 9.3 came with a new install method.

C. Disconnect your data drives while installing the OS to prevent issues like this.

 

[gusgus]

Arguments of pros and cons between living on the bleeding edge of stability versus on a stable system where the bugs have at least been well documented aside, I've been considering upgrading. Which is more stable, 9.3.1 or 9.10.1-U2?

 

[pirateghost]

I've been considering upgrading. Which is more stable, 9.3.1 or 9.10-U2?

9.3.1 is also not being worked on.

If you want up to date, you need 9.10

 

[gusgus]

Up to date is not as relevant to me as stability, obviously. Also since there will always be bugs, it is always nicer when the bugs are better documented in forums and bug reports.

No recommendation for which system is more stable? From what I have found on the forums, 9.3.1 might be more favorable than 9.10.1 in this regard.

 

[pirateghost]

I haven't found any issues with 9.10.1

 

[SweetAndLow]

9.10.1-u2 is working pretty good for most people.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[Stux]

Arguments of pros and cons between living on the bleeding edge of stability versus on a stable system where the bugs have at least been well documented aside, I've been considering upgrading. Which is more stable, 9.3.1 or 9.10.1-U2?

That's because 9.10.x has been unstable, and 9.3.1 has been stable.

But which is better? U2 has been good for me so far.

If you want any issues you do find fixed, then you can't use 9.3.1.