9.3-stable --> 9.10-stable, success??

[-fun-]

I did the update this morning from the latest 9.3 to the current 9.10 via GUI.

The process apparently stalled at the last step when the dialog was showing that something in the UI was being installed. All the bars in the progress dialog were full, the lower one somewhat shaded. Only from here nothing happened anymore for a long time, also no activity as far as visible in /var/log/messages and /var/log/debug.log files.

I did a reboot and now the system tells me I'm on 9.10, no updates available. everything looks fine so far (did not check the jails completely however).

One question though: In the boot device I have a new entry 'FreeNAS-e9dd2aa0c143ea7cdbe91aaee021959e' which is displayed with 'On Reboot, Now'. I expected something like 'FreeNAS-9.10-STABLE-<yyyyMMddhhmm>'.

What's wrong here, can I (and should I) correct this?

 

[sef]

Nothing is particularly wrong, although you can rename the BE. (Or should be able to, anyway.)

The system went from basing the name of the BE on the sequence string to the version string. Due to the nature of how upgrades work, it takes two upgrades for everything to get fully in sync.

 

[-fun-]

Thank you. I guess I will rename this then. It seems easier to keep track ...

Due to the nature of how upgrades work, it takes two upgrades for everything to get fully in sync.

This I do not understand. Should an upgrade be done twice and if so, how?

 

[sef]

The code that does the update is in the base system. So when you do an update, it downloads the new files, creates a new boot environment, and installs the new files into the new BE. Then it reboots (if necessary), and you now have the new code running.

If there was a change to how the update code behaved, it is now on the system, but won't be used until there is another update

 

[-fun-]

Ok, got it. I have BE entries from Version 9.3 which are all named after a release date and time. So I expected this for the 9.10 Version also.

The system went from basing the name of the BE on the sequence string to the version string.

Do I get that right that there has been a change to using a sequence string and now back to using the version string again?