New setup. Getting error when updated

[Visseroth]

OK, so I'm building a new machine. On my previous machine I had never had any errors when doing any updates but on this machine (fresh 9.3 install downloaded from the site) I keep getting an error

CRITICAL: Update failed. Check /data/update.failed for further details.

I pulled the file and opened it in note pad but it didn't make any sense to me.
Anyone else know what to make of it?

Mind you this is a fresh machine, no data on it nor any chance of corrupting anything. This is a blank slate.
The only thing I've done is upload my old config and delete the pool so as to retain everything else like user accounts, ect.

I had to rename the extension to .txt to get it to upload.

 

[dlavigne]

You shouldn't be getting a traceback. Which build is the system on now (from System -> Information)? Have you ever switched the train (between nightly and stable)?

 

[Visseroth]

No, I haven't. I stick with stable.
I managed to get it working. I did a factory reset. Still had the error. Updated manually, still had the error and still had updates to do. Ran Automatic update and the error went away after reboot. Uploaded my config again and imported pool. Still no error.
I can however replicate the error by reinstalling with the given image on the download site and have it run a update via the internet. Had it happen on a flash drive and now on my SATA DOM.

 

[Visseroth]

Just noticed something else.
Checked the pool status with zpool get version storage and I get....

NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE
storage version - default

shouldn't I get a version and a different source?

 

[cyberjock]

Just noticed something else.
Checked the pool status with zpool get version storage and I get....

NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE
storage version - default

shouldn't I get a version and a different source?

Totally normal. versioning is gone in ZFS and has been for over 2 years. ;) It's v5000 when the version is listed as a hyphen.

 

[Visseroth]

Yea, I remember reading that but thought there would be something. Good to know.

So shall I try and duplicate the error or do we think I'm good to go?