Notice: Partition migration in v90 and v91

Pinned Featured

Comments

53 comments

  • Tony Baloney

    If it's any help what I basically did which you guys can easily do is:

    1. Disabled Verity &...
    2. Shrunk the State Partition sda16... (I meant 16)

    This would seem to be pretty innocuous for the update to proceed. Let me know if I can help further..

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Forrest Smith

    ah! lol - yeah if you shrank a partition then the migration wouldn't work. Tho it may seem innocuous, changing, the partition table is pretty brittle to begin with, and our migration work depends on lots of assumptions about the state of things being unchanged from the default.

     

    SO, unfortunately, I don't think you'll have any choice but to reinstall. 
    Fortunately, this implies that there's no unexpected bugs for others!

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Tony Baloney

    Fortunately, this implies that there's no unexpected bugs for others!

    I'll wait till it goes to the Stable Channel & see what happens....lol!

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Tony Baloney

    So... I did a clean install of v90.1.42 on a macbook 4,1 & all went well. Then I did a forced update with:

    update_engine_client --channel=dev-channel -update

    The update failed with this error....

    [0621/160251.623636:ERROR:update_engine_client.cc(211)] Update failed, current operation is UPDATE_STATUS_IDLE, last error code is ErrorCode::kPostinstallRunnerError(5)

    The subsequent boot results in a failed boot & black screen..... this seems to be a major problem for v90.1.42. updating cleanly.....

    I did not disable verity or install Crouton or Crostini nor did I add another user.... a clean install & force update is a bricking situation!

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Bidwell Ely

    Tony Baloney,  90.1.42 (Home Build) dev-channel 64-bit is the latest, what were you trying to update to?

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Forrest Smith

    I don't think self-updates are a supported path. Your forced update, I suspect, forced the device to download and install the same version over again. It error'd during post-install, so you ended up in a spot with the same OS installed to both A and B partitions, but without having completed the full update path...

     

    I think you've engineered a failure that isn't applicable to normal use (since we wouldn't normally ship a v90.1.42 update to a device running v90.1.42), but I'm checking with our engineers to see if there's anything concerning to them about this.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Tony Baloney

    Forrest Smith this action works fine in previous versions, just warning you of a concern of a future update failure from 90 to a newer version.

    .... & it seems like a legitimate way to test the updating logic...just updates to the same version....

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Forrest Smith

    yeah - we ran into some issues in v90 testing, as there's new code to prevent duplicate/repeated updates. We did a little patching to help handle this case for CloudReady in the short term (while we work on switching over infrastructure in our transition), and it's possible your forced-update case is finding a failure mode.

    QA team has requested:

     

    1) One more go around - can you please once again reinstall v90.1, and then force an update in the same way, and see if the same problem reoccurs?

    2) After your force the update, and before you reboot (and potentially end up at a black screen), plz send us logs so we can see more detail on the install failure.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Tony Baloney

    Forrest Smith with the same image v90.1 I still have?

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Tony Baloney

    I can do it it seems that your development team will be able to do it pretty easily with the directions I already have given....

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Forrest Smith

    same image as before was the request, yes.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Tony Baloney

    Recreated...& failed...logs sent....reboot to black screen after grub message....

    Forrest Smith

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Tony Baloney

    Forrest Smith

    and for what it's worth I had this same experience when I first deleted the Linux partition and restored State to its original size and then updated to the development channel from version 89 to 90...

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Tony Baloney

    When updating from v89 to v90 the command "update_engine_client --channel=dev-channel -update" from the Developer shell fails. While updating from the settings menu the update works.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Forrest Smith

    So, the logs show an interesting thing:

    your device is grabbing v74.4 when you do this forced update.

     

    I suspect perhaps it is pulling that payload from our older update server. We test updates like this, but not forced via the cmd line. Probably something peculiar about this path, so we'll check it out, and maybe fix it if it appears to be more than a special case. Thanks for the bug report and extra testing.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Tony Baloney

    Yikes! & Yup.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Brandon Giesing

    Updated to 90 and it completely corrupted the bootloader "Reboot and select proper boot device or insert boot media in selected device and press a key"

     
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Tony Baloney

    Brandon Giesing how did you do the update from settings or from Dev shell?

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Brandon Giesing

    Tony Baloney Settings

     
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Tony Baloney

    Forrest Smith   Ouch!.... Brandon Giesing experience is troubling...at best...

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Forrest Smith

    Hi Brandon,


    As we asked of Tony, it would be helpful to ahve you repeat the steps that got you here.

    Can you please:

    1. reinstall v89.4 
    2. update to dev channel v90.1
    3. let us know if you see the problem a second time?

    and if you do, please include hardware details as well

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Forrest Smith

    Tony Baloney - we've been able to confirm that the behavior your describe is true on v89.4 as well as on v90.1 . 

    While this behavior is a little buggy, it's only going to occur in the specific case you outlined of trying to force an update from the cmd line when none is available. Since it's neither a typical supported user behavior, nor a new issue, we're not currently planning to fix it.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Tony Baloney

    Forrest Smith

    Actually if you use the cmd line in v89 it changes the Channel to Dev & does the download but still fails even though one IS AVAILABLE....

    0
    Comment actions Permalink


ChromeOS Flex is replacing CloudReady, so this community is no longer accepting new comments.

Please visit the ChromeOS Flex Help Community to post any new questions or thoughts! You can still link back to this or other pages in this community in order to reference past conversations.

Please sign in to leave a comment.