Updated from 9.3 to 9.10: "Inconsistencies were found in your Current Install"

[Stefan Krieger]

I just updated from 9.3 Stable to 9.10 Stable and on verifying the install got (something similar to) this message:

The following Inconsistencies were found in your Current Install:

List of Checksum Mismatches:

/usr/local/etc/afp.conf
/usr/local/etc/collectd.conf
/usr/local/etc/nginx/nginx.conf
/usr/local/etc/proftpd.conf
/usr/local/etc/sudoers
/usr/local/etc/warden.conf
List of Files/Directories/Symlinks not Found:

/compat/linux/proc/.donotremove
/usr/local/etc/nut/cmdvartab
/usr/local/etc/nut/driver.list
/usr/local/etc/nut/nut.conf.sample
/usr/local/etc/nut/ups.conf.sample
/usr/local/etc/nut/upsd.conf.sample
/usr/local/etc/nut/upsd.users.sample
/usr/local/etc/nut/upsmon.conf.sample
/usr/local/etc/nut/upssched.conf.sample
List of Permission Errors:

/usr/local/etc/warden.conf Expected MODE: 0644, Got: 0600
/compat/linux/proc Expected MODE: 0755, Got: 0555​

I reverted to 9.3 Stable, verified that reinstall without inconsistencies, then upgraded again to 9.10 Stable and got the (exact) message above.

What to do?

My system is

SUPERMICRO MBD-X10SRL-F
Intel Xeon E5-1650 v3
Crucial 64GB (4 x 16GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM ECC
SeaSonic SS-860XP2
2x SanDisk Cruzer Fit 32 GB USB 2.0 Flash Drive (mirrored boot)
SAMSUNG 850 EVO for jails
8x WD Red 6TB HDD for a RaidZ2​

Thanks.

 

[cyberjock]

1. Mail me your system. Clearly you have a hardware issue. I'll diagnose it (could take a couple of years) but I'll return it fixed.
2. I'm thinking that this is a situation where something is not right with the nut services and how it was compiled, etc or those files aren't being excluded from the check. Samples really shouldn't matter if they were deleted. As for the conf files themselves, those shouldn't really be showing up because every system is likely to have a different system, so how do you genuinely verify the checksum is proper?

 

[Stefan Krieger]

2. I'm thinking that this is a situation where something is not right with the nut services and how it was compiled, etc or those files aren't being excluded from the check. Samples really shouldn't matter if they were deleted. As for the conf files themselves, those shouldn't really be showing up because every system is likely to have a different system, so how do you genuinely verify the checksum is proper?

Hm...I'm just reporting what the 'verify install' provides when I run it in the GUI. I did mess around quite a bit trying to get one jail running Serviio on Linux to run, trying to get the shared folder to work. So I could def. have messed up the jail, which could might account for the permission errors (or not). Outside of that I didn't do anything that I could see causing this. I could go ahead and uninstall and reinstall jails/users to see if that makes a difference...or I could just let things be until there is a real problem. Or should I export my volumes and reinstall from scratch?

Also, I get this from zpool status:

pool: freenas-boot
state: ONLINE
status: Some supported features are not enabled on the pool. The pool can
still be used, but some features are unavailable.
action: Enable all features using 'zpool upgrade'. Once this is done,
the pool may no longer be accessible by software that does not support
the features. See zpool-features(7) for details.
scan: scrub repaired 0 in 0h2m with 0 errors on Tue Mar 22 20:03:44 2016
config:

NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
freenas-boot ONLINE 0 0 0
mirror-0 ONLINE 0 0 0
gptid/97aa9a0c-cfde-11e5-9b31-0cc47aa9eac0 ONLINE 0 0 0
gptid/980563cd-cfde-11e5-9b31-0cc47aa9eac0 ONLINE 0 0 0

errors: No known data errors

Is this what I want? Should I run 'zpool upgrade'?

Thanks! Stefan

 

[cyberjock]

Hm...I'm just reporting what the 'verify install' provides when I run it in the GUI. I did mess around quite a bit trying to get one jail running Serviio on Linux to run, trying to get the shared folder to work. So I could def. have messed up the jail, which could might account for the permission errors (or not). Outside of that I didn't do anything that I could see causing this. I could go ahead and uninstall and reinstall jails/users to see if that makes a difference...or I could just let things be until there is a real problem. Or should I export my volumes and reinstall from scratch?

This is not an issue with a jail. This is either:

-A bug with the software (I think this is very likely)
-You manually manipulating the files (if you did, shame on you)
-Your boot device is failing (if this were a problem you'd have ZFS warnings and such, so you'd know this was the problem)

 

[Stefan Krieger]

-A bug with the software (I think this is very likely)
-You manually manipulating the files (if you did, shame on you)
-Your boot device is failing (if this were a problem you'd have ZFS warnings and such, so you'd know this was the problem)

Thanks. I'll go with 'bug' for the verification then and not worry about it until something blows up.

What do you mean with 'You manually manipulating the files (if you did, shame on you)'? I did manually dig around in the jails (mounting, unmounting). I assume that's not what you mean.

Any take on the zpool status output below for the boot pool?

pool: freenas-boot
state: ONLINE
status: Some supported features are not enabled on the pool. The pool can
still be used, but some features are unavailable.
action: Enable all features using 'zpool upgrade'. Once this is done,
the pool may no longer be accessible by software that does not support
the features. See zpool-features(7) for details.

 

[cyberjock]

No, what I meant was you deliberately editing the files that failed the verification. You'd know if you messed with those, but jails are their own container and not part of the verification process at all.

That's because the new ZFS features in FreeBSD 10 are not enabled on the freenas-boot zpool. I wouldn't try to upgrade the freenas-boot zpool, and I wouldn't upgrade your data zpool unless you want to be locked into 9.10 forever.

In short, ignore the recommended actions until you are on 9.10 and it's solid and trustworthy. If 9.10 came out today I probably wouldn't upgrade the zpool until Thanksgiving.

 

[Stefan Krieger]

Nope, never touched any of those files directly.

Thanks! A reminder to have multiple copies of any data I care about. Probably also time to set up Crashplan to have a backup of everything (I do have two local backups of all the important stuff), offsite at that.

 

[Phobos]

Seeing the exact same issue, sans the checksum and permissions mismatch for /usr/local/etc/warden.conf.

 

[cyberjock]

Me as well. Someone should put in a bug ticket on this.

 

[hugovsky]

well...

here's mine:

Code:

The following Inconsistencies were found in your Current Install:

List of Checksum Mismatches:
/usr/local/etc/afp.conf
/usr/local/etc/collectd.conf
/usr/local/etc/nginx/nginx.conf
/usr/local/etc/proftpd.conf
/usr/local/etc/sudoers

List of Files/Directories/Symlinks not Found:
/compat/linux/proc/.donotremove
/usr/local/etc/nut/cmdvartab
/usr/local/etc/nut/driver.list
/usr/local/etc/nut/nut.conf.sample
/usr/local/etc/nut/ups.conf.sample
/usr/local/etc/nut/upsd.conf.sample
/usr/local/etc/nut/upsd.users.sample
/usr/local/etc/nut/upsmon.conf.sample
/usr/local/etc/nut/upssched.conf.sample

List of Permission Errors:
/compat/linux/proc     Expected MODE: 0755, Got: 0555 

x10sl7 with ups slave mode

And A1SAi-2750F with ups connected to USB port:

Code:

The following Inconsistencies were found in your Current Install:

List of Checksum Mismatches:
/usr/local/etc/collectd.conf
/usr/local/etc/nginx/nginx.conf
/usr/local/etc/proftpd.conf
/usr/local/etc/sudoers

List of Files/Directories/Symlinks not Found:
/compat/linux/proc/.donotremove
/usr/local/etc/nut/cmdvartab
/usr/local/etc/nut/driver.list
/usr/local/etc/nut/nut.conf.sample
/usr/local/etc/nut/ups.conf.sample
/usr/local/etc/nut/upsd.conf.sample
/usr/local/etc/nut/upsd.users.sample
/usr/local/etc/nut/upsmon.conf.sample
/usr/local/etc/nut/upssched.conf.sample

List of Permission Errors:
/compat/linux/proc     Expected MODE: 0755, Got: 0555 

 

[cyberjock]

I put in a bug on this: https://bugs.freenas.org/issues/14223

 

[hugovsky]

thanks, cyberjock. ;)

 

[Shakti]

Found the same as above:

The following Inconsistencies were found in your Current Install:

List of Checksum Mismatches:

/usr/local/etc/collectd.conf
/usr/local/etc/nginx/nginx.conf
/usr/local/etc/proftpd.conf
/usr/local/etc/sudoers
List of Files/Directories/Symlinks not Found:

/compat/linux/proc/.donotremove
/usr/local/etc/nut/cmdvartab
/usr/local/etc/nut/driver.list
/usr/local/etc/nut/nut.conf.sample
/usr/local/etc/nut/ups.conf.sample
/usr/local/etc/nut/upsd.conf.sample
/usr/local/etc/nut/upsd.users.sample
/usr/local/etc/nut/upsmon.conf.sample
/usr/local/etc/nut/upssched.conf.sample
List of Permission Errors:

/compat/linux/proc Expected MODE: 0755, Got: 0555
●Close

The above after upgrading to 9.10. System works perfectly fine with 9.3.1 with no install errors.

 

[sef]

Known bug, fixed in the 9.10-STABLE update that came out today.

 

[Shakti]

Thank u. Will check once I upgrade to the latest.:)

 

[Stefan Krieger]

Upgraded just now. Verifies with no inconsistencies. Thanks.

 

[qbaqba]

Bug has status "resolved" but unfortunately I just got this:

The following Inconsistencies were found in your Current Install:

List of Files/Directories/Symlinks not Found:
/compat/linux/proc/.donotremove

List of Permission Errors:
/compat/linux/proc Expected MODE: 0755, Got: 0555

I upgraded from 9.3 to 9.10 and my current build is FreeNAS-9.10.1 (d989edd).
I've never manually edited any files.

 

[Stefan Krieger]

Bug has status "resolved" but unfortunately I just got this:

The following Inconsistencies were found in your Current Install:

List of Files/Directories/Symlinks not Found:
/compat/linux/proc/.donotremove

List of Permission Errors:
/compat/linux/proc Expected MODE: 0755, Got: 0555

I upgraded from 9.3 to 9.10 and my current build is FreeNAS-9.10.1 (d989edd).
I've never manually edited any files.

That's another issue, see here.