On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 12:06:04AM +0200, Soner Tari wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 19:15 +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > Downgrades are NOT supported.
> >
> > Some backrground info: the disklabel format changed from 4.1 to 4.2.
> > A 4.2 kernel makes sure to translate the format, and the new tools handle
> > things fine too. We tested many upgrade scenarios, and they all work
> > fine. So far reports like yours all have boiled down to version conflicts.
> >
> > I'm pretyy confident you mixed versions somewhere in your process, and
> > with all your experimenting, you could very well have made the on-disk
> > label faulty.
>
> Hmmm, I always thought that the phrase "Downgrades are NOT supported."
> referred to binaries, libraries, ports packages, and such. It never
> occurred to me that it refers to "disk labels" too. This must be
> especially true going from 4.1 to 4.2.
The disklabel format has changed to allow for large (>2TB) partitions
and disks. A 4.2 kernel knows how to deal with the old format and the
new format, but a 4.1 kernel obvioulsy does not know how to handle the
new format. Installing 4.2 and writing a disklabel (which will happen
if the label is edited and/or a newfs is done) will convert the
on-disk label to the new format.
-Otto
>
> Please note that I have never downgraded OpenBSD binaries and such,
> ever... But this was my test/development system, and I was testing the
> upgrade feature of my project. So I was reinstalling 4.1 over 4.2 (not
> downgrading), without touching the partitions. So, this is effectively
> an unintentional downgrade of the disk label.
>
> To continue my upgrading tests, I *have to* reinstall 4.1 over 4.2 again
> and again. In order not to have this label downgrading issue, do you
> think it is enough to 'z' on disklabel editor and recreate all
> partitions during 4.1 install (over 4.2 installed HD)? (I have dd'd the
> HD with /dev/zero after your comments above, so I am not sure if just
> 'z' on disklabel editor is enough.) Is there a faster way for my upgrade
> test cycles?
>
> Thank you very much.
