[ubuntu-us-ma] Ubuntu 9.04 to 9.10 Upgrade...

Chris Butler chrisbutler72 at gmail.com
Wed Nov 4 14:14:37 GMT 2009

So, because of this thread I held off on my updates.
I did a download of the ISO last night which took about 25 min.
I ran a fresh install on one machine and an update on another - all at the
same time.  (Yes, I am ADD)

The fresh install was very quick and painless, but redoing all my preferred
settings/bash hacks/firefox plugins/etc.. took some time.
All in all maybe an hour and a half from putting the disk in to having "my
machine". Of course, I keep most of my files on a network share so that
makes my life easier...

The update took *just* over an hour to run and most things updated without
issue. I did have to rerun the setup script for vbox and Adobe AIR, but
everything else was smooth.

Apparently it was wise to wait for less busy servers.

Also, my boot time is about 10 seconds less than it was on Hardy!


On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Randy Cole <randyokc at gmail.com> wrote:

> I was able to get the upgrade to work eventually.  As I said, upgrade >4
> times longer elapsed time, so I have to agree that fresh install is the
> better route.  (Preserve home directory, preserve package list, preserve
> plugins/local software)
> Upon second reboot, X failed to come up.  Had to boot runlevel 1,
> comment out the "Device" stanza in /etc/X11/xorg.conf that mentioned the
> fglrx driver.  Same as last upgrade.
> In Firefox, had to move /usr/lib/swfdec-mozilla/libswfdecmozilla.so to
> ....swfdec-mozilla-bad.... to pick up the genuine flash plugin.
> (Firefox bug).  Same as last upgrade.
> --Randy
> jay at lentecs.com wrote:
> > It is sounding like a 3 hour upgrade is typical.  But you may also want
> to run a check on the hard drive if you have a very long upgrade.
> >
> > One of the big advantages of a fresh install is it allows the drive to
> remap any bad sectors that may be developing.
> >
> > Probably not the cause of your problem but for any one upgrading, its
> good preventative maintenance.
> >
> > ------Original Message------
> > From: Randy Cole
> > Sender: ubuntu-us-ma-bounces at lists.ubuntu.com
> > To: paul at mad-scientist.us
> > To: Ubuntu Massachusetts Local Community Team
> > ReplyTo: Ubuntu Massachusetts Local Community Team
> > Subject: Re: [ubuntu-us-ma] Ubuntu 9.04 to 9.10 Upgrade script
> extremelyinefficient (downloads from the internet, ignores local CD image)
> > Sent: Oct 30, 2009 3:16 PM
> >
> > Paul Smith wrote:
> >
> >> ...snip...
> >> ...Or, if the upgrade utility could mount an ISO image and upgrade
> >> from that: then you could bittorrent the ISO and get at least all of the
> >> major packages that way, and only need to download the extra
> >> packages--actually you can probably do this today but it will require
> >> some extra fu).
> >>
> >>
> > Paul, that's exactly what I was trying to do - and you are supposed to
> > be able to do with the "alternate" install disk.
> >
> > Workaround: Go into system>administration>software sources, and manually
> > uncheck all of the repositories, then restart the upgrade. This changed
> > me from ~2999 packages to ~2222 packages and it stopped fetching over
> > the network. Therefore I must have about 800 packages that are not on
> > the CD, which will soon be broken, but I should be able to deal with
> > those later.
> >
> > Here is the takeaway: It has still taken >3 hours to process the
> > packages and still going. So a clean install is definitely faster by a
> > factor of about 3 or 4.
> >
> >
> --
> Ubuntu-us-ma mailing list
> Ubuntu-us-ma at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-us-ma
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-us-ma/attachments/20091104/21793d2d/attachment.htm 

More information about the Ubuntu-us-ma mailing list