> > There is a fundamental change in the formatting of the FLASH so part of the
> > upgrade is rearranging all of the data. If there is any oddities, hidden
> > corruption, etc, in the existing format this is likely to trip over it as
> > it will translate to the new format in unpredictable ways.
>
> And this is why when I talked to support(Melissa) I asked about error
> detection when attempting to upgrade. I got the impression there wasn't
> any. Is it viewed as "code bloat?" To go from a functional site, to an
> RMA'ed machine because of an attempted software upgrade seems a little
> silly.
It sounds like MegaZone is saying your portmaster failed because 3.3.2c1
uses more of the flash area than previous versions, your flash was
defective, and it wasn't until 3.3.2c1 that you tried to use the defective
bits.
Shouldn't the PM do some sanity checks when booted (if not more
frequently) to see if all the flash and other memory (not just what's in
use) is functional, and start reporting errors if there is a problem?
This might have alerted Patrick long ago, such that he could have RMA'd
the unit _before_ it dropped dead, and thus had a few minutes of downtime
rather than a day or a few.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lewis <jlewis@fdt.net> | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will
Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr.
________Finger jlewis@inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______